Since when is it possible to settle with NSAC?

[Rvd Slmr]

I'm not commenting on whether or not the deals are fair, but we have three top fighters who settled at the same time with NSAC, while I don't remember anybody doing the same before. Is it a new possibility or simply that the commission always refused that option under Pat Lundvall?

 

[The guest]

Nick had a settlement reducing his 5 yr suspension to 1.5 yrs.

5 years for Nick's weed ( 18 mos ).
1 year for Silva's blue pills.
6 months for Yoel's tainted supplements.
1 yr for Lesnar's inhaler or whatever the fuck he claimed.
1 yr for Jones' dick pills.
1.5 yrs for Machida's unintentional use.

Nate in a settlement was fined 2.5% of his 202 purse ( $50,000 )
Conor gets fined 3% of his 202 purse ( $150,000 ). Obviously not a settlement.

It seems like they just hand out whatever punishment they feel like on any given day. Some are settlements, some aren't. I'm not sure what the fuckin story is.

The thing that makes the most sense to me is that people are being paid off. Combat sports have always been shady, and corrupt, as fuck.

I'm not sure how many of the above were settlements. And I'm not doing the research on it. I don't give enough fucks for that.

 

[The guest]

I think "settlements" are a new thing since USADA hands out their own punishments. In drug cases, the NSAC waits for the USADA punishment decision and then they follow along, calling it a "settlement".

In non-USADA cases (like the water bottle throwing) it's not a "settlement" because there's no other organization issuing a prior punishment that the NSAC can "settle" on, they have to determine and levy their own punishments.

TL/DR: When NSAC agrees with a punishment already levied by another org (i.e. USADA) they call it a "settlement".

A settlement is when two parties agree with a punishment. Like a plea bargain.

Nate did settle. Conor didn't.

Nick did settle as well.
http://www.mmamania.com/2016/1/12/1...duced-following-settlement-agreement-nsac-mma

http://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/...e-diaz-50000-actions-ufc-202-press-conference

 

[Wariowokecancel]

I think "settlements" are a new thing since USADA hands out their own punishments. In drug cases, the NSAC waits for the USADA punishment decision and then they follow along, calling it a "settlement".

In non-USADA cases (like the water bottle throwing) it's not a "settlement" because there's no other organization issuing a prior punishment that the NSAC can "settle" on, they have to determine and levy their own punishments.

TL/DR: When NSAC agrees with a punishment already levied by another org (i.e. USADA) they call it a "settlement".

Nobody listen to this dude.

Dude. - setttlement is an agreement. Nothing fucking to do with the verb "settle" in your usage. Does not require something prior to be "settled on".

You are utterly fucking wrong.

The NSAC can settle as in reach an agreement with anybody in any circumstances.

 

[Wariowokecancel]

A settlement IS an agreement between more than one party, but that doesn't necessarily mean NSAC and the fighter. NSAC can "settle" amoungst themselves. They can "settle" for USADA levied punishment. Etc.

Nick fought back and then they settled, the inital punishment handled out wasn't a settlement. NSAC appears to be attempting to avoid drawn out fights (like Nick's) by working with the accused party to reach a settlement (and thus avoid further legal issues).

Jones went to arbitration but no settlement was reached (http://www.mmamania.com/2016/11/1/1...attorney-happy-nsac-doping-daniel-cormier-ufc) and days later the arbitration panel decided to give Jones "the maximum one-year period of ineligibility for his anti-doping policy violation." (http://www.mmaweekly.com/jon-jones-suspended-following-usada-arbitration-hearing).

Basically, the NSAC got mud on their face from how they handled Nick's case, and since then are trying to avoid that. Conor's refusal to adhere to his punishment and refusal to fight in Vegas also doesn't make either him nor the NSAC look good. By reaching a "settlement" they can minimize these undesirable situations going forward.

Another benefit of calling a levying of punishment a "settlement" is it reads much more amicable, which ultimately is in the best interest of everyone.

You are so full of shit.

A settlement is reached between two parties in conflict.

It's not a fucking settlement if the commission members agree between themselves.

And yes, IAAL.

 

[Wariowokecancel]

You have no idea what you are writing about and pulling shit out of your ass.

 

[Threetrees]

Since always

 

[Deleted member 196663]

I'm not commenting on whether or not the deals are fair, but we have three top fighters who settled at the same time with NSAC, while I don't remember anybody doing the same before. Is it a new possibility or simply that the commission always refused that option under Pat Lundvall?

They just do whatever they want as it suits them.

 

[Wariowokecancel]

Look dummie, a fighter settlement with the USADA is when a fighter comes and says, "I fucked up, I'm sorry, please give me 9 months instead of 12 and we can avoid judicial review and a public argument" and the AC goes, "Ok."

It has nothing formally to do with USADa previously slapping the fighter. It definitely is not a fucking settlement if the AC slaps down a punishment without a previous agreement.

