Do Athletic Commissions have Limited Authority?

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sourpuss
Date: November 12, 2010 at 03:04 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

If, during pre-fight preparation and screening, an Athletic Commission learned or even suspected that a fighter had Performance Enhancing Drugs in his system, does their authority stop short of them disallowing the fighter to compete?
Obviously I'm referring to Sonnens' situation.
One of the very few facts we have from either side is that Sonnen openly admitted he believed a banned substance would show up in his sample,
prior
to the fight. This means that the CASC was fully aware that a fighter was in violation of some banned substance by carrying it in his body right up until fight time, yet allowed him to compete. This sounds highly irresponsible to me.
There are only three explanations I can think of and none of them really make sense:
1. They don't carry the authority to block a fighter from competition even if the fighter admits to having a banned substance in his body.
2. They, at the time, didn't consider it to be an issue (but later changed their mind).
3. They thought Sonnen was trash-talking himself.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Brick
Date: November 12, 2010 at 03:11 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

Good question; I'm thinking they probably need more than Sonnen saying "my test might/probably/will show XYZ drug," they'd rather have an actual positive test before taking action. Because if they prevent the fight in advance, and his test comes back clean after all, that's a bit of a problem. Maybe they figure let them fight, and if he does piss hot, there are remedies after the fact for that. In this case, it just happened to work out because Sonnen lost.
But to your point, I don't know if it is an issue of lack of authority or just a judgement call that caused them to let the fight go on.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sourpuss
Date: November 12, 2010 at 03:21 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

Brick said:
Good question; I'm thinking they probably need more than Sonnen saying "my test might/probably/will show XYZ drug," they'd rather have an actual positive test before taking action. Because if they prevent the fight in advance, and his test comes back clean after all, that's a bit of a problem. Maybe they figure let them fight, and if he does piss hot, there are remedies after the fact for that. In this case, it just happened to work out because Sonnen lost.
But to your point, I don't know if it is an issue of lack of authority or just a judgement call that caused them to let the fight go on.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know what you're saying. It's all really mysterious almost.
It just struck me as odd after our discussion in another thread, that a procedure they take very seriously and that they test for at Oyympic level, would fall by the wayside until after the competition.
If the whole thing has been put in place to protect fighters from facing someone under the influence of a banned substance (and I would also refer to a narcotic), what use is it to let the fighter get possibly seriously hurt by letting the fight go on?
I can't see such an elaborate process being left to a "judgment call". It just does not add up.
There's still something very fishy about this whole process and if you ask me Sonnen isn't the only one with some explaining to do!
And not to be a smartazz or anything, but hypothetically, if someone looks a detective in the eye and confesses to mass murder, you don't let him walk around the neighborhood until you find all the bodies.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Noodles4-LJ4
Date: November 12, 2010 at 03:41 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

I don't know if they do or don't but what I do know is, the Commission just can't "suspected" a fighter who may be using that would be wrong and stereotyping. The fighter has to piss hot before the Commission say they can't fight, the right check and balances have to take place first.
I do believe the UFC has some say regardless what people say or think, it would be shitty if the main-card fight didn't happen after all that hype and build. So why not just pop him after and get to say "look we test for steroids/PED's" a win for everyone in involved.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sourpuss
Date: November 12, 2010 at 03:52 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

Noodles4-LJ4 said:
I don't know if they do or don't but what I do know is, the Commission just can't "suspected" a fighter who may be using that would be wrong and stereotyping. The fighter has to piss hot before the Commission say they can't fight, the right check and balances have to take place first.
I do believe the UFC has some say regardless what people say or think, it would be s***ty if the main-card fight didn't happen after all that hype and build. So why not just pop him after and get to say "look we test for steroids/PED's" a win for everyone in involved.
Click to expand...
So the procedure isn't in place for fighter safety and to ensure a fair fight?
I mean, if it was in place for fighter safety and to ensure a fair and equal fight, it wouldn't really make sense to let the fight go on if you even suspected "cheating" would it?
I guess my question is....what is the purpose of drug testing?
Is it to protect fighters or to protect records?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Brick
Date: November 12, 2010 at 05:08 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

