Haha and just to clarify, I am not saying you are one of the potential house burners. We have just had some skirmishes.lol how dare you tag me sir(joking)
there is lawyer speak
and there is logic
loopholes and spin are easy to use to justify IMO
Fighters losing braincells and having careers altered via uneven playing field not justifiable IMO
I've been down this road too many times to get involved for more than a post or two
take care guys
Haha and just to clarify, I am not saying you are one of the potential house burners. We have just had some skirmishes.
When dealing with a situation that would require lawyers, you have to look at it in that context, or else you are going to expect people to adjudicate based on gut feelings and emotion, which I promise you don't want to be part of the process.
it means you are liable for whatever prohibited substances are found in your blood. Strict liability really gets overemphasised, because it is largely offset by "degree of fault" clause.I am not Luke Thomas and I understand what strict liability means in regards to anti-doping.
Totally disagree. USADA are no different to any other disciplinary body or board that takes legal action. They look at the case, and they evaluate if they will win. If the chances are that they would not win, or that they don't believe they have the evidence to prove recent ingestion, then they wont proceed. Its simple economics (as well as taking on board fairness towards the athlete)Surely if you were arguing in good faith, you would just say "yep, my bad, I know it is not incumbent on USADA to 'prove it's a new ingestion'". I am aware of the challenges they would face, but that's not why I pulled you up.
honestly, the situation with Gus stinks.How come they didn't look out for Gus?
The issue is you and I are arguing logical reasoning and moralityloopholes and spin are easy to use to justify IMO
Thats what really chaps my hide. We can all concede that USADA/UFC doeshonestly, the situation with Gus stinks.
Dana and Jeff literally sat him down, on camera, and said ALL HIS TESTS HAVE BEEN CLEAN EXCEPT THIS ONE AND ITS SUCH A TINY TINY AMOUNT THAT THE EXPERTS ALL SAY ITS FROM 2017
they flat out fucking lied to Gus, on camera, to get him to take the fight, then posted it on youtube.
And then he got his ass beat...honestly, the situation with Gus stinks.
Dana and Jeff literally sat him down, on camera, and said ALL HIS TESTS HAVE BEEN CLEAN EXCEPT THIS ONE AND ITS SUCH A TINY TINY AMOUNT THAT THE EXPERTS ALL SAY ITS FROM 2017
they flat out fucking lied to Gus, on camera, to get him to take the fight, then posted it on youtube.
He should sue them. Probably has a better case than Hunt since all the results ended up public...Thats what really chaps my hide. We can all conceded that USADA/UFC does
not have sufficient evidence to punish Jones
They have no excuse whatsoever for allowing Gus to fight while being lied too
they dont "have" to prove it as far as anti doping regulations go. Theres nothing in the ADP or Wada guidelines regarding second time offences from prior ingestion.@Dim Question for ya: Why does USADA have to prove "new ingestion"? Why is not simply, "You have banned substances in your system. You are not allowed to have them there. If it is from something old well then you REALLY fucked up taking that particular shit."
sue as far as Jones goes, probably not because i think most accept that the Turinabol didnt have any impact on the in bout performance.He should sue them. Probably has a better case than Hunt since all the results ended up public...
Yep its literally on camera.He should sue them. Probably has a better case than Hunt since all the results ended up public...
and used to promote or at the least legitimize Jon as a clean fighter...for profitYep its literally on camera.
I would also argue that despite what USADA may say on their website, strict liability in the real world, when it comes to hearings is a myth.I am not Luke Thomas and I understand what strict liability means in regards to anti-doping. Surely if you were arguing in good faith, you would just say "yep, my bad, I know it is not incumbent on USADA to 'prove it's a new ingestion'". I am aware of the challenges they would face, but that's not why I pulled you up.
Yeah, but a micro-dosing case could be made by Gus' team and the fact that somehow he has trace amounts 18 months afterwards, consistently is suspicious. The fact that, as you said, USADA doesn't know if it was new or old would help Gus in creating a micro-dosing/cocktail scenario indicating that Jones was benefiting from it, etc. In the end, the UFC lied to him about something that COULD have been new and beneficial to Jones to get him to fight and he got beat. That is bad faith all over the place...sue as far as Jones goes, probably not because i think most accept that the Turinabol didnt have any impact on the in bout performance.
