PDA

View Full Version : Affliction Trilogy cancelled


atomdanger
07-24-2009, 04:59 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/mma/07/24/affliction.trilogy.canceled/

In a matter of days Affliction Entertainment's "Trilogy" event when from promising the top heavyweight fight in mixed martial arts to being cancelled outright, multiple sources confirmed to SI.com Friday morning.

Affliction Entertainment vice president began making calls with the news Friday morning to fighters scheduled to appear on the Aug. 1 card, SI.com has learned.


Wow... O_O

KevinD
07-24-2009, 05:05 PM
and to think they were actually considering at one time to go head to head with UFC 100. The end is near now.

atomdanger
07-24-2009, 05:14 PM
and to think they were actually considering at one time to go head to head with UFC 100. The end is near now.

Yeah, I don't know if Antencio panicked or what???

Fedor / Rogers would have been fine.

Llamafighter
07-24-2009, 05:35 PM
I think I can hear Dana White laughing from my office...
Will we see Fedor in Strikeforce next? Werdum, Overeem, and Rogers would be fun fights for him.

rearnakedchoke
07-24-2009, 05:48 PM
yup .. and for all those who cry about fighters not making enough money, here you go, less fights to watch ...

atomdanger
07-24-2009, 05:55 PM
Wow... Umm... I don't know if Strikeforce can afford Fedor can they?

Llamafighter
07-24-2009, 06:17 PM
Wow... Umm... I don't know if Strikeforce can afford Fedor can they?
If they partner with M-1 they could swing a deal as far as sponsorship moneys and commercial buys.

Crisco
07-24-2009, 06:22 PM
I saw this coming.

Krupp
07-24-2009, 07:37 PM
RIP Affliction. You won't be missed.

Llamafighter
07-24-2009, 07:37 PM
From MMA NEWS.com
By Chris Howie
July 24th

It was reported earlier today by Josh Gross at SI.com that Affliction: Trilogy has been cancelled and MMANews.com can confirm after speaking to a number of fighter reps that the show is in fact off for August 1st.

We do not have the complete details of what sort of contracts were in place, but as it was explained to us, the basic reason why the show was cancelled was due to a legal issue with Pay Per View providers. Following Josh Barnett’s positive steroid test that was announced by the CSAC earlier in the week, Affliction would not have had enough time to change the promo spots and commercials that PPV providers were running.

The main draw of the card was the Josh Barnett Vs. Fedor Emelianenko main event and since that went up in smoke due to the positive test, Affliction legally could not run change the main event this close to the Pay-Per-View because it was the main focus of the promo’s.

So, at the end of the day, all legal reasons between Affliction and PPV aside, a positive test by Josh Barnett for performance enhancing substances is what shut the show down.

jason2130
07-24-2009, 08:04 PM
josh barnett suceeded where dana white could not, he stoped a afflication ppv

thats got to make ya feel sick when your sitting at home knowing your drug test stopped a ppv, and fighters from getting a pay day

rockdawg21
07-24-2009, 08:18 PM
Woohoo, bring in Fedor! :happydancing:

Crisco
07-24-2009, 08:42 PM
Josh will be back in Japan in no time.

Rev
07-24-2009, 09:10 PM
Fedor will be in the UFC by the end of the year. Remember I said this.:wink:

Chuck
07-24-2009, 10:06 PM
I saw this coming.

So did Dana.... if you remember his presser at the Fan Expo during UFC 100 he said Fedor will be in the UFC soon... he MAY have said this year but I don't remember....

Love Dana or hate him... either way..... he knows his sh*t!!!

Black Mamba
07-24-2009, 10:27 PM
This sucks.:angry: I had tickets for the fight too, it was suppose to be my birthday present. Now to break the news to my parents.

clm12704
07-24-2009, 11:06 PM
Fedor will be in the UFC by the end of the year. Remember I said this.:wink:

Second

Country Breakfast
07-24-2009, 11:21 PM
Oh my God!!!! Josh Barnett killed Affliction! You Bastard!!!!

Sirwags
07-24-2009, 11:38 PM
Affliction just folded and can now sponsor the UFC again.

http://mmamania.com/2009/07/24/report-affliction-folds-will-now-sponsor-ufc/

Jason 16
07-25-2009, 02:38 PM
And what about all the fighters that are missing a huge payday.... so they just trained for nothing?

MattHughesRocks
07-25-2009, 02:43 PM
:laugh:

Oh my God!!!! Josh Barnett killed Affliction! You Bastard!!!!

