Machida Burns USADA for Jones Picogram Scam

[dim_]

Actually, it typically will make a difference. Denial and/or fabricating any kind of mitigating circumstances is far more likely to win you a reduced sentence than simply admitting guilt.

Administrations like this are given a lot of discretion, and most of the time would rather strike a deal than pore through and try to disprove every excuse, plausible deniability or mitigation you can dig up.

Machida's mistake was making their job easy.

which is what i said, listing it on his doping control form got him a small reduction.

had he not listed it on his doping control form and later (after testing positive as he did) claimed thats what he took then he likely would have got no reduction.




Machida "declared" the use of it.. that doesnt mean when USADA turned up he was like "hey, ive been taking DHEA".. it means when he was made to sign the paperwork that includes you including any supplements or medication taken, he declared it on the paperwork not realising it was prohibited

 

[dim_]

They can start by dusting off the popular tainted supplements explanation and go from there.

If you don't hand them a confession you realize how difficult properly built lies and excuses are to disprove. They'll likely just want to close out your case without trying.

Well he couldnt claim tainted supplement because the supplement literally had the name of the prohibited substance on the front of the bottle.

 

[neonbelly***]

It's unjust and cruel to ban steroids. I hope Machida is on the gas and gets a few extra paydays for it.

 

[Godzilla3232]

which is what i said, listing it on his doping control form got him a small reduction.

had he not listed it on his doping control form and later (after testing positive as he did) claimed thats what he took then he likely would have got no reduction.

You said that not confessing wouldn't make a difference, because he still tested positive.

That's not true, though. Confessing outright is denying yourself the opportunity to push for some kind of discretionary reduction, by making full prosecution inconvenient for them.

 

[dim_]

You said that not confessing wouldn't make a difference, because he still tested positive.
.

because the person who said he should not have confessed was implying that if he hadnt confessed he would have got away with it.

thats why his "confession" made no difference because he tested positive.

not because his "confession" made no difference to the final penalty because as I explained it did have an impact.

 

[Godzilla3232]

Well he couldnt claim tainted supplement because the supplement literally had the name of the prohibited substance on the front of the bottle.

Which is why he shouldn't have confessed and presented them with the offending supplement.

Claim ignorance and present the possibility of a tainted supplement after the fact. Then send the administration a complete mess of pseudo-scientific nonsense involving every supplement you've ever taken, and force them to read through all of it.

If they go through the effort to fully debunk that theory then throw something else at them. They'll bend eventually.

 

[Godzilla3232]

because the person who said he should not have confessed was implying that if he hadnt confessed he would have got away with it.

thats why his "confession" made no difference because he tested positive.

not because his "confession" made no difference to the final penalty because as I explained it did have an impact.

I didn't say he'd get away with it; I said a reduced sentence would be far more likely, since they have the discretion to do that and often will if the proceeding is inconvenient.

Making it easy for them to prove your complete and unmitigated guilt just makes it more likely that you'll receive a more severe punishment.

 

[Wicked_1]

Even if u are clean there are cases of contamination etc so I imagine it would be stressful. I dont think he was clean, but still he has a point. If usada let's Jones off, but stands firm on others with the same results like they did. .what does that tell us? It tells us that certain people are above the rules and the purpose od usada being to even the playing field Is bullshit #1

 

[kflo]

USADA actually IS just a drug testing company and has no authority to grand exemptions. That later quote by Bennett was put out there later to just cover his own ass. The whole fiasco makes the NSAC seem impotent since they didn't take action against Mayweather, so flip-flopping was the easiest option. That doesn't change the fact that what Floyd did was absolutely against the rules that only the NSAC could put forth. There's a reason why IV therapy could only be administered at a hospital and needed to be cleared by a TUE - to prevent people like Floyd from cheating.

https://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-ps-sn-usada-floyd-mayweather-iv-20150910-story.html

[Bennett said unless the IV was administered at a hospital, it needs to be cleared by filing a therapeutic-use exemption, or TUE, and supporting documents through the Nevada commission and authorized by the commission's medical expert.

"He cannot have it done at his house and [USADA] can't authorize it.... I have specifically articulated and memorialized to USADA that [NSAC] is the sole authority that can authorize a therapeutic-use exemption for a fighter in the state of Nevada," Bennett said. "USADA never told us prior to the IV that they had their own TUE, and they never kept us informed about it being administered.