sourpuss said:
Noodles4-LJ4 said:
I don't know if they do or don't but what I do know is, the Commission just can't "suspected" a fighter who may be using that would be wrong and stereotyping. The fighter has to piss hot before the Commission say they can't fight, the right check and balances have to take place first.
I do believe the UFC has some say regardless what people say or think, it would be s***ty if the main-card fight didn't happen after all that hype and build. So why not just pop him after and get to say "look we test for steroids/PED's" a win for everyone in involved.
Click to expand...
So the procedure isn't in place for fighter safety and to ensure a fair fight?
I mean, if it was in place for fighter safety and to ensure a fair and equal fight, it wouldn't really make sense to let the fight go on if you even suspected "cheating" would it?
Click to expand...
Of course it would make sense to let a fight go on if you suspect cheating; stopping a fight in advance because of a mere suspicion would be chaos. They wait until they get proof to act, they eventually got proof, and they acted.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Puxin
Date: November 12, 2010 at 05:39 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

The procedures in place require the commission to have laboratory confirmation before they can suspend a fighter. That means a fighter can say he took PEDs before the fight, but the commission needs proof before they do anything about it.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: jvillain
Date: November 12, 2010 at 05:59 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

I think it depends on exactly what Chael declared. If he said "I just found out that a guy taking the same supplement as me pissed hot but I'm not sure if it was that supplement or some thing else. There is a chance I could piss hot." Then they would probably let it go on. But if on the other hand he said some thing like "I broke the needle off in my *** just before the fight and the pointy part is still in there. Can you help me get it out?" Then the actions will probably be a little more severe.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sourpuss
Date: November 12, 2010 at 07:15 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

jvillain said:
I think it depends on exactly what Chael declared. If he said "I just found out that a guy taking the same supplement as me pissed hot but I'm not sure if it was that supplement or some thing else. There is a chance I could piss hot." Then they would probably let it go on. But if on the other hand he said some thing like "I broke the needle off in my *** just before the fight and the pointy part is still in there. Can you help me get it out?" Then the actions will probably be a little more severe.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, it was the latter more or less. If his pre-fight confession wasn't incriminating, I doubt it would have been worth the reporting Commissioner to bring in up publicly in an interview.
Anyone saying waiting until after the fight to take action on an admission of guilt has a misunderstanding of how things normally flow. If a cop pulled you over and you told him you are over the legal limit to drive, he'd tell you to follow him downtown to take a breath test, is what you're saying.
You can't have a mechanism in place, to prevent unfair and unsafe competition, enforce it to the highest penalty with fines and suspensions, to prevent unfair and unsafe competition, yet allow a fight to happen.
You get picked up for speeding or killing your neighbor and ADMIT to it....guess what....there is NO TRIAL and you certainly don't get to drive or murder one last time before you pay your sentence.
It seems the mechanism is there more to protect a fighter's record than it is to protect the well being of the offender's opponent.
I wonder if that's the official stance of the CSAC in regards to their testing policy.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sourpuss
Date: November 12, 2010 at 07:18 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

Brick said:
Of course it would make sense to let a fight go on if you suspect cheating
; stopping a fight in advance because of a mere suspicion would be chaos. They wait until they get proof to act, they eventually got proof, and they acted.
Click to expand...
Try reading that back to yourself lol.
The fighter tells the commissioner he has brass knuckles in his glove....that goes after the fight too?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Bob002
Date: November 12, 2010 at 07:48 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

sourpuss said:
Brick said:
Of course it would make sense to let a fight go on if you suspect cheating
; stopping a fight in advance because of a mere suspicion would be chaos. They wait until they get proof to act, they eventually got proof, and they acted.
Click to expand...
Try reading that back to yourself lol.
The fighter tells the commissioner he has brass knuckles in his glove....that goes after the fight too?
Click to expand...
The difference is that brass knuckles in a glove is something that is easy and immediately verifiable. Testing for PEDs is not.
1. Unless they run their own lab, they have to wait for it to be tested.
2. I would imagine the tests look for specific things. There may be a broad test that is only need once, or there may be several needed (which would slow down the process even more).
3. Even if he said directly "I'm going to piss hot because I took XYZ PED", they have to test him first. It could be a load of crap, but they still have to be sure.
If they stop the fight (and lose the potential $$$$) s--- is going to hit the fan, especially if he comes up clean (by some miracle).

