Wanderlei Silva gets lifetime ban

[aker2703]

Point number 2 is not correct. There are many states that would never enforce a lifetime ban for a first time offender of refusal of drug test.

Once again texas comes to mind. Its a right to work state. They wouldnt enforce any suspension but their own. And thats how it should be.

the Texas commission is retarded. Using them to make a point is laughable.

 

[jeff7b9]

Would have liked an option "lifetime is a little harsh, 2 years would have made a bit more sense"



He ran from a test, obviously they have to set an example that doing that will not be tolerated, otherwise every athlete who would piss hot will just run for it.

Might as well make an example out of a guy who just "retired" since he wasn't planning on fighting anyway so you can throw the book at him, scaring other fighters in the process, without actually hurting the sport all that much or fucking anyone over too hard financially.

 

[Gigaton Punch]

I don't agree with it.

Overeem ran from a test is is still one of the highest paid fighters in the UFC.

But Wand retired anyway so it really doesn't matter.

That was a different regime. Kizer's gone and things have changed. Things aren't perfect but there does seem to be improvement

 

[aker2703]

Of course they can. They'd just have to deal with the contractual penalty. Zuffa cannot enforce it in any other way.

Bellator is owned by Viacom. Do you really believe they wouldn't be able to afford Wand's penalty for breach of contract if they were to see such a move as being sound from a cost vs. profit perspective?

You don't seem to understand, the UFC (zuffa) could sue Bellator (Viacom) for breaking the law. You can't sign a contract with a fighter that is currently under contract.

Zuffa would file an injunction and stop the fight from happening http://www.mmamania.com/2010/5/15/1473389/the-show-must-not-go-on-don-king

So just stop saying Bellator could do this.

 

[sodomanaz]

Of course they can. They'd just have to deal with the contractual penalty. Zuffa cannot enforce it in any other way.

Bellator is owned by Viacom. Do you really believe they wouldn't be able to afford Wand's penalty for breach of contract if they were to see such a move as being sound from a cost vs. profit perspective?

You think Viacom has an open checkbook for Bellator? That would be some WCW ted turner stupidity right there. They didn't become a media giant by throwing away money needlessly. Anyway considering the NAC ban, he won't be fighting in the states until he gets this cleared.

 

[Julo]

Damn. After seeing Wand's videos and his self-test, I thought this issue was 'solved'

 

[aker2703]

I wish I had the respect my authority gif from Cartman. Perfect moment for this.

there you go.

 

[Winston Wolf]

You think Viacom has an open checkbook for Bellator? That would be some WCW ted turner stupidity right there. They didn't become a media giant by throwing away money needlessly. Anyway considering the NAC ban, he won't be fighting in the states until he gets this cleared.

Good thing I'm not talking about him fighting in the US, then.

 

[Grappleboxing]

there you go.

Cheers.

 

[CarloSpcyWeiner]

Lifetime ban is absurd. No wonder Wandy retired. He should be getting the same punishment as Chael.

 

[riddleofsteel]

I don't agree with a lifetime ban. Is that going to be the standard now, run from a test and lifetime ban? So, does that mean if a fighter fails they are also going to get a ban?
After all, avoiding a test is bad but it isn't as bad as actually testing positive.

Certainly one can deduce that a fighter is avoiding a test because the person figures they'll test positive but evidence is still lacking as opposed to a positive test. It is similar to thinking someone stole a widget but not being able to prove they stole the widget but still punishing them as if they did steal it.

 

[Winston Wolf]

You don't seem to understand, the UFC (zuffa) could sue Bellator (Viacom) for breaking the law. You can't sign a contract with a fighter that is currently under contract.

Zuffa would file an injunction and stop the fight from happening http://www.mmamania.com/2010/5/15/1473389/the-show-must-not-go-on-don-king

So just stop saying Bellator could do this.

What you don't seem to understand is that Wand could deal with any financial losses from the premature termination of his contract (with Bellator's help, if needed) and then fight for Bellator.

It's a contract. It doesn't bind the fighter for life. If he chooses to leave the UFC, as long as he deals with the penalties he should be all set to fight for a different org.

The case you linked is unrelated because Mayorga was still under contract.

I'm not saying Wand would just go ahead and fight for Bellator while still being an UFC employee. That's a silly notion to begin with.

 

[SODACKER]

I don't agree with a lifetime ban. Is that going to be the standard now, run from a test and lifetime ban? So, does that mean if a fighter fails they are also going to get a ban?
After all, avoiding a test is bad but it isn't as bad as actually testing positive.