Vizion
07-25-2009, 04:58 PM
That stinks. Tired of just the UFC...they have too many boring cards of late outside of 98 and 100 that is to say.

flo
07-26-2009, 12:17 AM
So did Dana.... if you remember his presser at the Fan Expo during UFC 100 he said Fedor will be in the UFC soon... he MAY have said this year but I don't remember....

Love Dana or hate him... either way..... he knows his sh*t!!!

Yeah, he does! It would be great to see Fedor in the UFC.

flo
07-26-2009, 12:19 AM
That stinks. Tired of just the UFC...they have too many boring cards of late outside of 98 and 100 that is to say.

That's true, it's always good to have some competition for just that reason.

atomdanger
07-26-2009, 12:27 AM
That stinks. Tired of just the UFC...they have too many boring cards of late outside of 98 and 100 that is to say.

Yeah.. its weird. So many cards I have thought would be total barn burners have turned out to be bummers.. I really think the pressure to win has really gotten to a lot of fighters and people seem to constantly fight to win rounds, score points and not lose.

Although its fair, and I understand the motivation, it makes for boring fights.

Hughes_GOAT
07-26-2009, 02:08 AM
Barnett is innocent! just like Sherk!

atomdanger
07-26-2009, 02:24 AM
Barnett is innocent! just like Sherk!

Well..

In Fairness to Mr Sherk, he passed a blood test right after the failed UA,
then also passed a polygraph.

While Josh hasn't offered up blood for independent analysis or to take a polygraph.

Hughes_GOAT
07-26-2009, 02:41 AM
Well..

In Fairness to Mr Sherk, he passed a blood test right after the failed UA,
then also passed a polygraph.

While Josh hasn't offered up blood for independent analysis or to take a polygraph.
Josh did that after his first failed test against Couture. this time around, like Sherk, both failed under the infalible WADA testing. both are guilty. and polygraphs are inadmissable for a reason.

atomdanger
07-26-2009, 06:25 AM
Josh did that after his first failed test against Couture. this time around, like Sherk, both failed under the infalible WADA testing. both are guilty. and polygraphs are inadmissable for a reason.

It still helps in a lot of peoples eyes I think.

Source on Josh giving blood?

Hughes_GOAT
07-26-2009, 06:42 AM
It still helps in a lot of peoples eyes I think.

Source on Josh giving blood?
well it helps the ones who think they didn't do it.

just google it. it was on Sherdog, a mention anyway, not too long ago.

Hughes_GOAT
07-26-2009, 06:49 AM
google Josh Barnett, Steroids and the Corruption of the NSAC.

cubsfan47
07-26-2009, 01:39 PM
Yeah.. its weird. So many cards I have thought would be total barn burners have turned out to be bummers.. I really think the pressure to win has really gotten to a lot of fighters and people seem to constantly fight to win rounds, score points and not lose.

Although its fair, and I understand the motivation, it makes for boring fights.

Yeah that's exactly why I had decided to buy the Trilogy event and not purchase one or both of the UFC cards during August. Although Penn/Florian might be worth it.

But here's what I have decided: I am going to keep the sports tier on Direct TV. On that a lot of regional events show up, delayed broadcast rather than live. Still many of them are good fights because the fighters have something to prove.

cubsfan47
07-26-2009, 01:42 PM
google Josh Barnett, Steroids and the Corruption of the NSAC.

Just did that. Interesting. Bring in the lawyers :sick:

atomdanger
07-26-2009, 07:53 PM
google Josh Barnett, Steroids and the Corruption of the NSAC.

Oh gimme a break.

On April 22, 2002 Barnett tested positive.
Then on June 11, 2002 Barnett passed the test.

So... well over a month.
Seems a little odd right there.

It certainly sounds like the NSAC did some things wrong, but the problem is the source, Josh Barnett.
I think that obviously things were still a little shadier in 2002, and it would be much harder to fake a drug report or fudge paperwork now with the media paying attention to mma.

MattHughesRocks
07-26-2009, 08:26 PM
Or BJ's mom :w00t:

Just did that. Interesting. Bring in the lawyers :sick:

Hughes_GOAT
07-27-2009, 03:27 AM
Oh gimme a break.

On April 22, 2002 Barnett tested positive.
Then on June 11, 2002 Barnett passed the test.

So... well over a month.
Seems a little odd right there.

It certainly sounds like the NSAC did some things wrong, but the problem is the source, Josh Barnett.
I think that obviously things were still a little shadier in 2002, and it would be much harder to fake a drug report or fudge paperwork now with the media paying attention to mma.
didn't read the article i see.

