Did JS7 give up a little something in the Baggett Indy vid?

Hut wrote:

I would think all the riders would get behind James since it is such a bullshit penalty. Based on principal if nothing else.

hvaughn88 wrote:

I'll answer your question, but I think you're still missing my point. Based on the policies that were in place and the precedence that was set...

I'll answer your question, but I think you're still missing my point.

Based on the policies that were in place and the precedence that was set, yes it was justified.

My point, though, is regardless of what the penalty is or what you/me/anyone thinks it should be, that probably has little to no impact on what I would imagine other racers think of him being able to get out of his punishment and compete with them on the line. I'm saying that with the number of people trying to "make it" and the competition on the line, I would have a hard time believing other racers would be ok with getting special treatment to race against them. That's where i'm coming from. Not necessarily the "appropriateness" of the punishment.

mxb2 wrote:

i dont like a $500-600 speeding ticket, guess what i dont speed , unless i am prepared to pay the fine. eithe follow the rules or...

i dont like a $500-600 speeding ticket, guess what i dont speed , unless i am prepared to pay the fine. eithe follow the rules or deal with the results. , pretty sure him and the team knew what could happen if they made mistake or they get caught happen. , rulebook and penalty is easy to read.

1-forty-8 wrote:

Unlike your post which is quite difficult to read. I agree, they fucked up and deserve a punishment, but in my personal opinion, the punishment he...

Unlike your post which is quite difficult to read. I agree, they fucked up and deserve a punishment, but in my personal opinion, the punishment he received is a little harsh.. Like I already stated.

Maybe my post was a little difficult to read too....

hvaughn88 wrote:

I'll answer your question, but I think you're still missing my point. Based on the policies that were in place and the precedence that was set...

I'll answer your question, but I think you're still missing my point.

Based on the policies that were in place and the precedence that was set, yes it was justified.

My point, though, is regardless of what the penalty is or what you/me/anyone thinks it should be, that probably has little to no impact on what I would imagine other racers think of him being able to get out of his punishment and compete with them on the line. I'm saying that with the number of people trying to "make it" and the competition on the line, I would have a hard time believing other racers would be ok with getting special treatment to race against them. That's where i'm coming from. Not necessarily the "appropriateness" of the punishment.

1-forty-8 wrote:

Yeah I get you, and yeah I'm sure you're right. My view is just the view of a guy that loves to see him out there...

Yeah I get you, and yeah I'm sure you're right. My view is just the view of a guy that loves to see him out there ya know.. When I posted my first post, I didn't actually believe that DC would or should tell the FIM to go fuck themselves, again, just the bitter opinion of a guy who misses seeing him out there.

ddog558 wrote:

No idea, and it sucks because Im still torn on the subject. 1- I would LOVE to see JS7 back out there sooner rather than later...it...

No idea, and it sucks because Im still torn on the subject.

1- I would LOVE to see JS7 back out there sooner rather than later...it would just bring that much more excitement to the sport this year (and its already a damn good series already)

BUT

2 - If you do the crime, you have to do the time. While 18 months may be a little extreme, the precedent was set in other sports (according to an MXA article in this months issue)....other racers, not necessarily MX, have been hit with the same 18 months for the same substance, so its not like they are trying to "make an example" out of Bubba....he just happened to be the one that got caught.

Anyhoo...back to the subject. I dont know if he let something slip or not...but I would love to see him back out there.

Flame on

YZ324 wrote:

I couldn't get past this post for some reason......

must have been the gif

Hut wrote:

I would think all the riders would get behind James since it is such a bullshit penalty. Based on principal if nothing else.

hvaughn88 wrote:

In a vacuum, sure. When they realize that's just one less rider to compete with, I don't give them that much credit. Maybe i'm not giving...

In a vacuum, sure. When they realize that's just one less rider to compete with, I don't give them that much credit. Maybe i'm not giving them enough credit, but that's how it would probably work in almost everything else in the world.

mxb2 wrote:

Point being, dont want penalized, obey the rules. Your or I dont make the rules or penalties. Do you really think with all that $$$ at...

Point being, dont want penalized, obey the rules. Your or I dont make the rules or penalties. Do you really think with all that $$$ at stake nobody knew what could happen if he was caught. No excuse at that level. and its an insult to the riders trying to do the right thing, and will open up a can of worms if it is lifted.

1-forty-8 wrote:

DC should just tell the FIM to go fuck themselves and let JS7 ride the Nationals.

mxb2 wrote:

Point being, dont want penalized, obey the rules. Your or I dont make the rules or penalties. Do you really think with all that $$$ at...

Point being, dont want penalized, obey the rules. Your or I dont make the rules or penalties. Do you really think with all that $$$ at stake nobody knew what could happen if he was caught. No excuse at that level. and its an insult to the riders trying to do the right thing, and will open up a can of worms if it is lifted.