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sourpuss
Date: November 12, 2010 at 07:58 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

Bob002 said:
sourpuss said:
Brick said:
Of course it would make sense to let a fight go on if you suspect cheating
; stopping a fight in advance because of a mere suspicion would be chaos. They wait until they get proof to act, they eventually got proof, and they acted.
Click to expand...
Try reading that back to yourself lol.
The fighter tells the commissioner he has brass knuckles in his glove....that goes after the fight too?
Click to expand...
The difference is that brass knuckles in a glove is something that is easy and immediately verifiable. Testing for PEDs is not.
1. Unless they run their own lab, they have to wait for it to be tested.
2. I would imagine the tests look for specific things. There may be a broad test that is only need once, or there may be several needed (which would slow down the process even more).
3. Even if he said directly "I'm going to piss hot because I took XYZ PED", they have to test him first. It could be a load of crap, but they still have to be sure.
If they stop the fight (and lose the potential $$$$) s**t is going to hit the fan, especially if he comes up clean (by some miracle).
Click to expand...
i agree with you that testing immediately is not possible, but stop there.
I've read rule 303
George Dodd also explained Rule 303c that prevented them from stopping Sonnen from fighting.
“A positive test which has been confirmed by a laboratory utilized by the commission … shall be used as conclusive evidence of a violation of the subsection,” Dodd said. “We have to have confirmation from a labratory before we can say ‘yay’ or ‘nay.’
“Remember, we don’t know what levels or anything else he was going to be tested for when the results came back. What happens if they were at normal levels? If his levels were normal, and you actually didn’t have a reason why, then we actually stopped somebody from earning a living.
Health and safety is our No. 1 priority but you have to weigh everything
. And our rules do say you have to have confirmation from a laboratory.
“It was just a weird situation. But you follow what your rules and guidelines tell you to do, and that’s what they told us to do.”
Click to expand...
And i say the rule is BS and so is the highlighted line
I got my answer. The Commissions' stance is a load of crap which in my eyes taints their reputation and decisions even further.
I can't wait to see what unfolds come December. Sonnen may challenge this rule himself.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Brick
Date: November 12, 2010 at 10:56 PM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

sourpuss said:
Brick said:
Of course it would make sense to let a fight go on if you suspect cheating
; stopping a fight in advance because of a mere suspicion would be chaos. They wait until they get proof to act, they eventually got proof, and they acted.
Click to expand...
Try reading that back to yourself lol.
The fighter tells the commissioner he has brass knuckles in his glove....that goes after the fight too?
Click to expand...
Now you are just being silly, and you know it. You have lost. You have gone from Sonnen didn't do drugs, to he didn't admit it, to oh s--- he did admit it but it proves nothing...to it is the CSAC fault because they didn't stop the fight even though Sonnen told them he was on drugs...

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: whatdupdoh
Date: November 13, 2010 at 01:24 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

yeah dude quit being a sourpuss

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Bob002
Date: November 13, 2010 at 01:39 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

sourpuss said:
Bob002 said:
The difference is that brass knuckles in a glove is something that is easy and immediately verifiable. Testing for PEDs is not.
1. Unless they run their own lab, they have to wait for it to be tested.
2. I would imagine the tests look for specific things. There may be a broad test that is only need once, or there may be several needed (which would slow down the process even more).
3. Even if he said directly "I'm going to piss hot because I took XYZ PED", they have to test him first. It could be a load of crap, but they still have to be sure.
If they stop the fight (and lose the potential $$$$) s**t is going to hit the fan, especially if he comes up clean (by some miracle).
Click to expand...
i agree with you that testing immediately is not possible, but stop there.
I've read rule 303
George Dodd also explained Rule 303c that prevented them from stopping Sonnen from fighting.
“A positive test which has been confirmed by a laboratory utilized by the commission … shall be used as conclusive evidence of a violation of the subsection,” Dodd said. “We have to have confirmation from a labratory before we can say ‘yay’ or ‘nay.’
“Remember, we don’t know what levels or anything else he was going to be tested for when the results came back. What happens if they were at normal levels? If his levels were normal, and you actually didn’t have a reason why, then we actually stopped somebody from earning a living.
Health and safety is our No. 1 priority but you have to weigh everything
. And our rules do say you have to have confirmation from a laboratory.
“It was just a weird situation. But you follow what your rules and guidelines tell you to do, and that’s what they told us to do.”
Click to expand...
And i say the rule is BS and so is the highlighted line
I got my answer. The Commissions' stance is a load of crap which in my eyes taints their reputation and decisions even further.
I can't wait to see what unfolds come December. Sonnen may challenge this rule himself.
Click to expand...
I hadn't read the rule; I was hazarding a guess. But it pretty much backs me up, as far as I can tell.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sourpuss
Date: November 13, 2010 at 11:01 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