MattHughesRocks
07-27-2009, 03:30 AM
Has Danelle been on? She has tickets for this:huh:

Hughes_GOAT
07-28-2009, 01:31 AM
Independent Drug Test Proves Josh Barnett’s Innocence
Posted on July 24, 2002

UFC Heavyweight Champion Fights to Clear Reputation After NSAC’s Testing Procedures Result in False Positive

KIRKLAND, Washington--On April 22, 2002, the Nevada State Athletic Commission filed a complaint against Josh Barnett for alleged anabolic steroid use, stemming from a drug test after his win over Randy Couture in UFC 36 on March 22, 2002. The NSAC contacted Barnett and his trainer, Matt Hume, to schedule a hearing via teleconference on May 24, 2002. In addition to Barnett and Hume, Roy Silbert (United Full Contact Federation President), Dr. Mark Webber (drug testing expert and administrator for USA Power Lifting and the International Olympic Committee), Mark Ratner (NSAC commissioner), Dr. Flip Homansky (NSAC), Keith Kizer (NSAC attorney) took part in the meeting. The issues expressed were as follows:

NSAC issues:

The NSAC alleged two positive tests for anabolic steroids from samples taken on 11/02/01 and 03/22/02. Josh Barnett’s issues:

The NSAC did not provide Josh with a list of banned substances or inform him of any testing requirements for anabolic agents on either occasion. To date, Josh has not received a list of banned substances.

The NSAC claims that Josh tested positive for the same substances on 11/02/01, four months before his title fight with Randy Couture. Yet, the NSAC did not inform him that he had failed that initial test or provide him with the alleged results. According to the NSAC, Barnett’s first drug test revealed three anabolic metabolites, one of which remains in the human body for up to 18 months.

If this was indeed the case, why did the NSAC and Zuffa subsequently allow Barnett to fight for the world championship just four months later with full knowledge that he might have steroids in his system?

The NSAC withholds a portion of each fighter’s purse until the drug test is completed. If the results are positive, the fighter must forfeit that portion of his purse. If Josh failed his drug test, why did the NSAC send that money to Barnett on both occasions with no notification of any problem?

The NSAC did not follow established protocol when testing Barnett. They did not provide tracking information for his samples. Nor did they separate Josh’s samples into two specimens in his presence. Because of these and other basic protocol errors, a positive test could not be accurately verified or validated.

Many factors can contribute to a positive drug test—hence the term “false positive.” Without proper notification and protocol, the true cause of the positive result for anabolic steroids cannot be determined.
Josh Barnett has still not received results from the NSAC drug test on 11/02/01.

During the course of the meeting, both sides acknowledged the other side’s concerns. Hume informed the NSAC members that Dr. Webber had already scheduled another test with Aegis laboratories that would follow proper protocol and established Olympic standards.

The NSAC members and attorney agreed that a negative result and education from Dr. Webber would resolve this situation. NSAC attorney Keith Kizer stated that he would prepare a draft of the agreement for both parties to sign. It was agreed that this was to serve as the final hearing and that the signed draft would bring the issue to a resolution.

Dr. Homansky then invited Dr. Webber and Roy Silbert to come to Las Vegas on the weekend of June 22 to meet with the NSAC toxicology specialist. The purpose of the meeting was for Dr. Webber to educate the NSAC on the standards, methods of protocol and proper anabolic drug testing. Dr. Webber and Roy Silbert subsequently met with Dr. Homansky and the NSAC toxicology specialist in Las Vegas as requested.

On June 11, 2002, Barnett took a new test administered by Dr. Webber, who utilized Olympic-level protocol. The result of this test was negative, demonstrating that Josh is not currently using and could not have been using the alleged substances as charged due to the length of time that such substances remain present in the human body.

Approximately three weeks after the hearing, Barnett and Hume had still not received the draft from Keith Kizer, as discussed. However, they did receive a phone call stating that another hearing was to be scheduled. When asked why the draft of the aforementioned verbal agreement had not been prepared and why the NSAC wished to schedule a second hearing, Kizer stated that it was just a formality and he would get the draft to them right away.

Hume informed the NSAC members of Barnett’s travel schedule, which clearly stated that the only time Barnett would be away was the week of the UFC 38 in England in mid July. Unfortunately, when Kizer finally sent the draft of the agreement from the May 24 teleconference, it was inaccurate. In addition, the NSAC requested a second hearing during the time that Josh was scheduled to corner Ian Freeman in London, England—a time conflict of which the NSAC was well aware.

