And that's fine with me. I don't have a problem with your opinion. I have a problem with you just targeting them like they are the only people who are criminals and do BJJ. Unlike others here, I don't like getting people's names out there for no reason, so I'm not even gonna deal with names. I'm just saying if you're going to ban one criminal, how are you not gonna ban the other? Either you ban one or ban none.
The problem lies with actually drafting the policy of how to prevent someone from competing.
It is clear cut to say "If it can be shown that you have an outstanding warrant for a felony, you cannot compete."
I don't actually believe that people should be banned even if they were convicted and served time. The time served is the consequence. The problem here is that DJ plead to the charge and skipped town. It is unresolved.
All the circumstantial stuff like him driving the kids program van and stuff, that doesn't look good at all. That is something that parents should be considering, but not an issue for the IBJJF. It's
beside the point.
If an organization wanted to draft the policy to specify certain crimes, such as sexual assault, to be included in a participation ban even if the person served time for the conviction, I wouldn't oppose it. If they wanted to simply ban all people who have ever been convicted of a felony, well, that would be their call as an organization. I still wouldn't oppose it. I wouldn't be banned, I know that much.
I understand you are playing a bit of a devil's advocate role. I would object to equating a drug felony with a sexual assault felony, but that lies with my personal morals regarding the two different situations. I disagree with drugs being criminalized in general. I believe that drug use and abuse is an issue better resolved by the medical field, and not through incarceration. Even within the drug argument, you must surely agree that a drug dealer is a more of a "criminal" than the person who bought the drug and got caught with a needle sticking out of his arm. I consider that person to be a victim, even if they are simultaneously a "criminal" according to statute.
Anyway, that will be the last from me on this for now. This was a much longer response than I intended, but I think it is a reasonable stance, which requires a bit of elaboration. Note that I am not treating you as a troll, but as a person with a differing opinion. I hope I haven't wasted my time.