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

Look dummie, a fighter settlement with the USADA is when a fighter comes and says, "I fucked up, I'm sorry, please give me 9 months instead of 12 and we can avoid judicial review and a public argument" and the AC goes, "Ok."

It has nothing formally to do with USADa previously slapping the fighter. It definitely is not a fucking settlement if the AC slaps down a punishment without a previous agreement.

Well Jones' settlement does, at least in the sense that he said "hey, USADA gave me this, is that reasonable to you guys?"

But yes, any settlement they had was reached by the two parties talking it out prior to the hearing. NSAC simply imposing a punishment with no hearing or agreement between the parties would likely see any such punishment tossed out by a court.

 

[Mug]

Still disgusting that Nick got 5 years + a fine, pretty much because he got a lawyer and played the game his way instead of grovelling on his knees like they want you to.
NSAC seems to be full of people who know the fighters can whoop them so have to make themselves feel power over the fighters.
It's like when someone grows up with a chip on their shoulder and join the police, they will abuse power

 

[Rvd Slmr]

Since always

It seems to have been extremely rare in the past, only Nick has been mentioned and then we suddenly have three guys settling at the same time. I think it's weird.

 

[Threetrees]

It seems to have been extremely rare in the past, only Nick has been mentioned and then we suddenly have three guys settling at the same time. I think it's weird.

You're actually right I think, I looked it up - couldn't fine much but
I think only since this summer have they been looked at as cases that can be settled on the first pass, other times we've heard of settling it's been appeals that have been settled after the initial decision

 

[dim_]

I'm not commenting on whether or not the deals are fair, but we have three top fighters who settled at the same time with NSAC, while I don't remember anybody doing the same before. Is it a new possibility or simply that the commission always refused that option under Pat Lundvall?

the option was always there and has happened multiple times in the past.


fighter being charged puts forward a proposal, nsac can either accept proposal, or reject and go to hearing. then its ratified at the next meeting.

Just this year there was Andrea Lee for example, theres been loads of others in the past.

Her case was still discussed at a commission meeting, but her side put forward in writing their settlement proposal in advance, and that was accepted and ratified at the next available meeting.

 

[dim_]

It seems to have been extremely rare in the past, only Nick has been mentioned and then we suddenly have three guys settling at the same time. I think it's weird.

how many times has a fighter been banned by the commission?

and how many of those cases did you actually pay attention to what actually happened or did you just hear by word of mouth the fighter was banned?

 

[dim_]

Jones went to arbitration but no settlement was reached (http://www.mmamania.com/2016/11/1/1...attorney-happy-nsac-doping-daniel-cormier-ufc) and days later the arbitration panel decided to give Jones "the maximum one-year period of ineligibility for his anti-doping policy violation." (http://www.mmaweekly.com/jon-jones-suspended-following-usada-arbitration-hearing).

what the fuck are you talking about.

Jones went to arbitration and a settlement reached in arbitration.

in that....

The abitrators decided it, jones team and usada were compelled to abide by it.

thats the settlement.. both jones and usada agreed to abide by whatever the arbitrators decided.

 

[dim_]

A settlement is when two parties agree with a punishment. Like a plea bargain.

Nate did settle. Conor didn't.

Nick did settle as well.
http://www.mmamania.com/2016/1/12/1...duced-following-settlement-agreement-nsac-mma

http://www.espn.com/mma/story/_/id/...e-diaz-50000-actions-ufc-202-press-conference

but thats not what they are referring to in this instance.



If you test positive and have a Nevada hearing one of two things can happen.

a) in advance you accept the charge, admit you were at fault, promise not to do it again and suggest a course of action.

the commission can then look at this, say "ok the guys admitting fault, asking for a 1 year ban, lets go with that" and they ratify it at teh next meeting

THAT IS A SETTLEMENT

or

b) either you dont make a proposal or they reject your proposal, and so you have a proper hearing with both sides presenting evidence and the commission ultimately making a decision.

THAT IS NOT A SETTLEMENT.

 

[Rvd Slmr]

the option was always there and has happened multiple times in the past.


fighter being charged puts forward a proposal, nsac can either accept proposal, or reject and go to hearing. then its ratified at the next meeting.

Just this year there was Andrea Lee for example, theres been loads of others in the past.

Her case was still discussed at a commission meeting, but her side put forward in writing their settlement proposal in advance, and that was accepted and ratified at the next available meeting.

Thanks, maybe it just seemed unusual to me because it was about very scrutinized cases and the settlements were announced at the same time.

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

​

 

[BJ@LW&WW]

they reject your proposal, and so you have a proper hearing with both sides presenting evidence and the commission ultimately making a decision.

THAT IS NOT A SETTLEMENT.

hmm. if thats the case, how was jones's considered a settlement? I thought he got the maximum suspension based on what he tested positive for by usada standards? Or was the settlement for the athletic commission to abide by that maximum?