According to USADA Jon Jones 15 month suspension was reduced for snitching

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up
Dim

Dim

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2017
173
373
Filthy said:
agree, 100%. but i didn't listen to the podcast, busy day sitting in court getting a fine waived.

But the clause that's referenced states that 'substantial assistance' in getting a case can be for either snitching on other abusers/suppliers OR for a felony criminal investigation. For example, JBJ could roll over on his dick-pill cocaine ring or a network of people streaming UFC PPVs, and get the same consideration as if he'd dropped the dime on Winklejohn for pumping the team full of PEDs.
Click to expand...
the reduction is reflective of the quality of the information provided. (the ADP even specifically states thats how its done), it also has to be applicable to "eliminating doping in sport". So rolling over on people streaming UFC ppv's would not see a reduction as per ADP 10.6.1.1



for instance. in 2016 USADA nabbed a weightlifter on a non-analytical case. (basically they raided a drugs selling website and found his name in customer lists).

that weightlifter co-operated with USADA, helped with their case and as a result multiple weight-lifters were charged with varying offences.

those weightlifters in turn, co-operated with USADa and got varying reductions on their sentences.

at the top of the tree, a guy (another weightlifter) who was supplying, trafficking as well as using prohibited substances got 12 years suspension (and even he got a reduction on his sentence, it was originally higher).


The guy who started it all off got a 2 year reduction on his initial 4 year punishment.

So he got 24 months. Jones at the moment has got 30 months (but USADA can yet rescind some of that). So it gives you an idea of the quality of information Jones has provided, at least so far.


===========

What 10.6.1.1 (the clause covering this) requires is that it results in either



1. anti doping rule violations being brought against another party/parties

2. criminal charges being brought against another party/parties

3. professional misconduct charges being brought against another party/parties

so based on prior cases, its fair to assume that Jones evidence/co-operation is substantial
 
ShakaSway

ShakaSway

The Unintentional Voice of Reason
Oct 18, 2015
3,905
3,890
He outed someone else for doing steroids or giving them. Good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom