'Anti-doping' crusaders sign in here

[Ted Williams' head]

I'm kind of on both sides of the fence here.

On one hand, I think PEDs should be legal. Athletes should be allowed to avail of the best in medical science.

But on the other hand, they're not legal, and when you sign a contract to fight you agree to the rules. Using PEDs to fight a clean opponent is essentially bringing a weapon to a fist fight. Very dishonorable.

 

[kneeblock]

This, the lack of consequences for the McGregor meltdown in New York, and Brock's return should be a good lesson for all in the flaws of capitalism.

 

[Filthy]

This, the lack of consequences for the McGregor meltdown in New York, and Brock's return should be a good lesson for all in the flaws of capitalism.

this is the result of a central planning, not a free market.

 

[kneeblock]

this is the result of a central planning, not a free market.

There is no central planning or free market at work here. Just wealthy people using their money to be advantaged in the face of token laws and regulations.

 

[member 3289]

I don't see anything wrong with what USADA did.

Boo fucking hoo, Machida and Tom Lawlor. If they'd had credible information, they would've had their sentences reduced as well.

USADA still works, and MMA fans are still by and large illiterate.

 

[Dim]

no...not necessarily. USADA isn't under any obligation to specify what "substantial assistance" he provided or is providing. AFAIK, they can say "the operation is ongoing" until JBJ retires - or slides his Bugatti in to a school bus. Did USADA have to tell the arbitrator what "substantial assistance" JBJ provided? I know they entered arbitration after the reduction in suspension had been decided. And I don't think he was asked to arbitrate the relevance of JBJ's "assistance."

This reminds me of when Nixon made Elvis a federal drug enforcement agent.

they are under a certain obligation.

10.6.1.1 is pretty specific and it has to result in either anti doping, criminal or professional charges. If it fails to do that he has not satisfied 10.6.1.1 which is what his reduction is based on.


whatever comes of it, if it is ADRV's (Anti doping rules violation) then they will be published on teh USADA website as each reaches its decision. In all prior whistleblower cases weve seen a drip drip of decisions based on that investigation over the months and year(s) that followed. theres no reason to think this will be any different

(fwiw, its clear from testing data that i monitor weekly that USADa are already targeting certain individuals)

a couple of examples..

Donald Cerrone was target tested by USADA in July. They visited him one day collecting 2 samples, then they went straight back and retested him, collecting another two. That is obvious targeting, they do that because athletes think if theyve just been tested they wont be again for a while. Cerrone of course just left Jackson Wink.. is that co-incidence.. maybe.. maybe not..

Daniel Cormier has been target tested over the last 8 weeks. Four visits in total from USADA in less than 2 months, collecting blood and urine every time. He has no fight scheduled. No fighter in the three years of the Anti doping program has been tested that heavily in such a short period of time. Co-incidence.. maybe.. maybe not..


On the final bit, yes, the arbitrators were informed of what Jones has contributed so far in the way of intelligence, but all that information was redacted from the reasoned decision for obvious reasons, it would jeopardise ongoing investigations.

whistleblowing is pretty common. The most recent saw USADA bust an online website and get client details. That led them to finding one athlete, proving he had ped's delivered, he flipped and started ratting on others, they in turn started cooperating in return for shorter sentances, and the final guy who was dealing and distributing got 12 years (and even his punishment was reduced for cooperation).

Jones testimonies could well have a knock on effect that sees a bunch of fighters busted and all start cooperating.

its actually a pretty big deal. a far bigger deal than most fans and media realise.

(its also very possible that USADA have already started proceedings against other athletes or coaches, but, whereas UFC usually make public potential violations, it may be kept quiet this time till final decisions are announced which is in line with the usual USADA procedure)



Hypothetical situation.

Jones gave USADa some information on xxxx
USADA target test xxxx and he tests positive
They then tell xxxx weve got information on you
xxxx offers full cooperation in return for reduced penalty
He then leaves the gym hes at and turns the tables on them offering up a ton of Info..

and so it goes on....