1-forty-8 wrote:

Kinda like when RC got his points back.

Do you think they deliberately cheated?

Hut wrote:

I would think all the riders would get behind James since it is such a bullshit penalty. Based on principal if nothing else.

hvaughn88 wrote:

In a vacuum, sure. When they realize that's just one less rider to compete with, I don't give them that much credit. Maybe i'm not giving...

In a vacuum, sure. When they realize that's just one less rider to compete with, I don't give them that much credit. Maybe i'm not giving them enough credit, but that's how it would probably work in almost everything else in the world.

Hut wrote:

You are probably right; in this modern fuck you I got mine world why would they.

hvaughn88 wrote:

In a vacuum, sure. When they realize that's just one less rider to compete with, I don't give them that much credit. Maybe i'm not giving...

In a vacuum, sure. When they realize that's just one less rider to compete with, I don't give them that much credit. Maybe i'm not giving them enough credit, but that's how it would probably work in almost everything else in the world.

Hut wrote:

You are probably right; in this modern fuck you I got mine world why would they.

hvaughn88 wrote:

Yup, unfortunately. I hate to say that, just trying to be a realist

Hut wrote:

You are probably right; in this modern fuck you I got mine world why would they.

hvaughn88 wrote:

Yup, unfortunately. I hate to say that, just trying to be a realist

gsxrcr28 wrote:

I don't think you give the riders enough credit. DC said he hopes the penalty gets lightened, Ozzy and Mitch both said we don't need the...

I don't think you give the riders enough credit. DC said he hopes the penalty gets lightened, Ozzy and Mitch both said we don't need the FIM here, Grant said he didn't know all the rules either, MC and RJ both said it's BS and the penalty is ridiculous, and I'm sure I'm leaving many other industry people out. Everyone who has spoken out in the industry has said the penalty is overkill. RD, TC, Tomac and all the others seem like classy dudes, I think they will be ok with it if the penalty is lightened.
Nobody through a fit when RC got his points back for the gas violation, or when RV jumped on the red lights and cross flags. There are penalties for those also, but sometimes people make honest mistakes, and most reasonable people understand that.

hvaughn88 wrote:

Yup, unfortunately. I hate to say that, just trying to be a realist

gsxrcr28 wrote:

I don't think you give the riders enough credit. DC said he hopes the penalty gets lightened, Ozzy and Mitch both said we don't need the...

I don't think you give the riders enough credit. DC said he hopes the penalty gets lightened, Ozzy and Mitch both said we don't need the FIM here, Grant said he didn't know all the rules either, MC and RJ both said it's BS and the penalty is ridiculous, and I'm sure I'm leaving many other industry people out. Everyone who has spoken out in the industry has said the penalty is overkill. RD, TC, Tomac and all the others seem like classy dudes, I think they will be ok with it if the penalty is lightened.
Nobody through a fit when RC got his points back for the gas violation, or when RV jumped on the red lights and cross flags. There are penalties for those also, but sometimes people make honest mistakes, and most reasonable people understand that.

hvaughn88 wrote:

Like I said, I very well could be wrong. There's no way of knowing. Most the examples you gave were either team owners, coaches and ex...

Like I said, I very well could be wrong. There's no way of knowing. Most the examples you gave were either team owners, coaches and ex riders. Those are people that I would expect to say what they said. And the current riders? Of course they don't wanna come across as being labeled "dicks" so it doesn't surprise me they would be in support of him either (at least publicly). I still don't believe it, but that's my problem and no one else's, so my thoughts really don't matter (nor should they). Like I said, I very well could be 100% wrong, but my personal opinion is that I'm not. Not trying convince you of it, just trying to explain my rationale.

gsxrcr28 wrote:

I don't think you give the riders enough credit. DC said he hopes the penalty gets lightened, Ozzy and Mitch both said we don't need the...

I don't think you give the riders enough credit. DC said he hopes the penalty gets lightened, Ozzy and Mitch both said we don't need the FIM here, Grant said he didn't know all the rules either, MC and RJ both said it's BS and the penalty is ridiculous, and I'm sure I'm leaving many other industry people out. Everyone who has spoken out in the industry has said the penalty is overkill. RD, TC, Tomac and all the others seem like classy dudes, I think they will be ok with it if the penalty is lightened.
Nobody through a fit when RC got his points back for the gas violation, or when RV jumped on the red lights and cross flags. There are penalties for those also, but sometimes people make honest mistakes, and most reasonable people understand that.

hvaughn88 wrote:

Like I said, I very well could be wrong. There's no way of knowing. Most the examples you gave were either team owners, coaches and ex...