Brick said:
sourpuss said:
Brick said:
Of course it would make sense to let a fight go on if you suspect cheating
; stopping a fight in advance because of a mere suspicion would be chaos. They wait until they get proof to act, they eventually got proof, and they acted.
Click to expand...
Try reading that back to yourself lol.
The fighter tells the commissioner he has brass knuckles in his glove....that goes after the fight too?
Click to expand...
Now you are just being silly, and you know it. You have lost. You have gone from Sonnen didn't do drugs, to he didn't admit it, to oh s**t he did admit it but it proves nothing...to it is the CSAC fault because they didn't stop the fight even though Sonnen told them he was on drugs...
Click to expand...
There you go again. A moderator putting words in peoples mouths. Who made you a moderator anyway?
I never once said Sonnen didn't take drugs. Ever.
"You have lost"? I have lost what? This isn't a competition sir. It's conversation. As a moderator you should learn the difference. Maybe you've been here too long?
And yes, I am saying it's wrong to not stop a fight when someone admits cheating. Definitely. If you don't see the reasoning in that you're beyond logical comprehension.
There. I have laid out my opinion and position clearly for you. It may change and I reserve the right to do so. It's a free world.
"Of course it would make sense to let a fight go on if you suspect cheating" is probably the most absurd serious statement I have ever heard anyone make, especially when it was so much more than suspicion....it was a voluntary admission.
Anyway you seem to be getting very pissed that I'm looking into these circumstances so I'll try to be gentle.
If you feel the need to "compete" again, please do it in someone else's thread.
Thanks.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: Brick
Date: November 13, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

u mad?

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sourpuss
Date: November 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

Let me spell oyut what I'm getting at so some people might not get pissed that I'm typing thoughts.
The AC's are there for what? To ensure that the event is conducted under a set of rules that promotes safety (so nobody gets killed) and fairness. One of their prime functions is to see that nobody cheats by puting illegal substances in or on their bodies. They control the event as an unbiased entity that is influenced neither by the fighters nor the promotion, and hey SHOULD NOT be influenced by either.
They are trusted by the state or province to oversee proceedings in the name of order and as representatives of that state or province.
A Comissioner who clearly states "fighter safety is our number one concern", then in the same breath says "but we have to weigh the circumstances", is actually saying "safety may have to be set aside because we wouldn't want the promotion to lose a bout and suffer the repercussions from paying customers".
By doing so, they are abandoning their mandate to protect the fighters and are switching to protecting the promoters investment.
If they stuck to their guns and changed this ridiculous rule (which I'm sure has actually been misinterpreted) that fight, after one of the combatants voluntarily admitting he was under the influence of a banned substance, would have indeed been stopped before it started. And IMO it should have. And so should any fight where cheating is discovered BEFORE the fight.
Let me tell you why.
If the main event championship bout had been halted upon Chaels admission, Dana would have been FURIOUS. Refunds would probably be in order. Chael Sonnen would now be fired (even though Dana likes to throw his hands up and claim the UFC has no responsibility in enforcing substance abuse...but that's another story) and it would send gigantic shock-waves through the sport.
The rules actually had an effect! I think it would clean the sport up considerably.
To lay the rules aside or word them in favor of making money brings the shady aura of early boxing corruption to MMA.
I am not defending nor condemning Chael Sonnen for what has happened. That will probably change after the facts come out...if ever.
I think it sucks that it happened? Hell yes. I was dying to see what happened in the rematch. But I honestly don't really care what happens to Sonnen other than the fact I feel he was one who got caught out of many...and the timing couldn't have been worse for him
That's my take on it. That's what I was driving at with the topic of the thread.
You certainly don't have to agree, just don't get so damned angry over it.

 

[Nastycrow]

Originally posted by: sourpuss
Date: November 13, 2010 at 11:34 AM
Source: https://forum.mmajunkie.com/threads/do-athletic-commissions-have-limited-authority.32286/

Brick said:
u mad?
Click to expand...
Not really. But nor am I here to compete with a moderator.
I don't heckle people with microphones (anymore) either lol