Barnett, Silbert and Hume worked diligently with the NSAC to develop a mutually acceptable draft of the May 24th agreement. Barnett also availed himself to the NSAC by telephone from England on the day and time of the scheduled hearing.

Unfortunately, the NSAC refused the draft and did not speak with Josh on their scheduled date. The NSAC then rescheduled the hearing for July 26, 2002. Barnett requested to be present at the hearing via telephone as he does not have the resources to pay for the travel expenses he would be forced to incur in order to appear in person.

Meanwhile, neither Zuffa LLC nor UFC president Dana White has bothered to contact Barnett to express any concern or support for that organization’s reigning heavyweight champion in this matter.

It is Barnett’s hope that the NSAC will have the integrity and honesty to honor the resolution that its members agreed upon during the hearing on May 24, 2002. He is also optimistic that Zuffa will exercise its substantial influence in Nevada and voice its support for their innocent champion.

Josh Barnett is very frustrated with this situation. “I am a fighter, not a lawyer,” he stated. “I am innocent, and I should be fighting right now.”

atomdanger
07-28-2009, 05:03 PM
I read it, that was ONE substance.

And, its impossible to say when he stopped using, maybe the first test was before they finally left his system, and the second was after?

Its too big a window to assume anything.

rockdawg21
07-28-2009, 06:55 PM
Affliction? You mean the t-shirt guys?

atomdanger
07-28-2009, 10:33 PM
Maybe you didn't read the article.

Barnett’s first drug test revealed three anabolic metabolites, one of which remains in the human body for up to 18 months.

Black Mamba
07-28-2009, 11:15 PM
Has Danelle been on? She has tickets for this:huh:

Yep, I've been on to see this. I've already put in for the refund too. I'm not too sad because from Aug. 28th-30 at the LA convention center is another MMA convention. :happydancing:

Hughes_GOAT
07-29-2009, 03:26 AM
Barnetts first drug test revealed three anabolic metabolites, one of which remains in the human body for up to 18 months.
it said he failed 2 tests. the first was 4 months before the Couture fight, of which they never told him what was in it. the 2nd test he failed, on fight day, the one you're referring to, proves he's innocent because the 3rd test came back clean when the drug was supposed to still be in his system.

Hughes_GOAT
07-29-2009, 03:37 AM
I read it, that was ONE substance.

And, its impossible to say when he stopped using, maybe the first test was before they finally left his system, and the second was after?

Its too big a window to assume anything.
it was the 2nd test. they didn't tell what was in the first. the sample told them, based on how much was found initially, when he started. hence, the 18 month window the WADA expert gave him and why he's innocent.

MattHughesRocks
07-29-2009, 04:00 AM
Glad to see youve rebounded so quickly :laugh:

I'll be in LA the 10 thru the 14th. Anything good mma related going on? :happydancing:




Yep, I've been on to see this. I've already put in for the refund too. I'm not too sad because from Aug. 28th-30 at the LA convention center is another MMA convention. :happydancing:

atomdanger
07-29-2009, 04:40 AM
it said he failed 2 tests. the first was 4 months before the Couture fight, of which they never told him what was in it. the 2nd test he failed, on fight day, the one you're referring to, proves he's innocent because the 3rd test came back clean when the drug was supposed to still be in his system.

How does it prove he is innocent?
The third test he passed was almost 2 months after the second failure,
and 6 months after the first failure.

How does that prove he is innocent?

atomdanger
07-29-2009, 04:41 AM
it was the 2nd test. they didn't tell what was in the first. the sample told them, based on how much was found initially, when he started. hence, the 18 month window the WADA expert gave him and why he's innocent.

How much was found and when you started / stopped is complete guess work.
there aren't rules with that sort of thing, there are educated guesses.

Everybody's body is different, ask any dr.
Certain drugs stay in certain people longer than others,
it also depends on how long you were using, how frequently, and what dosage you were taking.

Hughes_GOAT
07-29-2009, 07:05 AM
How does it prove he is innocent?
The third test he passed was almost 2 months after the second failure,
and 6 months after the first failure.

How does that prove he is innocent?
the first test isn't in the equation because they never told him what he failed, still haven't. the 2nd test he did over, and cleared him of the 2nd test failure because it still should have been in his system but wasn't.

Hughes_GOAT
07-29-2009, 07:09 AM
How much was found and when you started / stopped is complete guess work.
there aren't rules with that sort of thing, there are educated guesses.

Everybody's body is different, ask any dr.
Certain drugs stay in certain people longer than others,
it also depends on how long you were using, how frequently, and what dosage you were taking.
the WADA Dr. who did the test said it still should have been in his system, thus he didn't fail the 2nd test afterall.

atomdanger
07-29-2009, 05:28 PM
the WADA Dr. who did the test said it still should have been in his system, thus he didn't fail the 2nd test afterall.

Again

How much was found and when you started / stopped is complete guess work.
there aren't rules with that sort of thing, there are educated guesses.

Everybody's body is different, ask any dr.
Certain drugs stay in certain people longer than others,
it also depends on how long you were using, how frequently, and what dosage you were taking.

atomdanger
07-29-2009, 05:33 PM
the first test isn't in the equation because they never told him what he failed, still haven't. the 2nd test he did over, and cleared him of the 2nd test failure because it still should have been in his system but wasn't.

The test he did (and passed) over almost 2 months later. (after the fail)
IMO that doesn't clear you of anything. Why wait so long?
Why not submit blood right now? and pass a poly?
Also, you're beleiving everything he says, and nothing they say.
HE says they never told him what he failed for.

There is MUCH more MMA media now than in 2002,
if he submitted blood the day he found out they tested him positive and passed a polygraph test he could salvage a career and a lot of fans.
What would he have to lose by doing those things?

Im my life, as a criminal before my son was born, and just in general I have learned something that has always proven to be true, guilty people act guilty.
That isn't to say innocent people can never act guilty, but Josh Barnett certainly is not acting innocent. He spits out some conspiracy theory, then signs a pro wrestling contract in Japan and done. Sean Sherk may have still gotten suspended, but he did all but prove he was innocent, and saved a lot of fans and his reputation IMO. Josh barnett has nothing to lose by spending 500 bucks on a polygraph and a blood screen by a couple independent labs.
He could have done this the day they said he tested positive, he didn't. In fact, he didn't do anything to back up his claims.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 03:16 AM
he failed the first test 4 months before he fought Couture. never told him what he failed, still let him fight (huh)? they told him of the failures 1 month after the fight (huh again)? they set up a meeting with him and a bunch of other peeps 1 month after telling him he failed. they had an expert in drug testing at the Olympic level come in as well, to explain to them (NSAC) the procedure. he was then tested by the Dr./expert and he passed.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 03:16 AM
Dr. said if Barnett really failed the 2nd test, then it still would have been in his system 18 months later. why? because the earliest he could have started would be after the 1st test. why? because the 1st test would have picked it up...and they didn't. that alone, proves he couldn't have started any sooner than after the 1st test, otherwise they would have told him. so 18 months after the 1st test is how long the drug would be in his system. so he's innocent.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 03:29 AM
Again

How much was found and when you started / stopped is complete guess work.
there aren't rules with that sort of thing, there are educated guesses.

Everybody's body is different, ask any dr.
Certain drugs stay in certain people longer than others,
it also depends on how long you were using, how frequently, and what dosage you were taking.
are you insinuating you know more about determining use than the expert the NSAC used to retest Barnett?

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 03:40 AM
and of course i believe him over them. if he were lying, they would have sued him for slander years ago. and how is me believing him any different than you trusting Sherk? cause he took a polygraph he paid for? they're inadmissable because they aren't reliable, otherwise why use a judge? just get a polygraph, right? didn't tell Barnett what he failed 1st time, didn't split his sample into 2 seperate specimens in front of him as required by law. they failed to follow procedure all across the board.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 03:58 AM
Oh gimme a break.

On April 22, 2002 Barnett tested positive.
Then on June 11, 2002 Barnett passed the test.

So... well over a month.
Seems a little odd right there.

it is odd, especially since he failed in March NOT April. they only told him he failed in April (1 month after he whooped Couture). they also said he failed 4 months before that fight AND STILL LET HIM FIGHT??? he passed in June because that was when the NSAC was ready to have him retested.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 03:59 AM
he failed the first test 4 months before he fought Couture. never told him what he failed, still let him fight (huh)? they told him of the failures 1 month after the fight (huh again)? they set up a meeting with him and a bunch of other peeps 1 month after telling him he failed. they had an expert in drug testing at the Olympic level come in as well, to explain to them (NSAC) the procedure. he was then tested by the Dr./expert and he passed.

HE says he failed and they never told him.

He was tested 2 months after the test we can confirm he failed, and passed it.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 04:01 AM
are you insinuating you know more about determining use than the expert the NSAC brought in to retest Barnett?

