Tuesday , November 24 2020

Commission of California, USADA butt leads on jurisdiction, Jon Jones case



SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Jon Jones received his mixed license recovery hearing in March. Yet some of the things that were expressed during the National Athletic Commission (CSAC) meeting came to leave Jones and her drug case was almost incredible.

Jones was temporarily licensed by a unanimous vote by the commission and Alexander Gustafsson will be clear fighting for the UFC lightweight title in UFC 232 on December 29 in Las Vegas. Jones, who has proven positively about the prohibited substance Turinabol in relation to UFC 214 in July 2017, made a community service with the Brazilian jiu-jitsu youth group in Anaheim and achieved the fine of $ 205,000 granted to him when his license was abolished CSAC in February.

However, a large part of the Jones hearing focused on USADA, the UFC counter-touch partner. Surprisingly, CSAC's executive, Andy Foster, said that now he did not want USADA to award potential anti-drug offenses in cases where California holds jurisdiction. Foster said he had "concerns" about USADA processes, saying that Jones should not have to deal with CSAC and USADA cases separately.

That is a notable change philosophy to Foster. When its license was canceled in February, CSAC did not specify the length of suspension. Foster said he would defer to USADA in that regard. Jones ended over 15 months in his USADA case, with an arbitrator extending the original US month 18 month suspension by three months.

During the hearing, Foster said he was "wrong" to postpone the state's ability to impose a penalty to an agency with a cash tied to the UFC.

"We give executive discretion, a discretion granted by a state legislature, to a third party drug testing company paid by a promoter," Foster told the MMA Market after the hearing. "Good thing. You told me to say, the UFC has done a great deal of things by cleaning the sport by hiring USADA, by doing these things. But the penalties , in my opinion, they are not always consistent and, for any reason, cause more brackets to the fighter. They must award with the commission and must They are awarded with USADA. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they do not. I say that because the process needs to be stable.

"Jon Jones should not have had to be here twice. I should not have had to go through this USADA process in my opinion. It should have been 15 or 18 months ago in February. thinking he intended to cheat or not, he had him in his system, no-one argues that. She has trouble, and pays an enormous penalty for that substance in his system. We have talked about him [Jones’ UFC 214 opponent] Daniel Cormier is little in this thing. He must be his justice in this sense. "

Foster, like the criminal justice system, said more fighters are able to hire better attorneys, do more extra tests and demand better defenses than those of their peers. He said he liked the idea of ​​the USADA program and can not talk about other athletic commissions, but he believes that the CSAC should only transfer sanctions to fighters that Failure to test drugs related to fighting in the state.

"Here in California, we have a sole jurisdiction," said Foster. "I just need the results. Collect the urine, send me the results. We'll take it on our licenses."

Jones was faced with a four-year suspension from USADA, a period of time that Mayor believed to be "the abandonment of justice". The CSAC executive is of the opinion that these situations have to make employees who have the right to give their families a food & # 39; board. Foster said he believed that California should be the sole to take that responsibility on those fighters that were licensed there.

"The process affects the ability of the fighter to make a living," said Foster. "There is a lot to that. Obviously, the actions must be a penalty. But the work of this commission and other country-wide commission positions is to protect the public and to safeguard the public interest. And I think it's just beyond the scope of a drug testing company to take that rule and we allowed it. We allowed it to be with her. The commission went with each other. But when I will have to do this again – I'm sure I'm sure I'll have to do it again – we will do it differently.

"My concern is always about what is right for the public and what is right for these fighters and how should they be treated? These are independent contractors, I do not think we can lose at that point, these are independent contractors, and they are licensed to make a living, now they are with a promotional company, UFC. But I & Think when you start talking about canceling that right to make a living, you need to be sure – 100 percent are sure – and get all your facts consecutive. "

US spokesman Adam Woullard told Might Fighting that Foster has not expressed these feelings to the agency. And USADA does not feel like it is present in the way of criticizing a commission.

"We've never heard this from Andy during the three and a half years we have run our global anti-drug program for the UFC, and we are interested to continue with those comments," he wrote. Woullad in an email. "Our program that proves UFC fighters worldwide does not have any impact on what the state commission program is doing and have never tried to replace their jurisdiction. They have always been able to judge cases such as they are satisfied and we have not interfered with their decisions. We look forward to continuing to work with Andy and the CSAC. "

In addition to these jurisdictional issues, Foster said he did not agree with where he was USADA who stopped the Jones attack from four to 18 months. In the sanction announcement, USADA wrote that Jones provided "substantial support," provision in the UFC anti-drug policy that he has to do with a fighter helps USADA or another anti-touch organization with "discovering or presenting Anti-Bullying Crime "by someone else or something else that" can lead to a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or committing a criminal offense or breach of professional rules. "

"That's a nonsense for me," said Foster. "You're gonna tattle on someone and get you [suspension] less? That does not stop my way of thinking. I deal with Mr. Jones or I deal with Fighter X or Fighter B. I do not reduce their penalty if they tell me that someone else is foul. I do not want to speak exactly about it [USADA], but part of the logic was part of an effective anti-drug program. I do not know about anti-drug programs other than the drug tests that we publish here in CSAC. … Someone wrote, it's called the snitch rule. Someone wrote that I do not know about that. "

Woullard said that Foster had shortened his lack of "substantial help" in a telephone call with USADA officers Monday. USADA maintains that such a rule is a "key element" of what the agency exists – athletics cleansing and even creating a playground for athletes. Woullard added that Foster and CSAC could have punished Jones further in this case, but he chose to honor USADA and adjudicator's awards.

"Andy came to us for the first time yesterday, and we spoke through it," Woullard wrote. "Significant support has been a key element in the anti-drug fight since the original WADA Code came into force in 2003 and in the UFC rules since the program was introduced. For example, the whistleblowers and came into Russia open to a drug and country program. However, given that CSAC has jurisdiction in this case, they may have chosen not to follow the discount and reach a different conclusion. We are happy that they , because here's the right decision in this case. "


Source link