@Dat Pre-HollyHolm Ronda $ Also, in your scenario it wouldn't necessarily make things fair and equal. For example, if Jon Jones gets a reduced suspension from USADA directly, it won't go into that review process. If someone else pops for the same thing, the "But they gave Jon Jones a shorter sentence" point won't be heard. They would have to be objective within the rules, and they can't consider precedent that isn't written into the already established rules.
Except Jones neither time could prove it was unintentional. Merely a maybe it was in my coke.....
The only information that we have is from USADA, and they said he was able to show that there was no intent. I am not saying that I agree because I didn't see the evidence he presented and I am not an antidoping expert. Do you have evidence that I don't?
Yes it is. USADA says what punishment they want. If a fighter does not agree the matter can be arbitrated.Isn't that already in place with arbitration?@ErikMagraken
Thats exactly what WADA do
Like WADA?
The arbitrator that made the Jones decision IS an independent review board. thats the whole point of arbitration. Its overseen by an independent third party (McClaren Global)
Sorta but I mean an organization picked by the fighters.
Except there is a he got stuff. Usada has set standards and punishments for 1st, 2nd, and so on after that.
I don't understand your first sentence. Can you clarify?
It was in response to this by you.
That's the thing. The USADA rules aren't as simple as x for first, y for second and life for 3rd. There are a myriad of other circumstances which are in the guidelines. USADA's system is not built to treat them all the same, because they shouldn't be all treated the same. This wasn't arbitrary in the sense that it wasn't made up on the spot. The guidelines are there, only the general public hasn't read all of them because why would we?
They do have standard punishments. But selectivey enforce it. Saying i don't think one was intentional and nothing for another violation is arbitrary. Oh and testing Jones opponent several times and not Jones once all year after he's been busted twice reeks of bias.
Not testing Jones is something I cannot defend, and I hope they eventually address it.
@Kingtony87 From looking at his Twitter page, it appears as though
@ErikMagraken has some opinions on this. Maybe he can take a look at our convo and let us know what we are missing. He is much more of an expert than I am, admittedly.
That's certainly arbitrary considering cases like Barnett and Machida
they really dont have standard punishments, there are a vast range of reductions and increases.
Machida accepted his immediately too if I remember correctly, and Barnett's case took a long time, which is what extended his period of inactivity. I do think they need to speed up the process, but there is nothing arbitrary about these situations.
Lets take those two cases.
worth noting as well, that Josh had left the testing pool a few days after his test, so he wasnt not eligible to fight at any point. Even if he had been cleared after a week he would have had to spent six months in teh testing pool before he could fight again. He was basically retired so was in no rush to get his case dealt with and it was noted in the arbitration reports that he was in no hurry.
As you can see,they really dont have standard punishments, there are a vast range of reductions and increases.
Heres something I did a couple of years ago that graphically breaks down USADA punishments (per the UFC anti doping policy) and how they can be calculated...
Yes, there are strict guidelines and criteria, but those can be interpreted in a number of ways, and punishments can vary pretty wildly.
1 Year, 2 Years, USADA ban lengths explained.
there is so much room for interpretation.
probably the most widely used reduction clause is "degree of fault". How much responsibility the athlete bears for the violation.
Lets say im facing a two year ban and a rogue supplement is found to be the cause.
If I never bother checking anything, dont give a fuck, just buy any old shit off the internet or at my hum my degree of fault is 100%.. i will get no reduction..
If I make some effort, i only buy my supplements from GNC, maybe im slightly less at fault.. they might knock a month off
If I only buy supplements from big brand names and check all the ingredients briefly to see if anything looks suspicious. .im slightly less at fault.. they might knock three-four months off
If i only buy supplements from big brand names and I meticulously go through the entire ingredients list checking them one by one on globaldro. That reduces my degree of fault consiserably, i might get 6 to 12 months knocked off.
If I only purchase supplements from companies that are third party tested by NFS or Informed-Sport and I only ever use things from them. Keep records of all supplements ive taken, and keep back empty containers etc. Then my degree of fault is absolutely minimal and I will likely get a huge reduction or even no suspension at all.
That same positive test, depending on "degree of fault" can result in anything from no suspension to 2 years depending on teh circumstances around it.
Its very very fluid
@Kingtony87, they aren't just making these things up as they go along, which is why they aren't "arbitrary."
but there are a shit ton of clauses, areas for reduction or increase in penalty that means for every positive test pretty much anything between no ban at all, and 4 years is possible, in one day increments, all within the guidelinesAs you can see,