 

[Filthy]

There is no central planning or free market at work here. Just

@Kneeblock
wealthy people using their money to be advantaged in the face of token laws and regulations = crony capitalism = socialism in practice

 

[member 3289]

they are under a certain obligation.

10.6.1.1 is pretty specific and it has to result in either anti doping, criminal or professional charges. If it fails to do that he has not satisfied 10.6.1.1 which is what his reduction is based on.


whatever comes of it, if it is ADRV's (Anti doping rules violation) then they will be published on teh USADA website as each reaches its decision. In all prior whistleblower cases weve seen a drip drip of decisions based on that investigation over the months and year(s) that followed. theres no reason to think this will be any different

(fwiw, its clear from testing data that i monitor weekly that USADa are already targeting certain individuals)

a couple of examples..

Donald Cerrone was target tested by USADA in July. They visited him one day collecting 2 samples, then they went straight back and retested him, collecting another two. That is obvious targeting, they do that because athletes think if theyve just been tested they wont be again for a while. Cerrone of course just left Jackson Wink.. is that co-incidence.. maybe.. maybe not..

Daniel Cormier has been target tested over the last 8 weeks. Four visits in total from USADA in less than 2 months, collecting blood and urine every time. He has no fight scheduled. No fighter in the three years of the Anti doping program has been tested that heavily in such a short period of time. Co-incidence.. maybe.. maybe not..


On the final bit, yes, the arbitrators were informed of what Jones has contributed so far in the way of intelligence, but all that information was redacted from the reasoned decision for obvious reasons, it would jeopardise ongoing investigations.

whistleblowing is pretty common. The most recent saw USADA bust an online website and get client details. That led them to finding one athlete, proving he had ped's delivered, he flipped and started ratting on others, they in turn started cooperating in return for shorter sentances, and the final guy who was dealing and distributing got 12 years (and even his punishment was reduced for cooperation).

Jones testimonies could well have a knock on effect that sees a bunch of fighters busted and all start cooperating.

its actually a pretty big deal. a far bigger deal than most fans and media realise.

(its also very possible that USADA have already started proceedings against other athletes or coaches, but, whereas UFC usually make public potential violations, it may be kept quiet this time till final decisions are announced which is in line with the usual USADA procedure)



Hypothetical situation.

Jones gave USADa some information on xxxx
USADA target test xxxx and he tests positive
They then tell xxxx weve got information on you
xxxx offers full cooperation in return for reduced penalty
He then leaves the gym hes at and turns the tables on them offering up a ton of Info..

and so it goes on....

Dropping heavy knowledge, my man. Good shit.

What amuses me is all these people saying that what Jones did (snitching/whistleblowing) was wrong in some way. And I'm not just talking about his haters, as that would be expected.

I don't know about you, but if my career and livelihood were on the line and I had a chance to receive a 62.5% reduction in punishment, I'm taking it.

Sorry not sorry.

 

[Filthy]

they are under a certain obligation.

10.6.1.1 is pretty specific and it has to result in either anti doping, criminal or professional charges. If it fails to do that he has not satisfied 10.6.1.1 which is what his reduction is based on.


whatever comes of it, if it is ADRV's (Anti doping rules violation) then they will be published on teh USADA website as each reaches its decision. In all prior whistleblower cases weve seen a drip drip of decisions based on that investigation over the months and year(s) that followed. theres no reason to think this will be any different

(fwiw, its clear from testing data that i monitor weekly that USADa are already targeting certain individuals)

a couple of examples..

Donald Cerrone was target tested by USADA in July. They visited him one day collecting 2 samples, then they went straight back and retested him, collecting another two. That is obvious targeting, they do that because athletes think if theyve just been tested they wont be again for a while. Cerrone of course just left Jackson Wink.. is that co-incidence.. maybe.. maybe not..

Daniel Cormier has been target tested over the last 8 weeks. Four visits in total from USADA in less than 2 months, collecting blood and urine every time. He has no fight scheduled. No fighter in the three years of the Anti doping program has been tested that heavily in such a short period of time. Co-incidence.. maybe.. maybe not..


On the final bit, yes, the arbitrators were informed of what Jones has contributed so far in the way of intelligence, but all that information was redacted from the reasoned decision for obvious reasons, it would jeopardise ongoing investigations.

whistleblowing is pretty common. The most recent saw USADA bust an online website and get client details. That led them to finding one athlete, proving he had ped's delivered, he flipped and started ratting on others, they in turn started cooperating in return for shorter sentances, and the final guy who was dealing and distributing got 12 years (and even his punishment was reduced for cooperation).

Jones testimonies could well have a knock on effect that sees a bunch of fighters busted and all start cooperating.

its actually a pretty big deal. a far bigger deal than most fans and media realise.

(its also very possible that USADA have already started proceedings against other athletes or coaches, but, whereas UFC usually make public potential violations, it may be kept quiet this time till final decisions are announced which is in line with the usual USADA procedure)



Hypothetical situation.

Jones gave USADa some information on xxxx
USADA target test xxxx and he tests positive
They then tell xxxx weve got information on you
xxxx offers full cooperation in return for reduced penalty
He then leaves the gym hes at and turns the tables on them offering up a ton of Info..

and so it goes on....

right - but I don't know of any disclosure requirement regarding the "substantial assistance". There's obviously a credibility issue if there's absolutely nothing anyone can remotely tie to JBJ's assistance, but there's a lot of wiggle room for UFC/USADA to overstate Jon's "assistance". I think this is a hole in the USADA agreement, and definitely one that would be addressed with a CBA.

 

[Filthy]

Dropping heavy knowledge, my man. Good shit.

What amuses me is all these people saying that what Jones did (snitching/whistleblowing) was wrong in some way. And I'm not just talking about his haters, as that would be expected.

I don't know about you, but if my career and livelihood were on the line and I had a chance to receive a 62.5% reduction in punishment, I'm taking it.

Sorry not sorry.

it reduces his sentence, but it's not absolution. It's the old "doing the right thing for the wrong reason". The outcome is good, but JBJ shouldn't get any glory or a positive reflection on his character for what he did. It's still Jon looking out for Jon, and I don't laud pragmatism - especially when it's in your own interest. That's just a survival instinct, like a fox caught in a trap gnawing off it's leg to escape.

I'm glad that he did it, but it's hard for me to picture a scenario where the "assistance" is so "substantial" that it justifies that kind of reduction.

 

[member 3289]

it's hard for me to picture a scenario where the "assistance" is so "substantial" that it justifies that kind of reduction.

Lol well good thing it's not hard for the arbitrator or for USADA.

We shall likely see in the coming months anyway.

 

[Dim]

right - but I don't know of any disclosure requirement regarding the "substantial assistance". There's obviously a credibility issue if there's absolutely nothing anyone can remotely tie to JBJ's assistance, but there's a lot of wiggle room for UFC/USADA to overstate Jon's "assistance". I think this is a hole in the USADA agreement, and definitely one that would be addressed with a CBA.

well its pretty simple.

we will either see a bunch of violations on the usada website that are clearly linked to Jones (either my location, or they will state "intelligence gathering" or "investigation" on the details) or we wont.

If we dont then people will ask USADA what has happened to the investigation

If we do, then we will know.

but in every previous instance of reductions for substantial cooperation we have seen teh results publicly. theres no reason to think this will be any different at this time.

 

[Filthy]

Lol well good thing it's not hard for the arbitrator or for USADA.

We shall likely see in the coming months anyway.

Exactly.
without a CBA, it's just "hope UFC isn't unduly influencing USADA for certain fighters."
Either way, the interests of 'the fighters' should be represented in some way.

 

[Rambo John J]

It's corrupt
all we ask is an even playing field
that is an unrealistic expectation, and we all know this deep down

$$$
corrupts

 

[Filthy]

well its pretty simple.

we will either see a bunch of violations on the usada website that are clearly linked to Jones (either my location, or they will state "intelligence gathering" or "investigation" on the details) or we wont.

If we dont then people will ask USADA what has happened to the investigation

If we do, then we will know.

but in every previous instance of reductions for substantial cooperation we have seen teh results publicly. theres no reason to think this will be any different at this time.