Do your own research.
Ask any Dr.

Its very hard to determine how long something has been in somebody's blood,
or how much they were using, or when they started, etc...
You can make a guess, but it certainly isn't 100 percent.

Unless you know 100 percent how much somebody was taking, and how often,
you cannot tell when exactly they started just based on the level in their blood.

I could smoke pot today, and tomorrow my levels would be high,
and a Dr could say wow, this guy smokes a lot of pot, but really it would have only been because it was super recent.
See what I am saying?
Just a simple example for you.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 04:05 AM
and of course i believe him over them. if he were lying, they would have sued him for slander years ago. and how is me believing him any different than you trusting Sherk? cause he took a polygraph he paid for? they're inadmissable because they aren't reliable, otherwise why use a judge? just get a polygraph, right? didn't tell Barnett what he failed 1st time, didn't split his sample into 2 seperate specimens in front of him as required by law. they failed to follow procedure all across the board.

If they were lying why didn't he sue them for slander?
Thats a stupid point.

You know how many fighters bash the NSAC or the CSAC?
It happens constantly, suing them for slander? lol

Sherk passed blood screens right after and a polygraph,
that sure looks better than running to Japan screaming conspiracy.

They only failed to follow procedure according to Barnett.
If the law requires them to split it into two in front of you,
why didn't Josh say something right then?
It wasn't a problem for him until he failed said test.
Of course, too convenient.
Josh has zero evidence, and nothing to lose by giving blood and passing a polygraph, nothing to lose at all.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 04:06 AM
it is odd, especially since he failed in March NOT April. they only told him he failed in April (1 month after he whooped Couture). they also said he failed 4 months before that fight AND STILL LET HIM FIGHT??? he passed in June because that was when the NSAC was ready to have him retested.

According to who?
Your own article you linked said April.
So which is it?

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 04:13 AM
HE says he failed and they never told him.

He was tested 2 months after the test we can confirm he failed, and passed it.
the NSAC isn't arguing, not to mention they still let him fight after failing???

and he passed the retest of the 2nd test failure 2 months later because the NSAC didn't notify him until a month after the fight. then he had to wait til they were ready for the retest he passed.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 04:21 AM
Do your own research.
Ask any Dr.



why would i ask a doctor when the expert/Dr. who tests for a living, and retested Barnett personally, said Barnett was clean and couldn't have been using when he failed? weed is also different from steroids so the comparison is irrelevant.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 04:36 AM
Barnett wasn't exactly loaded, so why sue the NSAC? he would never win. Sherk passed a polygraph and blood test from his own people, Josh passed from a Dr. approved by the NSAC, see the difference? Sherk also had more money than Barnett to buy his results. Josh doesn't write the rules, that's his lawyers job to tell him. he went to Japan because he needed work, no point waiting for a suspension to end and he knew he couldn't afford to take the NSAC to court.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 04:40 AM
why would i ask a doctor when the expert/Dr. who tests for a living, and retested Barnett personally, said Barnett was clean and couldn't have been using when he failed? weed is also different from steroids so the comparison is irrelevant.

If you had half a brain you would know you can find two Dr's / Experts with completely different opinions on the same subject constantly.

One expert saying one thing means nothing.
I can find you "experts" that say twinkies aren't bad for you.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 04:41 AM
Barnett wasn't exactly loaded, so why sue the NSAC? he would never win. Sherk passed a polygraph and blood test from his own people, Josh passed from a Dr. approved by the NSAC, see the difference? Sherk also had more money than Barnett to buy his results. Josh doesn't write the rules, that's his lawyers job to tell him. he went to Japan because he needed work, no point waiting for a suspension to end and he knew he couldn't afford to take the NSAC to court.

That was my point, suing people for slander is stupid.
Fighters badmouth the NSAC all the time, so you saying if he was lying they would sue him is a joke.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 04:45 AM
According to who?
Your own article you linked said April.
So which is it?
wrong.

it said the NSAC filed a complaint against Barnett, in April, for his failed test after the Couture fight....a month earlier in March. and why do you keep saying "according to Josh?" who should it be according to? Frank Shamrock? everything Sherk says is according to him too.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 04:48 AM
wrong.

it said the NSAC filed a complaint against Barnett, in April, for his failed test after the Couture fight....a month earlier in March. and why do you keep saying "according to Josh?" who should it be according to? Frank Shamrock? everything Sherk says is according to him too.

I keep saying according to him, because he has no documentation to backup his claims.
Where is his paperwork?

Why is he taking drug tests without filling out paperwork?
I go based on evidence, like the rest of the logical world,
the odds Josh Barnett has tested positive this many times, and refuses to defend himself this time, but is completely innocent are almost none. If you choose to believe him blindly, then go for it.

Many other fighters have messed with the UFC, or tried to get more money, etc... and not came up positive for drugs, why do you they just have it out for him? Come on man.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 04:59 AM
If you had half a brain

insults are the last refuge of the out-argued. once again, the Dr. was approved by the NSAC. they called him in to explain how Olympic level testing works and he retested Barnett. his opinion is all that counts since he was giving the test. by your logic, nothing would get settled until every doc in the world had a say. funny thing is, you're using circular reasoning, which totally negates your position with Sherk.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 05:04 AM
That was my point, suing people for slander is stupid.
Fighters badmouth the NSAC all the time, so you saying if he was lying they would sue him is a joke.
i'm saying he wasn't capable of fighting them and they knew it. plus they know he's right and they didn't want to draw any extra attention. typical big company tactics. same reason why rich people get off and the poor don't.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 05:06 AM
insults are the last refuge of the out-argued. once again, the Dr. was approved by the NSAC. they called him in to explain how Olympic level testing works and he retested Barnett. his opinion is all that counts since he was giving the test. by your logic, nothing would get settled until every doc in the world had a say. funny thing is, you're using circular reasoning, which totally negates your position with Sherk.

Wrong.

Not every Dr, but a couple at least.
This is why they send samples to two labs, get it?

Either way, he re tested Barnett months after the fail,
its meaningless at that point. He should have re tested him that week.
Passing a drug test 2 or more months later means nothing.
One Dr said it should have still been in his system,
Ill bet you could find a Dr to say otherwise as well.

If it doesn't sound fishy to you fine,
but the facts stand.
He has recently tested positive, and is doing nothing to fight it.
He is saying conspiracy and running to Japan.

Guilty people act guilty,
Sean Sherk acted innocent, he fought the charge, and did everything he could to prove his innocence.
Was he using? no clue, but at least he did his best to prove he didn't use,
and sure had a lot of evidence to help his case if you looked at the facts.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 05:08 AM
i'm saying he wasn't capable of fighting them and they knew it. plus they know he's right and they didn't want to draw any extra attention. typical big company tactics. same reason why rich people get off and the poor don't.

and NOW mma has much more media coverage,
and if Josh had a shred of real evidence to support any of his claims they could easily be in the USA today,
or on ESPN, and on every sports website in no time at all.

But he doesn't.
He isn't even really putting up a fight.
He is guilty, and he knows it.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 05:12 AM
I keep saying according to him, because he has no documentation to backup his claims.
Where is his paperwork?

Why is he taking drug tests without filling out paperwork?
I go based on evidence, like the rest of the logical world.

is Barnett supposed to mail you a copy? you talk evidence? you just got done saying you can find a doc to say the opposite of another doc. apparently evidence doesn't work for you unless you agree with the results.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 05:16 AM
is Barnett supposed to mail you a copy? you talk evidence? you just got done saying you can find a doc to say the opposite of another doc. apparently evidence doesn't work for you unless you agree with the results.

No, but if he is going to do interviews saying its a conspiracy it probably would make him look less crazy if he gave copies to the media.
don't you think???

and my point was, it was too late.
I said it ten times, more than 2 months after is too late.
He should have re tested that week.
he should be re testing to prove he is clean RIGHT NOW.

If the SAME DAY they said he was positive he submitted BLOOD to two separate labs and passed,
it sure would help his argument, but he won't.
WHY????

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 05:24 AM
An even better point you should think about,
is that if it is a conspiracy, why wouldn't they just have Fedor test dirty?
when he fought here for Pride, and for Affliction?

Fedor's name would be ruined and nobody would want him int he UFC,
problem solved.

Or when Randy walked out on his contract?
Why not have him random tested and come up positive?
Or when BJ walked out?

Or any time other fighters have bad mouthed and held out for more money,
why not Tito?

Or why not AA? They really wanted to re sign him, and he was on a 3 fight win streak,
it would have been great if he had tested positive.

Why are they out for poor Josh barnett's head only?