But should he be pissed at JN and DW for being flat our liars, certainly.
I understand when it comes to a prosecutorial point of view where the state would need "beyond a shadow of a doubt" level evidence but does USADA really need that? Especially since you said they don't have to prove new ingestion. Being fair to Jones is then being unfair to Gus (and potentially future opponents). If new ingestion isn't a means test for an ADRV and the athlete took something that is screwing up his system so badly that it keeps floating around in there for years and years then it's a pretty open and shut case: you have a banned substance in your system. You are suspended.they dont "have" to prove it as far as anti doping regulations go. Theres nothing in the ADP or Wada guidelines regarding second time offences from prior ingestion.
but they do have to be confident in their own heads that a (new) genuine anti doping rule violation has occurred or they would be failing their code of conduct in regards fairness to the athletes. They cannot charge an athlete with an ADRV if they are not confident an ADRV has been committed.
And tribunal result and chances of actually winning will certainly be a factor. If you are a cop and you have a case but the evidence is flimsy as fuck, the DA will tell you to drop it and not let it go to court. USADA legal are no different.
They can't prove microdosing, so no, that would not work as an accusation.Yeah, but a micro-dosing case could be made by Gus' team and the fact that somehow he has trace amounts 18 months afterwards, consistently is suspicious. The fact that, as you said, USADA doesn't know if it was new or old would help Gus in creating a micro-dosing/cocktail scenario indicating that Jones was benefiting from it, etc. In the end, the UFC lied to him about something that COULD have been new and beneficial to Jones to get him to fight and he got beat. That is bad faith all over the place...
This is not a decision which will or should be exclusively made on reasoning and morality, so any argument based solely on those things is not rooted in reality.The issue is you and I are arguing logical reasoning and morality
We will never be able to pin down lawyer speak and technical loopholes
That's why they are called technicalities and loopholes.
The logical conclusion and morality here is that Jon is being allowed privilege over other
fighters and USADA and the UFC have failed to protect clean fighters against someone with
steroids in their body
Through technicalities and lawyer speak nothing will be done about it
They have no power given to them to stop a fight when they aren't punishing a fighter, so unfortunately yeah I would say USADA has an excuse.Thats what really chaps my hide. We can all concede that USADA/UFC does
not have sufficient evidence to punish Jones
They have no excuse whatsoever for allowing Gus to fight while being lied to
You have to look at this in a broader way than simply Jon Jones' situation. If this is an anomaly that takes place, and a different fighter had accidentally ingested this substance that won't leave their body, should they be indefinitely (or permanently) suspended? That doesn't sound particularly fair in itself.@Dim Question for ya: Why does USADA have to prove "new ingestion"? Why is it not simply, "You have banned substances in your system. You are not allowed to have them there. If it is from something old... well then you REALLY fucked up taking that particular shit."
Jon was punished for this substance previously. If we applied this to alcohol or drugs at Coca Cola, if you test positive for cocaine, you are gone. You are punished for the initial test of the substance. For your example to compare to this one, Coca Cola would have to have an initial suspension (because the example doesn't work if the worker is permanently fired for the first test), or the UFC would have to have a one-strike-and-you-are-banned-regardless-of-mitigating-circumstances policy. If neither of those are the case, or we don't change our examples to where one of them is the case, then the examples are useless.When I worked briefly for Coca-Cola a million years ago in their compliance office for their drivers if someone popped that was it. You're gone. New, old, whatever. Same thing with a company like Hilti. If you get caught driving with ANY amount of alcohol in your system you are fired - immediately. Even if it is below the legal limit and no laws have been broken. Company car, your car, doesn't matter.
I am not disagreeing with your argument that USADA would have faced significant challenges in pursuing Jones again. I never have.it means you are liable for whatever prohibited substances are found in your blood. Strict liability really gets overemphasised, because it is largely offset by "degree of fault" clause.
Totally disagree. USADA are no different to any other disciplinary body or board that takes legal action. They look at the case, and they evaluate if they will win. If the chances are that they would not win, or that they don't believe they have the evidence to prove recent ingestion, then they wont proceed. Its simple economics (as well as taking on board fairness towards the athlete)
USADA know they would lose the case, but, they also have to be certain in their own minds that the athlete has committed an ADRV or they will not move forward.
in this instance, they were neither certain in their own minds that the athlete had committed an adrv, now certain they would actually win