Certainly one can deduce that a fighter is avoiding a test because the person figures they'll test positive but evidence is still lacking as opposed to a positive test. It is similar to thinking someone stole a widget but not being able to prove they stole the widget but still punishing them as if they did steal it.

Running from a test is much worse than failing it. Cowardly and makes a mockery of the process and the sport.

 

[SerrabyTKO]

What you don't seem to understand is that Wand could deal with any financial losses from the premature termination of his contract (with Bellator's help, if needed) and then fight for Bellator.

It's a contract. It doesn't bind the fighter for life. If he chooses to leave the UFC, as long as he deals with the penalties he should be all set to fight for a different org.

The case you linked is unrelated because Mayorga was still under contract.

I'm not saying Wand would just go ahead and fight for Bellator while still being an UFC employee. That's a silly notion to begin with.

The "financial penalties" you're talking about would be the entirety of the purse that he would get from Bellator, or any other org he fights in, plus more for damages, so what would be the point?

 

[Black Gi]

After all, avoiding a test is bad but it isn't as bad as actually testing positive.

You're crazy for this one.

 

[Winston Wolf]

The "financial penalties" you're talking about would be the entirety of the purse that he would get from Bellator, or any other org he fights in, plus more for damages, so what would be the point?

Again, I'm not aware of the details of Wand's contract with Zuffa. It could be that the costs from such a move would far outweight potential gains. Or it could not. All I'm saying is that in the latter case, there's an opportunity for the taking for any promotion looking to expand into the Brazilian market.

On a sidenote, even if the penalties were to include fight purse + damages, let's be real: there wouldn't be much keeping Bellator from under-reporting the purse, particularly overseas, particularly in Brazil, and at any rate this could payoff in the long run by establishing the brand here for future events.

 

[SerrabyTKO]

Again, I'm not aware of the details of Wand's contract with Zuffa. It could be that the costs from such a move would far outweight potential gains. Or it could not. All I'm saying is that in the latter case, there's an opportunity for the taking for any promotion looking to expand into the Brazilian market.

On a sidenote, even if the penalties were to include fight purse + damages, let's be real: there wouldn't be much keeping Bellator from under-reporting the purse, particularly overseas, particularly in Brazil, and at any rate this could payoff in the long run by establishing the brand here for future events.

You also have to take into account the effects of thumbing their noses at the American athletic commissions and the detriments that would cause to their ongoing operations in the United States, and future dealings with said ACs.

This is the real world were dealing with here. I know perfectly well that they could.

What I am arguing is that they wouldn't. Because they are not stupid.

 

[aker2703]

What you don't seem to understand is that Wand could deal with any financial losses from the premature termination of his contract (with Bellator's help, if needed) and then fight for Bellator.

It's a contract. It doesn't bind the fighter for life. If he chooses to leave the UFC, as long as he deals with the penalties he should be all set to fight for a different org.

The case you linked is unrelated because Mayorga was still under contract.

I'm not saying Wand would just go ahead and fight for Bellator while still being an UFC employee. That's a silly notion to begin with.

how is Wand not under UFC contract? Do you honestly think getting a termination of a contract (even if possible) takes 2-3 months lol. I'm sorry but the same applies to this. The UFC would file an Injunction and stop the fight.

I can't put it any simpler than that.

 

[aker2703]

Again, I'm not aware of the details of Wand's contract with Zuffa. It could be that the costs from such a move would far outweight potential gains. Or it could not. All I'm saying is that in the latter case, there's an opportunity for the taking for any promotion looking to expand into the Brazilian market.

On a sidenote, even if the penalties were to include fight purse + damages, let's be real: there wouldn't be much keeping Bellator from under-reporting the purse, particularly overseas, particularly in Brazil, and at any rate this could payoff in the long run by establishing the brand here for future events.

you are seriously living in a world of make believe. have you seen how long shit takes in the US legal system? It would take years for Wand to get out of his Zuffa contract (if he won which i doubt) you are talking like this shit takes weeks, not years.

 

[riddleofsteel]

Running from a test is much worse than failing it. Cowardly and makes a mockery of the process and the sport.

How is it much worse? Until now no other athletic organization thinks it is; athlete avoids a test, they punish them but the punishment isn't worse than a positive test.

You're crazy for this one.

The IOC and IAAF agree with me, avoiding a test isn't worse than a positive test. They validate that position by the suspensions they have handed out for athletes avoiding tests, suspensions are given but they don't exceed what the suspension would be for a positive test.