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 05:26 AM
yeah and they didn't split the sample for him. Sherk failed both A&B samples btw but you think he's innocent? and Barnett couldn't be retested a week later because, once again, they didn't tell him he failed until a month after the fight. and passing the test 2 months later is fine since the doc said it would still be in his system for 18 months. but in your opinion you don't agree. Dr. > you. and he is appealing his latest test. Sherk paid his docs for his tests, that's not evidence.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 05:34 AM
and NOW mma has much more media coverage,
and if Josh had a shred of real evidence to support any of his claims they could easily be in the USA today,
or on ESPN, and on every sports website in no time at all.

But he doesn't.

why would he fight something from 7 years ago? he's still ranked the #2 HW in the world. he isn't hurting.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 05:50 AM
or why go after Sherk, Franca, Bonnar, Sylvia, Gracie etc. fact is labs made mistakes in the past, false positives etc, which is why CSAC switched to WADA. Barnett didn't fail WADA in 2002, in fact it cleared him. Sherk failed WADA and that's why he's guilty. Barnett failed WADA this time so i believe he's guilty and have said as much. but not guilty in 2002.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 05:56 AM
No, but if he is going to do interviews saying its a conspiracy it probably would make him look less crazy if he gave copies to the media.
don't you think???

and my point was, it was too late.
I said it ten times, more than 2 months after is too late.
maybe he did? i haven't looked, it was 7 years ago. like i said, he's #2 HW, no need to battle the NSAC years later. as for the retest being 2 months later, i already explained that was the NSAC problem.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 05:59 AM
why would he fight something from 7 years ago? he's still ranked the #2 HW in the world. he isn't hurting.

He isn't fighting this test right now.
WHY NOT?

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 05:59 AM
yeah and they didn't split the sample for him. Sherk failed both A&B samples btw but you think he's innocent? and Barnett couldn't be retested a week later because, once again, they didn't tell him he failed until a month after the fight. and passing the test 2 months later is fine since the doc said it would still be in his system for 18 months. but in your opinion you don't agree. Dr. > you. and he is appealing his latest test. Sherk paid his docs for his tests, that's not evidence.


I didn't say he was innocent, I said I have no clue,
but he saved his reputation and a lot of fans by having a lot of evidence on his side.

Well, one Dr > me in your opinion.
In the end I win, Barnett has no career, and the majority of people know he is a user.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 06:01 AM
He isn't fighting this test right now.
WHY NOT?
yes he is. he said he's appealing it.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 06:02 AM
or why go after Sherk, Franca, Bonnar, Sylvia, Gracie etc. fact is labs made mistakes in the past, false positives etc, which is why CSAC switched to WADA. Barnett didn't fail WADA in 2002, in fact it cleared him. Sherk failed WADA and that's why he's guilty. Barnett failed WADA this time so i believe he's guilty and have said as much. but not guilty in 2002.

Again.
An even better point you should think about,
is that if it is a conspiracy, why wouldn't they just have Fedor test dirty?
when he fought here for Pride, and for Affliction?

Fedor's name would be ruined and nobody would want him int he UFC,
problem solved.

Or when Randy walked out on his contract?
Why not have him random tested and come up positive?
Or when BJ walked out?

Or any time other fighters have bad mouthed and held out for more money,
why not Tito?

Or why not AA? They really wanted to re sign him, and he was on a 3 fight win streak,
it would have been great if he had tested positive.

Why are they out for poor Josh barnett's head only?

Also, if you think he is guilty this time,
why do you care if he wasn't in 2002?
WADA is an agency,
they don't have magical tests that other labs do not.

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 06:02 AM
yes he is. he said he's appealing it.

Then I suppose we shall see.

Source?

atomdanger
07-30-2009, 06:04 AM
On a positive note (pun intended), thanks for the good argument.

I haven't gotten into a multiple pager in a while!

I will truly admit I was wrong and apologize if Barnett proves innocent.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 06:11 AM
i never said it was a conspiracy, that's on you. i said labs in the past, before WADA, would have false positives. i answered the rest of your post on the other fighters in my last reply. you're just repeating yourself. i care as much about his 2002 innocence as you care about saying he's guilty. and WADA is infalible with their testing. they have fail safes at every level, which is why Sherk couldn't buy his innocence.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 06:11 AM
Then I suppose we shall see.

Source?
it was on Sherdog 3 days ago.

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 06:14 AM
On a positive note (pun intended), thanks for the good argument.

I haven't gotten into a multiple pager in a while!

I will truly admit I was wrong and apologize if Barnett proves innocent.
about his 2002 or now? he was innocent in 2002 but not now, i don't think?

Hughes_GOAT
07-30-2009, 06:34 AM
Then I suppose we shall see.

Source?
it's on Sherdog right now.