"If they think they can do what they want, where and whenever they want in the state of Nevada, they are grossly mistaken."]

they are an anti-doping agency that also grants exemptions, gives suspensions, etc. they are not just a testing company (the tests are actually done by wada labs).

again, they were quibbling about protocol in nevada. they all acknowledge it wasn't against the nsac rules.

 

[kflo]

Even if u are clean there are cases of contamination etc so I imagine it would be stressful. I dont think he was clean, but still he has a point. If usada let's Jones off, but stands firm on others with the same results like they did. .what does that tell us? It tells us that certain people are above the rules and the purpose od usada being to even the playing field Is bullshit #1

they didn't let jones off stand firm with anyone who had the same results. certainly machida doesn't fall in that category.

 

[Wicked_1]

they didn't let jones off stand firm with anyone who had the same results. certainly machida doesn't fall in that category.

There were 2 cases if I recall that were the same. Mir and some other guy. They had same trace amounts and got 2 years on 1st offense. Jones got 15 months on his 2nd or 3rd dirty test. I cant remember the 2nd guys name atm but I do remember they had picogram levels and got the standard suspension which is 2 years.

 

[kflo]

There were 2 cases if I recall that were the same. Mir and some other guy. They had same trace amounts and got 2 years on 1st offense. Jones got 15 months on his 2nd or 3rd dirty test. I cant remember the 2nd guys name atm but I do remember they had picogram levels and got the standard suspension which is 2 years.

jones reduced his sentence by providing "substantial assistance", which is there for all in the rules.

mir popped and got suspended.

i assumed the other guy you're referring to was tom lawlor who didn't pop for m3 metabolites, but did pop and did get suspended.

jones got the lighter sentence only after the assistance (snitching).

 

[Wicked_1]

jones reduced his sentence by providing "substantial assistance", which is there for all in the rules.

mir popped and got suspended.

i assumed the other guy you're referring to was tom lawlor who didn't pop for m3 metabolites, but did pop and did get suspended.

jones got the lighter sentence only after the assistance (snitching).

I agree with the snitching, but Jon had failed test for 3 fights in a row before that. I was under the impression the violations and terms of suspension increased with each failed test. Mir and Lawlor got 2 years on 1st suspension, which is the standard, while Jones got 2 years for his 4th violation that was reduced to 15 months by snitching. At least that's the was i understood it, and i may well be wrong. I do know it was not Jon's first fail. The Russian guy just got lifetime for his 3rd I I think it was?

 

[kflo]

I agree with the snitching, but Jon had failed test for 3 fights in a row before that. I was under the impression the violations and terms of suspension increased with each failed test. Mir and Lawlor got 2 years on 1st suspension, which is the standard, while Jones got 2 years for his 4th violation that was reduced to 15 months by snitching. At least that's the was i understood it, and i may well be wrong. I do know it was not Jon's first fail.

jones has had 2 suspensions. the second was for m3 metabolites and that suspension was reduced 30 months by usada for the snitching.

 

[Spitfire3000]

Machida is happy not to be tested by USADA any longer in his own words.

Not even slightly suspicious...

IIRC he was suspended for 2 years for informing USADA that a supplement he was taking contained DHEA which wasn't banned when he took it. Yeah I can see why he is happy.

 

[kflo]

IIRC he was suspended for 2 years for informing USADA that a supplement he was taking contained DHEA which wasn't banned when he took it. Yeah I can see why he is happy.

it was 18 months, and he flagged in his test, and yes, it was banned.

 

[Spitfire3000]

it was 18 months, and he flagged in his test, and yes, it was banned.

Yeah, and it's fucking DHEA...

 

[kflo]

Yeah, and it's fucking DHEA...

it was a prohibited substance. they don't just say "eh, it's not that bad". if it's a banned substance and you take it, you're going to be in trouble for it.

 

[Spitfire3000]

it was a prohibited substance. they don't just say "eh, it's not that bad". if it's a banned substance and you take it, you're going to be in trouble for it.

It was a very recently prohibited substance when he got flagged/self-confessed/whatever. Defending Jones and USADA while being a stickler over recently banned DHEA. Jump in an acid vat.

 

[kflo]

It was a very recently prohibited substance when he got flagged/self-confessed/whatever. Defending Jones and USADA while being a stickler over recently banned DHEA. Jump in an acid vat.

it wasn't recently banned. it was on the prohibited substances list from the moment machida was under usada. it was on the banned substances list, he took it, popped for it, and was suspended for it. it was pretty simple and straight forward. it sucks but it was indeed a violation and again, you can't say it's prohibited but its really not that bad. that's not how it works.

#frankie