USADA says Jones tested clean the night he fought Gus

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

Saloth Sar

Let's take a little trip to the countryside
Dec 1, 2015
5,728
9,812
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.
I mostly agree with this. I am referring to the burden that it places on the athlete, not suggesting that there isn't plenty of wiggle room.
 

Saloth Sar

Let's take a little trip to the countryside
Dec 1, 2015
5,728
9,812
That's not their job. The test results were eventually all released.

What do you suggest they do? They have a very specific job. They test the fighters for the UFC and report their findings accordingly. They did that. They didn't release the statements that the UFC released, and they didn't tell Dana what to say.
The statement USADA put out was blatantly misleading bordering on outright lying.

What you're saying is that it isn't USADA's job to release a statement informing Jones' opponent of multiple failed tests but it is its job to release an ass covering, misleading statement when faced with one failed test becoming public that still omits to mention that it was in fact multiple tests?

That seems like an oddly convenient and fluid interpretation of what USADA's 'job' is.
 

Saloth Sar

Let's take a little trip to the countryside
Dec 1, 2015
5,728
9,812
I think Dim has done a great job through all of this. He seems to be looking at things without bias and just giving facts and his legitimate takes on them.

FWIW he thinks a lot of this is very fishy as well.
I saw this post pop up later in the threa and wanted to point out that it's flat out incorrect to say Dim is without bias. He has a pro-USADA bias as strong as my anti-USADA bias.
 

Andrewsimar Palhardass

Women, dinosaurs, and the violence of the octagon.
Jan 8, 2016
5,220
6,795
The statement USADA put out was blatantly misleading bordering on outright lying.

What you're saying is that it isn't USADA's job to release a statement informing Jones' opponent of multiple failed tests but it is its job to release an ass covering, misleading statement when faced with one failed test becoming public that still omits to mention that it was in fact multiple tests?

That seems like an oddly convenient and fluid interpretation of what USADA's 'job' is.
As I said, I don't know their full guidelines, so I see my observations in this as in no way definitive.

On the surface, I would agree with you. This is what I am trying to figure out, though- the rules recently changed to where potential violations are no longer being made public until the process has played out. In this particular case, the card was being moved to another city and the UFC had to explain why, so even though the process hadn't played out, and Jon hadn't been convicted of new use, they had to release at least some of the information. This could be the reason that only one was released, as the rest were not acted upon because they weren't seen as violations.

I wish they would have been completely transparent regarding the other tests, and the timing of the policy change that made them not release results until the process has played out is at LEAST very convenient for Jon. I can't argue those, but I think the idea that this is a cover up with USADA in cahoots isn't fair given the current evidence.

Dana's a scumbag and the UFC didn't seem to act in good faith, but I don't think any of us know enough about USADA's side of things to assume that they were complicit in a cover up.
 

Andrewsimar Palhardass

Women, dinosaurs, and the violence of the octagon.
Jan 8, 2016
5,220
6,795
I saw this post pop up later in the threa and wanted to point out that it's flat out incorrect to say Dim is without bias. He has a pro-USADA bias as strong as my anti-USADA bias.
I disagree. As you know, having bias is completely different from having an opinion. Having bias causes you to overlook and write off facts and data which counter your preconceived opinions, which I don't think Dim @Dim has done at all. The fact is, when it comes to a situation like this where litigation would be involved, having any bias whatsoever when walking in can compromise your entire thought process. It's useless at that point.
 
Nov 21, 2015
6,848
9,463
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.
I didn't say stop. I said refusal to inform

If they aren't willing to protect and look out for clean fighters
fighting dirty fighters then its a pointless organisation

Gus had every right to know he was A being lied to
and B Jon had failed multiple tests

The only one USADA protected here was the dirty fighter

Thats a broken system
 
Nov 21, 2015
6,848
9,463
The statement USADA put out was blatantly misleading bordering on outright lying.

What you're saying is that it isn't USADA's job to release a statement informing Jones' opponent of multiple failed tests but it is its job to release an ass covering, misleading statement when faced with one failed test becoming public that still omits to mention that it was in fact multiple tests?

That seems like an oddly convenient and fluid interpretation of what USADA's 'job' is.

Exactly. They had no problem whatsoever coming out to cover the dirty fighters ass
but all of a sudden when they need to help the clean fighter they have no responsibility?

Then whats the fucking point of their existence if not to protect clean fighters?
 

Saloth Sar

Let's take a little trip to the countryside
Dec 1, 2015
5,728
9,812
As I said, I don't know their full guidelines, so I see my observations in this as in no way definitive.

On the surface, I would agree with you. This is what I am trying to figure out, though- the rules recently changed to where potential violations are no longer being made public until the process has played out. In this particular case, the card was being moved to another city and the UFC had to explain why, so even though the process hadn't played out, and Jon hadn't been convicted of new use, they had to release at least some of the information. This could be the reason that only one was released, as the rest were not acted upon because they weren't seen as violations.

I wish they would have been completely transparent regarding the other tests, and the timing of the policy change that made them not release results until the process has played out is at LEAST very convenient for Jon. I can't argue those, but I think the idea that this is a cover up with USADA in cahoots isn't fair given the current evidence.

Dana's a scumbag and the UFC didn't seem to act in good faith, but I don't think any of us know enough about USADA's side of things to assume that they were complicit in a cover up.
But you are acting as if this occurred in isolation and not as part of a pattern of behavior where USADA has been involved in several controversial decisions surrounding 2 of the UFC's 3 biggest PPV draws.

A computer glitch that happens only to Brock Lesnar? That's pretty fucking coincidental. And the totality of circumstances surrounding both Jones failed circumstances? All very convenient.

We aren't litigating here, and every individual instance does have a plausible explanation. So all we can offer is an opinion, and the opinion that the circumstances DON'T point to preferential treatment for certain stars by USADA is frankly far fetched.
 

Saloth Sar

Let's take a little trip to the countryside
Dec 1, 2015
5,728
9,812
I didn't say stop. I said refusal to inform

If they aren't willing to protect and look out for clean fighters
fighting dirty fighters then its a pointless organisation

Gus had every right to know he was A being lied to
and B Jon had failed multiple tests

The only one USADA protected here was the dirty fighter

Thats a broken system
This. USADA's mission statement is to 'protect the rights of athletes'. Obviously they failed Gus in this regard, regardless of whether or not they failed him to the extent that they are legally at fault.
 

Haulport

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
2,820
3,878
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.
As far as I am concerned, if u are stupid enough to put your entire career in jeopardy by taking dick pills or some designer steriod or cocktail or tainted supplement that is going to PERMANENTLY fuck you up (in a very conveniet way btw) so that you aretesting positive nearly TWO YEARS after u stop taking it then fuck you. You deserve what you get because u r a jackass moron.

: )
 

Haulport

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
2,820
3,878
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.
You don't seem to understand the much more loose nature of CIVIL lawsuits. Proof as u think of it is not really needed and there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

If you can convince a jury with an expert who tells them that it COULD be a sign of microdosing or cocktail then they could side for you.
 

Andrewsimar Palhardass

Women, dinosaurs, and the violence of the octagon.
Jan 8, 2016
5,220
6,795
You don't seem to understand the much more loose nature of CIVIL lawsuits. Proof as u think of it is not really needed and there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

If you can convince a jury with an expert who tells them that it COULD be a sign of microdosing or cocktail then they could side for you.
This is a good point. I would contest that they need more of a "most likely" than a "could" but I do need to consider this.