Again, you're just repeating what is essentially an old boxing cliche.I'm accepting things for the way they are.
Generally speaking, if a challenger is going to take down a champion via a judges decision it has to be with a dominant performance.
All things being equal, I think Reyes won. But I sort of knew Jones was going to get the nod because he was the existing champ. I'm not saying that's right - just stating that's the way it typically is.
If Reyes fights the last 3 rounds like he did in the first 2, he's your new champ. But due to stamina or idiotic advice from his corner - he took his foot off the gas.
He fought well though. I don't want to take that away from him.
Let's look at the most controversial decisions in title fights, not including Jones fights, vacant belt fights (Bas-Randleman) or title unification fights (Rampage-Hendo).
BJ-Edgar 1 - challenger wins
Edgar-Maynard 1 - draw
Edgar-Bendo 1 - challenger wins
Bendo-Edgar 2 - champion wins
Shogun-Machida - champion wins
Griffin-Rampage - challenger wins
Hendricks-GSP - champion wins
Bisping-Hendo 2 - champion wins
Mighty Mouse-Cejudo 2 - challenger wins
I'm missing a few but already you can see that there's just no justification for saying the champion gets the benefit of the doubt from judges. It seems to be a non-factor.