Like I said, I very well could be wrong. There's no way of knowing. Most the examples you gave were either team owners, coaches and ex riders. Those are people that I would expect to say what they said. And the current riders? Of course they don't wanna come across as being labeled "dicks" so it doesn't surprise me they would be in support of him either (at least publicly). I still don't believe it, but that's my problem and no one else's, so my thoughts really don't matter (nor should they). Like I said, I very well could be 100% wrong, but my personal opinion is that I'm not. Not trying convince you of it, just trying to explain my rationale.

gsxrcr28 wrote:

Oh I know, and I completely understand what you're saying. When it comes to money and championships being involved people can act differently than what we'd...

Oh I know, and I completely understand what you're saying. When it comes to money and championships being involved people can act differently than what we'd expect. My preference is to give those guys the benefit of doubt, until they prove otherwise.

1-forty-8 wrote:

DC should just tell the FIM to go fuck themselves and let JS7 ride the Nationals.

Hut wrote:

18 months is more than a little extreme in this case. It is horse shit.

Hut wrote:

I would think all the riders would get behind James since it is such a bullshit penalty. Based on principal if nothing else.

downard254 wrote:

I've always wondered about the length of time for a penalty being generic. All sports have differing life spans of Competativeness. The duration of his suspension...

I've always wondered about the length of time for a penalty being generic. All sports have differing life spans of Competativeness. The duration of his suspension is practically a lifetime in MX/SX. Well, IMHO.

jakefortyeight wrote:

Well, I am not the King, but if I were, having spent the last thirty years on the administrative end of the law and based on...

Well, I am not the King, but if I were, having spent the last thirty years on the administrative end of the law and based on what I have seen as "Fair" FIM could have handled it much better.

Upon completing their investigation, when WADA and USADA both granted Stewart his TUE, they concluded James had a legitimate reason for the use of the drug he tested positive for which was prescribed by his physician. This of course, left James guilty of not filing a TUE - which he should have been penalized for, but not necessarily using a banned substance for gaining an advantage over his competition.

Given that WADA and USADA concluded James had a legitimate reason for a use of a banned substance, it was logical to conclude they believed he was not using the drug to enhance his performance, thus it would seem reasonable that the FIM could have enforced James failure to file a TUE and positive test of a banned substance with a ruling something like this:

A large monetary fine combined with an 18 month ban from competition - which the FIM could immediately have then offered to suspend the 18 month ban in lieu of James completing a probationary period of 18 months with no drug or TUE violations. Any TUE or banned drug violation conviction over the next 18 month probationary period would result in an immediate lifetime ban from the sport.

Pretty sure that would send the message loud and clear and if James was as innocent as he has said he was, he would not have to worry about failing his probationary period.

jakefortyeight wrote:

Well, I am not the King, but if I were, having spent the last thirty years on the administrative end of the law and based on...

Well, I am not the King, but if I were, having spent the last thirty years on the administrative end of the law and based on what I have seen as "Fair" FIM could have handled it much better.

Upon completing their investigation, when WADA and USADA both granted Stewart his TUE, they concluded James had a legitimate reason for the use of the drug he tested positive for which was prescribed by his physician. This of course, left James guilty of not filing a TUE - which he should have been penalized for, but not necessarily using a banned substance for gaining an advantage over his competition.

Given that WADA and USADA concluded James had a legitimate reason for a use of a banned substance, it was logical to conclude they believed he was not using the drug to enhance his performance, thus it would seem reasonable that the FIM could have enforced James failure to file a TUE and positive test of a banned substance with a ruling something like this:

A large monetary fine combined with an 18 month ban from competition - which the FIM could immediately have then offered to suspend the 18 month ban in lieu of James completing a probationary period of 18 months with no drug or TUE violations. Any TUE or banned drug violation conviction over the next 18 month probationary period would result in an immediate lifetime ban from the sport.

Pretty sure that would send the message loud and clear and if James was as innocent as he has said he was, he would not have to worry about failing his probationary period.

ando wrote:

Unfortunately that's not quite right. James failed a drug test, for which he was then provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. At the conclusion...

Unfortunately that's not quite right.

James failed a drug test, for which he was then provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation the FIM decided he was guilty of taking a banned substance and the penalty was a 16 month suspension, including time already served during the provisional suspension. I believe, based on other similar cases, that his demonstrated therapeutic reasons were probably instrumental in having the ban reduced from 2 years to 16 months.

As a separate issue, James subsequently filed TUE's with WADA and USADA for future competition. Both of those were granted to him.

It begs the question - if they knew how to go about filing a TUE after the event, why didn't they do it beforehand?

Reminds me of one of my favourite sayings when people don't take the time to do things properly in the first place - "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it again"

On your final point, monetary fines are almost useless as a deterrent for professional sports people. The problem is how do you make the fines consistent for all riders? The top guys don't care because any reasonable amount in fines won't bother them financially. The lower ranked (and paid) guys can't afford big fines (literally). Suspensions are the only fair and consistent way and hit the riders where it hurts.

jakefortyeight wrote:

Well, I am not the King, but if I were, having spent the last thirty years on the administrative end of the law and based on...