If this is the first time that it's been used in MMA, then it's easy to not set a precedent with the first application. But I expect them to closely follow the precedent they've set in weightlifting or wrestling. I expect that if we've haven't seen 2 or 3 major busts by the end of the year, that USADA is going to feel pressure. But when you're talking about having The Champ dead to rights on 4 years of suspension, the impact should obviously exceed the impact of demonstrating Zero Tolerance and showing that EVEN THE CHAMP isn't above the rules.

But they and UFC knew how the hardcore fans were going to react, and they knew that we make up a tiny percentage of the paying viewers. Just like they know the minimum they can plausibly get by with. The pessimism of my experience makes me think Jon's "assistance" will trend toward the minimally plausible.

 

[Dim]

right - but I don't know of any disclosure requirement regarding the "substantial assistance". There's obviously a credibility issue if there's absolutely nothing anyone can remotely tie to JBJ's assistance, but there's a lot of wiggle room for UFC/USADA to overstate Jon's "assistance". I think this is a hole in the USADA agreement, and definitely one that would be addressed with a CBA.

they have specifically cited 10.6.1.1 in the documents

that particular clause is as follows (bits from the adp in italics)

USADA in its sole discretion may suspend all or part of the period of Ineligibility and other Consequences
imposed in an individual case in which it has results management authority where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to USADA or another Anti-Doping Organization,
criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in:

Now this is the important bit, it must result in one of these two things

(i) USADA or another Anti-Doping Organization discovering or bringing forward an Anti-Doping Policy Violation by another Person and the information provided by the Person providing Substantial Assistance is made available to USADA, or
(ii) which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or bringing forward a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules committed by another Person and the information provided by the Person providing Substantial Assistance is made available to USADA.

Now in both of those instances it would be made public. If there are ADRV's (Anti doping rule violations) then the persons involved would be suspended and so it would be made public on the USADA website. And generally in cases like this it will be noted that its as the result of "information provided" or "intelligence gathering"

If its the second, criminal or professional charges (like Dr struck off etc), they would also be banned by anti doping regulators so again it would be on the USADA website (USADA can ban non sports people, coaches, managers, whoever - it prevents them working with athletes in the testing pool)

but in both cases, any sanctions would be made public.

it continues:

The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility and other Consequences imposed may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the Anti-Doping Policy Violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport.

So, the reduction in Penalty is directly related to the quality of the information. Now Jones got a 30 month reduction, and we can look at previous cases.

Michael Zoda was caught by USADA and agreed to co-operate. The information from him resulted in 3 or 4 other athletes being charged, two of them in turn got small reductions in their punishments for cooperating, and the final person, Mike Gingras would end up getting 12 years for supply, trafficking and use of prohibited substances.

Mike Zoda got 24 months knocked off a 48 month sentence for his contribution to that investigation.

Jones has got 30 months off a 48 month sentence, so we can get a bit of an idea of the level of information Jones has provided.

finally from 10.6.1.1

If the Athlete or other Person fails to continue to cooperate and to provide the complete and credible Substantial Assistance upon which a suspension of the period of Ineligibility or other Consequences was based, USADA shall reinstate the original period of Ineligibility and other Consequences.

So If Jones fails to cooperate, or fails to provide the full substantial assistance, then USADA can slap him back with all or part of the 30 months.



but 100%, if Jons information leads to sanctions we will hear about it. It will be published by USADA.

They always have before.

 

[Dim]

If this is the first time that it's been used in MMA, then it's easy to not set a precedent with the first application. But I expect them to closely follow the precedent they've set in weightlifting or wrestling. I expect that if we've haven't seen 2 or 3 major busts by the end of the year, that USADA is going to feel pressure. But when you're talking about having The Champ dead to rights on 4 years of suspension, the impact should obviously exceed the impact of demonstrating Zero Tolerance and showing that EVEN THE CHAMP isn't above the rules.

But they and UFC knew how the hardcore fans were going to react, and they knew that we make up a tiny percentage of the paying viewers. Just like they know the minimum they can plausibly get by with. The pessimism of my experience makes me think Jon's "assistance" will trend toward the minimally plausible.

time will tell.

