- Joined
- Oct 28, 2016
- Messages
- 4,911
- Reaction score
- 1,177
Considering this:
"7.17 I find that all of the evidence available to me leads me to conclude that the violation was not intended nor could it have enhanced the Athlete's performance. There was absolutely no intention to use Prohibited Substances on the part of the Athlete. Other factors referred to in the definition of fault include the perceived level of risk and the level of care and investigation that should have been exercised in relation to the perceived level of risk. In that respect, the Athlete took considerable additional steps outlined above in the Evidence to try and ensure that he never had another positive test for a Prohibited Substance while using supplements. He assumed incorrectly that he was using USADA approved supplements. The fact is that USADA lists supplements highly likely to be contaminated but does not ever approve supplements. The Athlete or his representatives ought to have recognized that mistaken assumption. This has to be part of his acceptance of a degree of Fault as stipulated in the Agreement."
https://ufc.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-Redacted-Award-Jones-and-USADA.pdf
It's been established by an independent arbitrator that
(a) Jones did not intend to commit a violation; and
(b) His performance was not enhanced as a result of the violation.
So, is there any justification not to reinstate his title?
Is there an asterik next to DC's double championship claim?
"7.17 I find that all of the evidence available to me leads me to conclude that the violation was not intended nor could it have enhanced the Athlete's performance. There was absolutely no intention to use Prohibited Substances on the part of the Athlete. Other factors referred to in the definition of fault include the perceived level of risk and the level of care and investigation that should have been exercised in relation to the perceived level of risk. In that respect, the Athlete took considerable additional steps outlined above in the Evidence to try and ensure that he never had another positive test for a Prohibited Substance while using supplements. He assumed incorrectly that he was using USADA approved supplements. The fact is that USADA lists supplements highly likely to be contaminated but does not ever approve supplements. The Athlete or his representatives ought to have recognized that mistaken assumption. This has to be part of his acceptance of a degree of Fault as stipulated in the Agreement."
https://ufc.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-Redacted-Award-Jones-and-USADA.pdf
It's been established by an independent arbitrator that
(a) Jones did not intend to commit a violation; and
(b) His performance was not enhanced as a result of the violation.
So, is there any justification not to reinstate his title?
Is there an asterik next to DC's double championship claim?
