USADA says Jones tested clean the night he fought Gus

Discussion in 'Cageside - MMA Discussion' started by MovinOn, Jan 10, 2019.

  1. Darqnezz

    Darqnezz Merkin' fools since pre-school

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages:
    4,614
    Ratings:
    +7,806
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  2. Andrewsimar Palhardass

    Andrewsimar Palhardass My balls was hot

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,078
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    Haha and just to clarify, I am not saying you are one of the potential house burners. We have just had some skirmishes.

    When dealing with a situation that would require lawyers, you have to look at it in that context, or else you are going to expect people to adjudicate based on gut feelings and emotion, which I promise you don't want to be part of the process.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Outlaw Shit

    Outlaw Shit No Comment
    First 100

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    29,406
    Ratings:
    +36,065

    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLLuk-jfDN8
     
  4. Dim

    Dim Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +322
    it means you are liable for whatever prohibited substances are found in your blood. Strict liability really gets overemphasised, because it is largely offset by "degree of fault" clause.


    Totally disagree. USADA are no different to any other disciplinary body or board that takes legal action. They look at the case, and they evaluate if they will win. If the chances are that they would not win, or that they don't believe they have the evidence to prove recent ingestion, then they wont proceed. Its simple economics (as well as taking on board fairness towards the athlete)

    USADA know they would lose the case, but, they also have to be certain in their own minds that the athlete has committed an ADRV or they will not move forward.

    in this instance, they were neither certain in their own minds that the athlete had committed an adrv, now certain they would actually win
     
    #105 Dim, Jan 14, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2019
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Haulport

    Haulport Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
    First 100

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +3,734
    @Dim@Dim Question for ya: Why does USADA have to prove "new ingestion"? Why is it not simply, "You have banned substances in your system. You are not allowed to have them there. If it is from something old... well then you REALLY fucked up taking that particular shit."

    When I worked briefly for Coca-Cola a million years ago in their compliance office for their drivers if someone popped that was it. You're gone. New, old, whatever. Same thing with a company like Hilti. If you get caught driving with ANY amount of alcohol in your system you are fired - immediately. Even if it is below the legal limit and no laws have been broken. Company car, your car, doesn't matter.
     
  6. Dim

    Dim Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +322
    honestly, the situation with Gus stinks.

    Dana and Jeff literally sat him down, on camera, and said ALL HIS TESTS HAVE BEEN CLEAN EXCEPT THIS ONE AND ITS SUCH A TINY TINY AMOUNT THAT THE EXPERTS ALL SAY ITS FROM 2017

    they flat out fucking lied to Gus, on camera, to get him to take the fight, then posted it on youtube.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. Dat Pre-HollyHolm Ronda $

    Dat Pre-HollyHolm Ronda $ Posting Machine

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    6,848
    Ratings:
    +9,877
    The issue is you and I are arguing logical reasoning and morality

    We will never be able to pin down lawyer speak and technical loopholes

    That's why they are called technicalities and loopholes.

    The logical conclusion and morality here is that Jon is being allowed privilege over other
    fighters and USADA and the UFC have failed to protect clean fighters against someone with
    steroids in their body

    Through technicalities and lawyer speak nothing will be done about it
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Dat Pre-HollyHolm Ronda $

    Dat Pre-HollyHolm Ronda $ Posting Machine

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    6,848
    Ratings:
    +9,877
    Thats what really chaps my hide. We can all concede that USADA/UFC does
    not have sufficient evidence to punish Jones

    They have no excuse whatsoever for allowing Gus to fight while being lied to
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Haulport

    Haulport Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
    First 100

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +3,734
    And then he got his ass beat...
     
  10. Haulport

    Haulport Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
    First 100

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +3,734
    He should sue them. Probably has a better case than Hunt since all the results ended up public...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Dim

    Dim Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +322
    they dont "have" to prove it as far as anti doping regulations go. Theres nothing in the ADP or Wada guidelines regarding second time offences from prior ingestion.

    but they do have to be confident in their own heads that a (new) genuine anti doping rule violation has occurred or they would be failing their code of conduct in regards fairness to the athletes. They cannot charge an athlete with an ADRV if they are not confident an ADRV has been committed.

    So when I say things like they have to prove, or be certain it was a fresh ingestion, im talking as far as their own conduct in regards having to be sure an ADRV is fair before charging the athlete.

    And tribunal result and chances of actually winning will certainly be a factor. If you are a cop and you have a case but the evidence is flimsy as fuck, the DA will tell you to drop it and not let it go to court. USADA legal are no different.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Dim

    Dim Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +322
    sue as far as Jones goes, probably not because i think most accept that the Turinabol didnt have any impact on the in bout performance.

    But should he be pissed at JN and DW for being flat our liars, certainly.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Dat Pre-HollyHolm Ronda $

    Dat Pre-HollyHolm Ronda $ Posting Machine

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    6,848
    Ratings:
    +9,877
    Yep its literally on camera.
     
  14. Outlaw Shit

    Outlaw Shit No Comment
    First 100

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    29,406
    Ratings:
    +36,065
    and used to promote or at the least legitimize Jon as a clean fighter...for profit
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Dim

    Dim Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +322
    I would also argue that despite what USADA may say on their website, strict liability in the real world, when it comes to hearings is a myth.

    weve seen repeatedly arbitration panels weighing lack of fault on the part of the athlete much more heavily. "strict liability" only really applies to one tiny element, the "substance detected".. it means its there, and you are responsible for it being there.

    but how "responsible" is a very very long piece of string and arbitration panels regularly find the athlete responsibility to be at the shortest end of that piece of string.

    Even in the UFC program theres been what, 8-10 no fault findings or warnings.. demonstrates that SL isnt nearly as strict as they would have you believe.



    the fact that there even exists a "without fault or negligence" provision demonstrates that strict liability is not enforced in all cases.
     
  16. Haulport

    Haulport Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
    First 100

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +3,734
    Yeah, but a micro-dosing case could be made by Gus' team and the fact that somehow he has trace amounts 18 months afterwards, consistently is suspicious. The fact that, as you said, USADA doesn't know if it was new or old would help Gus in creating a micro-dosing/cocktail scenario indicating that Jones was benefiting from it, etc. In the end, the UFC lied to him about something that COULD have been new and beneficial to Jones to get him to fight and he got beat. That is bad faith all over the place...
     
  17. Haulport

    Haulport Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
    First 100

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    2,548
    Ratings:
    +3,734
    I understand when it comes to a prosecutorial point of view where the state would need "beyond a shadow of a doubt" level evidence but does USADA really need that? Especially since you said they don't have to prove new ingestion. Being fair to Jones is then being unfair to Gus (and potentially future opponents). If new ingestion isn't a means test for an ADRV and the athlete took something that is screwing up his system so badly that it keeps floating around in there for years and years then it's a pretty open and shut case: you have a banned substance in your system. You are suspended.
     
  18. Andrewsimar Palhardass

    Andrewsimar Palhardass My balls was hot

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,078
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    They can't prove microdosing, so no, that would not work as an accusation.

    The word of the day is proof. As you know, that is much different than people being sure of something. In a courtroom, things must be proven, not simply mutually understood and agreed upon. They could have a case regarding deceiving Gus, but as Dim said the counter argument would be the lack of performance enhancing properties above and beyond what he had already previously been punished for.
     
    #119 Andrewsimar Palhardass, Jan 14, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2019
  19. Andrewsimar Palhardass

    Andrewsimar Palhardass My balls was hot

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,078
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    This is not a decision which will or should be exclusively made on reasoning and morality, so any argument based solely on those things is not rooted in reality.

    Take OJ Simpson, for example. OJ was clearly guilty based on the evidence, but his defense team was able to paint a story of doubt by showcasing all of the real missteps that the LAPD took in the case. Since the LAPD fucked up so badly, they were able to show that there is a smidgeon of room for doubt, thus resulting in a not guilty verdict. I personally am sure that OJ killed Nicole, but I wouldn't move to change the system up so that we can say "come on we all know he did it" in order to get the verdict changed.

    The best system is not a perfect system. There is no perfect system. Things like this are going to happen, unfortunately.
     
    #120 Andrewsimar Palhardass, Jan 14, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2019
  20. Andrewsimar Palhardass

    Andrewsimar Palhardass My balls was hot

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,078
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    They have no power given to them to stop a fight when they aren't punishing a fighter, so unfortunately yeah I would say USADA has an excuse.
     
  21. Andrewsimar Palhardass

    Andrewsimar Palhardass My balls was hot

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,078
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    You have to look at this in a broader way than simply Jon Jones' situation. If this is an anomaly that takes place, and a different fighter had accidentally ingested this substance that won't leave their body, should they be indefinitely (or permanently) suspended? That doesn't sound particularly fair in itself.

    Jon was punished for this substance previously. If we applied this to alcohol or drugs at Coca Cola, if you test positive for cocaine, you are gone. You are punished for the initial test of the substance. For your example to compare to this one, Coca Cola would have to have an initial suspension (because the example doesn't work if the worker is permanently fired for the first test), or the UFC would have to have a one-strike-and-you-are-banned-regardless-of-mitigating-circumstances policy. If neither of those are the case, or we don't change our examples to where one of them is the case, then the examples are useless.
     
  22. Outlaw Shit

    Outlaw Shit No Comment
    First 100

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    29,406
    Ratings:
    +36,065
  23. Andrewsimar Palhardass

    Andrewsimar Palhardass My balls was hot

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,078
    Ratings:
    +7,145
    enjoy
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  24. lordofthepies

    lordofthepies Posting Machine

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,971
    Ratings:
    +7,338
    I am not disagreeing with your argument that USADA would have faced significant challenges in pursuing Jones again. I never have.

    But it's simply getting it backwards to state that USADA would have to 'prove it's a new ingestion'. Firstly, we are talking about providing evidence to a 'comfortable satisfaction' that a 2nd ingestion had occurred, not 'proving' it. Secondly they would only have to do this in reponse to the defence challenging the adverse result. If Jones went to arbitration, crossed his arms and said 'nuh, I didn't do it again - prove I did it' and offered no reason to challenge the 2nd test result, then he would lose.

    And that's not a semantic distinction, because this case has already blown the doors off the totally inadequate science WADA has been relying on and if it were incumbent on it to 'prove' when a lot of substances were ingested, then the WADA code would be worth less than toilet paper.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted