Can USADA think about Josh Barnett’s past Doping When Punishing Him?
this week it was revealed that UFC heavyweight Josh failed an out-of-competition medication test administered by USADA on December 9, 2016.
With this news Barnett may gain the unenviable distinction of earning the most doping failures in MMA history testing positive after UFC 34, then testing positive for Boldenone, Nandrolone as well as Fluoxymesterone after UFC 36 as well as finally testing positive for Drostanolone in an Affliction bout in 2009.
So the concern now is, if USADA proves this latest violation, can Barnett deal with steeper penalties because of his blemished past? With the possibility of a lifetime ban for a third infraction it is an important issue.
In short the response is indeed as well as no. No to the truth that the past doping cannot be thought about a past policy violation. Yes to the truth that his past may be thought about an ‘aggravating’ circumstance.
Section 10.7 of the UFC/USADA custom tailored anti doping policy offers with several doping infractions as well as requires steeper penalties for subsequent “Anti-Doping policy Violations”. In other words, past violations have to be part of the UFC/USADA plan to trigger steeper penalties. Barnett’s do not. Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Canadá The specific language is as follows:
10.7.1 For an athlete or other Person’s second Anti-Doping policy Violation, the period of Ineligibility shall be the higher of:
(a) six months;
(b) one-half of the period of Ineligibility imposed for the very first Anti-Doping policy infraction without taking into account any type of reduction under article 10.6; or
(c) twice the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable to the second Anti-Doping policy infraction treated as if it were a very first violation, without taking into account any type of reduction under article 10.6.
The period of Ineligibility established above may then be further reduced by the application of article 10.6.
10.7.2 A third Anti-Doping policy infraction will result in a period of Ineligibility of a minimum of double the period of Ineligibility which would apply if it were a second infraction as much as lifetime Ineligibility.
10.7.3 An Anti-Doping policy infraction for which an athlete or other person has established No fault or Negligence shall not be thought about a prior Camiseta Southampton FC infraction for functions of this Article
In situation the above leaves any type of question section 10.7.4 dispels these expressly specifying as follows
“an Anti-Doping policy infraction will only be thought about a second infraction if USADA can establish that the athlete or other person dedicated the second Anti-Doping policy infraction after the athlete or other person got notice pursuant to article 7, or after USADA made reasonable efforts to provide notice of the very first Anti-Doping policy Violation”
The only method Barnett’s past can come to haunt him is if USADA considers it to satisfy the meaning of “aggravating circumstances” under the policy. If these exist “The period of Ineligibility may be increased as much as an extra two years“.
These are defined as follows:
Aggravating circumstances exist where the Anti-Doping policy infraction was intentional, the Anti-Doping policy infraction had considerable prospective to improve an Athlete’s Bout performance, as well as one of the complying with extra factors is present: the Athlete’s or other person dedicated the Anti-Doping policy infraction as part of a doping plan or scheme, either individually or including a conspiracy or typical business to dedicate an Anti-Doping policy Violation; the athlete or other person utilized or Possessed several Prohibited Substances or Prohibited techniques or utilized or Possessed a Prohibited compound or Prohibited technique on several occasions; the athlete or person participated in deceptive or obstructing conduct to prevent the detection or adjudication of an Anti-Doping policy Violation.
Depending on the results of the test an disagreement can be made that aggravating circumstances exist for a repeat PED utilizing athlete even if Camiseta Stade Rennais FC past utilize fell outside of the policy timeframe.
It is unlikely, however, that his can apply to an out-of-competition test as the compound has to have a “significant prospective to improve an Athlete’s Bout performance” as well as without any bout having taken location this section probably is not triggered.
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
Josh Barnett Handed Public Reprimand After Doping infraction Traced Back to Contaminated ProductMarch 24, 2018With 2 comments
Josh Barnett latest UFC competitor To take legal action against Supplement business complying with positive Doping TestApril 10, 2018With 1 comment
Anderson Silva Handed One Year Doping Suspension By USADAJuly 18, 2018In “Doping”
this week it was revealed that UFC heavyweight Josh failed an out-of-competition medication test administered by USADA on December 9, 2016. With this news Barnett may gain the unenviable distinction of earning the most doping failures in MMA history testing positive after UFC 34, then testing positive for Boldenone, Nandrolone as well as Fluoxymesterone after…