Schaub: Hunt should be able to take 'whatever he wants' for Lesnar fight

[Andrewsimar Palhardass]

UFC's completely self-funded anti-doping program they voluntarily created did all that - they still need the ability to sign guys to fight in less than 120 days and they have an exception for that, until mis or over used they get the benefit of the doubt for n other reason than simply because its an exception to their own policy they didn't need to create.

This is a really good take on it.

 

[Andrewsimar Palhardass]

I understand what public sentiment is, but it's pretty public knowledge. You are working on pre-conceived notions. Yes, people in the WWE still juice because no drug test policy is completely followed, and no, what I am saying does not prove that Brock was clean, but even guys like Chael talk all the time about WWE's drug testing policy. Front Row Brian even tweeted about it the other day, and while he isn't a great source, he knows his wrestling and isn't ever shy to criticize organizations that are filled with "the gimmick".

 

[Yossarian]

UFC's completely self-funded anti-doping program they voluntarily created did all that - they still need the ability to sign guys to fight in less than 120 days and they have an exception for that, until mis or over used they get the benefit of the doubt for n other reason than simply because its an exception to their own policy they didn't need to create.

No the ability to sign new fighters on short notice went out the door when they said they were serious about drug testing. And if USADA testing requires you to be tested 4 months ahead of time, that is for a reason. They want to have the cake and eat it too.

But like you said, they really did not need to design a program that is damaging their product, but now to add exceptions is to add doubt to their drug policy as well. They can't have it both, credibility goes out when exclusions are introduced. Mark Hunt has made statements of frustration about this. An indicator of how this unfairness is received by the already exisitng fighters on the roster.

Just saying that after paying such a high price in many many ways, why do somehting that puts their drug program in question? Silly to me.

And again, not towards Brock, but the UFC.

 

[DFW4L]

even guys like Chael talk all the time about WWE's drug testing policy. Front Row Brian even tweeted about it the other day,

now 100% convinced you are trolling, was only 98% sure before you referenced Chael & FRB as corresponding sources

 

[DFW4L]

No the ability to sign new fighters on short notice went out the door when they said they were serious about drug testing.

considering they have an exception to invoke, lol...

no

 

[Lukewarm Carl]

I expect a short notice fight from Chael soon.

His circumstances are different as he retired while being suspended. There is no exemption clause for his situation written into the USADA/UFC agreement.

*Updated now that I'm not driving to include the actual excerpt from the policy*

5.7.2 If an Athlete retires from UFC competition while subject to a
period of Ineligibility, the Athlete shall not resume competing in
UFC Bouts or competitions approved or sanctioned by an Athletic
Commission until the Athlete has given four months prior
written notice (or notice equivalent to the period of Ineligibility
remaining as of the date the Athlete retired, if that period was
longer than four months) to UFC of his/her intent to resume
competing and has made him/herself available for Testing for
that notice period.

 

[DFW4L]

But like you said, they really did not need to design a program that is damaging their product, but now to add exceptions is to add doubt to their drug policy as well. They can't have it both, credibility goes out when exclusions are introduced.

two exceptions in q1 & q2 2016, one for a new guy (Horcher) and one for a returning guy (Brock)....

their program loses no credibility at that rate/volume of exception granting, that is neither mis or over using the exception process...

the very existence of this thread means they in fact can have it both ways

 

[Andrewsimar Palhardass]

now 100% convinced you are trolling, was only 98% sure before you referenced Chael & FRB as corresponding sources

Have you even done a tiny bit of research about this?

 

[DFW4L]

Have you even done a tiny bit of research about this?

The WWE wellness policy?

lmao....no, have done no research on it, the last WWF type shit I saw was Bunchy's Mexican wife training at the Donovan Fite Club

 

[Yossarian]

two exceptions in q1 & q2 2016, one for a new guy (Horcher) and one for a returning guy (Brock)....

their program loses no credibility at that rate/volume of exception granting, that is neither mis or over using the exception process...

the very existence of this thread means they in fact can have it both ways

Like I've stated, to me personally it has tainted the program. In my head I call bullshit now everytime they mention it. ONE single exemption is enough to diminish the program. They will sway for money, we now know this. We now know rules will be bend. Therefore my opinion about their testing has changed, that all. Many are willing to accept these rules as totally legit, and that is fine by me as well.