Well, I am not the King, but if I were, having spent the last thirty years on the administrative end of the law and based on what I have seen as "Fair" FIM could have handled it much better.

Upon completing their investigation, when WADA and USADA both granted Stewart his TUE, they concluded James had a legitimate reason for the use of the drug he tested positive for which was prescribed by his physician. This of course, left James guilty of not filing a TUE - which he should have been penalized for, but not necessarily using a banned substance for gaining an advantage over his competition.

Given that WADA and USADA concluded James had a legitimate reason for a use of a banned substance, it was logical to conclude they believed he was not using the drug to enhance his performance, thus it would seem reasonable that the FIM could have enforced James failure to file a TUE and positive test of a banned substance with a ruling something like this:

A large monetary fine combined with an 18 month ban from competition - which the FIM could immediately have then offered to suspend the 18 month ban in lieu of James completing a probationary period of 18 months with no drug or TUE violations. Any TUE or banned drug violation conviction over the next 18 month probationary period would result in an immediate lifetime ban from the sport.

Pretty sure that would send the message loud and clear and if James was as innocent as he has said he was, he would not have to worry about failing his probationary period.

ando wrote:

Unfortunately that's not quite right. James failed a drug test, for which he was then provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. At the conclusion...

Unfortunately that's not quite right.

James failed a drug test, for which he was then provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation the FIM decided he was guilty of taking a banned substance and the penalty was a 16 month suspension, including time already served during the provisional suspension. I believe, based on other similar cases, that his demonstrated therapeutic reasons were probably instrumental in having the ban reduced from 2 years to 16 months.

As a separate issue, James subsequently filed TUE's with WADA and USADA for future competition. Both of those were granted to him.

It begs the question - if they knew how to go about filing a TUE after the event, why didn't they do it beforehand?

Reminds me of one of my favourite sayings when people don't take the time to do things properly in the first place - "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it again"

On your final point, monetary fines are almost useless as a deterrent for professional sports people. The problem is how do you make the fines consistent for all riders? The top guys don't care because any reasonable amount in fines won't bother them financially. The lower ranked (and paid) guys can't afford big fines (literally). Suspensions are the only fair and consistent way and hit the riders where it hurts.

Juss wrote:

How do you know if he did or didn't try to file the form? Also football players get what a 4 game suspension for same thing?

jakefortyeight wrote:

Well, I am not the King, but if I were, having spent the last thirty years on the administrative end of the law and based on...

Well, I am not the King, but if I were, having spent the last thirty years on the administrative end of the law and based on what I have seen as "Fair" FIM could have handled it much better.

Upon completing their investigation, when WADA and USADA both granted Stewart his TUE, they concluded James had a legitimate reason for the use of the drug he tested positive for which was prescribed by his physician. This of course, left James guilty of not filing a TUE - which he should have been penalized for, but not necessarily using a banned substance for gaining an advantage over his competition.

Given that WADA and USADA concluded James had a legitimate reason for a use of a banned substance, it was logical to conclude they believed he was not using the drug to enhance his performance, thus it would seem reasonable that the FIM could have enforced James failure to file a TUE and positive test of a banned substance with a ruling something like this:

A large monetary fine combined with an 18 month ban from competition - which the FIM could immediately have then offered to suspend the 18 month ban in lieu of James completing a probationary period of 18 months with no drug or TUE violations. Any TUE or banned drug violation conviction over the next 18 month probationary period would result in an immediate lifetime ban from the sport.

Pretty sure that would send the message loud and clear and if James was as innocent as he has said he was, he would not have to worry about failing his probationary period.

ando wrote:

Unfortunately that's not quite right. James failed a drug test, for which he was then provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. At the conclusion...

Unfortunately that's not quite right.

James failed a drug test, for which he was then provisionally suspended pending the outcome of the investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation the FIM decided he was guilty of taking a banned substance and the penalty was a 16 month suspension, including time already served during the provisional suspension. I believe, based on other similar cases, that his demonstrated therapeutic reasons were probably instrumental in having the ban reduced from 2 years to 16 months.

As a separate issue, James subsequently filed TUE's with WADA and USADA for future competition. Both of those were granted to him.

It begs the question - if they knew how to go about filing a TUE after the event, why didn't they do it beforehand?

Reminds me of one of my favourite sayings when people don't take the time to do things properly in the first place - "There's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it again"

On your final point, monetary fines are almost useless as a deterrent for professional sports people. The problem is how do you make the fines consistent for all riders? The top guys don't care because any reasonable amount in fines won't bother them financially. The lower ranked (and paid) guys can't afford big fines (literally). Suspensions are the only fair and consistent way and hit the riders where it hurts.