I have a feeling this could blow a lot of doors off a lot of gyms.

once one person gets busted, people start dropping each other in the crap to save their skins really quickly. just needs one person to start it.

 

[Dim]

i posted this in the general thread but will repost it here. my piece today explaining the substantial assistance clause, some links to past cases, and my thoughts on it generally

https://mma-today.com/jon-jones-and-his-continuing-duty-of-cooperation

from that, my view as an "anti doping crusader"

If Jones is serious about what information he is giving to USADA, not only already, but ongoing as the arbitration decision requires. If he is serious about making a positive contribution towards clean sport, about being part of making a change in the culture of doping within MMA, then Jones will be welcomed with open arms into the anti-doping community.

If it is a self serving, temporary measure, just to get himself a lighter punishment, or an opportunity to settle old vendettas, then perhaps it is just the same old Jon Jones, and it is only a matter of time until the next proverbial train wreck?

 

[Sheepdog]

i fully understand how usada operates.

ive been studying anti doping for nigh on twenty years.

snitch v whistleblower.. not really, usada's official term will be whistleblower, the only real difference is snitch suggests a certain amount of motivation that is self serving.


in every instance with usada using whistleblowers we have seen over the months and year or so that follows multiple violations or charges brought against multiple individuals. theres no reason to think this is any different.

if Jons information leads nowhere either usada will reinstate the 30 months (all or part) or questions will be asked.

Filthy has already addressed a lot of this, so I won't go in to every detail. You start from the position that every thing USADA does is done with honorable intentions and through a strict and objective application of a code that leaves little room for maneuver - likely as a result of you being embedded in the 'anti-doping' community. I, on the other hand, start from the position that USADA actually operates as it does in real life, run by fallible humans using a code that leaves plenty of room to maneuver.

The fundamental issue is that while Jones will have to snitch on some level - not really a problem for a self-confessed snitch, is it? - USADA has a lot of discretion over what it considers 'substantial' assistance (yes, the 'independent' arbitrator was also presented this evidence, but this is the same person who chopped off even more time than USADA requested for a spurious reason). It also had complete discretion over the value of that assistance in terms of sanction reduction. The question is whether Jones' assistance led to a sanction outcome, or whether the desired sanction outcome led to the assistance.

Let's step back and assume that USADA is acting in complete good faith. Jones is the 2nd biggest star in MMA and a repeat doping offender. If he was snitching on an individual, there's literally only Conor McGregor he could snitch on who would be a bigger 'get'. As Filthy suggested, what bigger deterrent message than wiping out the sport's 2nd biggest star for 4 years? He would need to provide a lot, and I mean A LOT, of assistance to justify such a massive reduction. Even if Jones took down a bunch of fellow Jackson-Wink fighters, it's kind of like Robert Mueller going easy on Trump so Trump would help him take out George Papadopolous and Rick Gates. Maybe USADA and Jones will demonstrate that such a reduction was completely warranted - but I sincerely doubt it.

USADA is only part of the problem though. Fundamentally, 'doping' is inherently subjective and political, and the science is always behind the curve. Guys like Paulo Costa still compete while other guys do years for inadvertently taking completely innocuous substances whose benefits are completely questionable, and guys like Nick Diaz fall victim to even more extreme understandings of drugs in sport (I'm aware that wasn't USADA). Anti-doping should be focused on safety and safety alone - discouraging athletes from taking demonstrably dangerous substances and nothing else.

Also, the 'whistleblower' term is evidence in itself of USADA being political by using doublespeak. 'Informant' or some other term would work fine - but it's blatantly disingenuous to use such a term for a self-serving snitch.

 

[Mad Dog]

I’m down with ditching USADA. It’s been a disaster & can no longer be trusted anyway.

Well said. It's become a joke now.

 

[jason73]

This, the lack of consequences for the McGregor meltdown in New York, and Brock's return should be a good lesson for all in the flaws of capitalism.

The soviets never had a state sponsored doping programme?

 

[kneeblock]

The soviets never had a state sponsored doping programme?

Ask the East German Olympic team.