 

[Andrewsimar Palhardass]

The WWE wellness policy?

lmao....no, have done no research on it, the last WWF type shit I saw was Bunchy's Mexican wife training at the Donovan Fite Club

Okay so while that was funny, and while you are correct that Chael and FRB were bad people to quote, the wellness policy is actually no joke.

 

[Lukewarm Carl]

Like I've stated, to me personally it has tainted the program. In my head I call bullshit now everytime they mention it. ONE single exemption is enough to diminish the program. They will sway for money, we now know this. We now know rules will be bend. Therefore my opinion about their testing has changed, that all. Many are willing to accept these rules as totally legit, and that is fine by me as well.

Honest question here and as I mentioned before I actually agree that there should be no short notice fights because all fighters should have to go through X amount of testing before being eligible to fight in order to have 100% legitimacy in their protocol.
So my question for you is would you have had a problem with this if it wasn't about Brock(Or Random Fighter A) being "exempted" from a 4 month time frame and instead it was simply business as usual thus far where Random Fighter A was signed back into the UFC to fight on a card that happens a month away?
Basically strike the exemption term from the guidelines and in this particular case simply treat the previous UFC fighter as any other person being called up to the big show.

 

[Lukewarm Carl]

two exceptions in q1 & q2 2016, one for a new guy (Horcher) and one for a returning guy (Brock)....

their program loses no credibility at that rate/volume of exception granting, that is neither mis or over using the exception process...

the very existence of this thread means they in fact can have it both ways

Horcher was exempt because he had never fought in the UFC before as are all active fighters that are not currently in the UFC and are signed to short notice fights. There is no special exemption given as those fighters are active and not currently under contract to the UFC.

Brock is the first to be given the exemption to a previously retired UFC fighter. He's also the only known fighter to be given any kind of exemption.

Here's a quote from the policy:

5.7.1 An Athlete who gives notice of retirement to UFC, or has
otherwise ceased to have a contractual relationship with UFC,
may not resume competing in UFC Bouts until he/she has given
UFC written notice of his/her intent to resume competing and
has made him/herself available for Testing for a period of four
months before returning to competition. UFC may grant an
exemption to the four-month written notice rule in exceptional
circumstances or where the strict application of that rule would
be manifestly unfair to an Athlete.

This is also the only verbiage in the policy that grants the UFC the ability to grant an exemption to USADA's standard testing.

 

[Lukewarm Carl]

In case anyone is wondering why I always chime in on USADA related posts it's because I see a ton of misinformation and I've actually read the policy.

I got pissed at my life last February, quit my job, and did as little as humanly possible unless it involved traveling, food, booze, or women until September when I was starting to get a little bored and stumbled into a great opportunity. So that gave me a lot of time to read all of the ins and outs of the USADA policy when it was launched. It's short. Pretty straightforward. Only gets complicated if you try to read through the entire list of banned substances.

By the way... If you have a means to do it comfortably... I highly recommend only working 5 months out of a year. It was pretty amazing.

 

[Yossarian]

Honest question here and as I mentioned before I actually agree that there should be no short notice fights because all fighters should have to go through X amount of testing before being eligible to fight in order to have 100% legitimacy in their protocol.
So my question for you is would you have had a problem with this if it wasn't about Brock(Or Random Fighter A) being "exempted" from a 4 month time frame and instead it was simply business as usual thus far where Random Fighter A was signed back into the UFC to fight on a card that happens a month away?
Basically strike the exemption term from the guidelines and in this particular case simply treat the previous UFC fighter as any other person being called up to the big show.

Yeah, any fighter. This is not about Brock. But it takes a Brock to shed light on these practices though.