Tweet
Chael Sonnen was the beneficiary of a cluster-mess of a hearing with the California State Athletic Commission on Thursday, earning a six month reduction to his suspension for a failed steroid test before his UFC 117 bout with Anderson Silva.
Despite providing no evidence to prove that he had adequately informed the CSAC of a diagnosed condition of hypogonadism - a condition which, according to Sonnen's and his doctor's testimony, required a regular regimen of testosterone replacement therapy - and admitting to injecting testosterone just days before the fight, Sonnen's one-year suspension was arbitrarily reduced to six months.
This came due to a 3-1 vote by members of the commission immediately after a motion to uphold the initial suspension and fine was deadlocked at two votes apiece.
Sonnen's defense spent the proceedings attempting to show that his testosterone use was justified and medically necessary. Sonnen also claimed that he had informed the CSAC prior to his October 2009 bout with Yushin Okami that he was undergoing this therapy, but no one on his defense team provided any proof that approval was received outside of supposed verbal confirmation.
Sonnen also claimed to have worked with the Dr. Davidson under the UFC's employ, believing him to be affiliated with the CSAC. That claim was refuted, but Sonnen again contended that he felt the commission had been sufficiently informed of his condition because he had no issues for the Okami bout.
Another contention from Sonnen was that he had informed Nevada State Athletic Commissioner Keith Kizer about the therapy and was subsequently told that it didn't need to be brought up again. Kizer has made multiple statements on record stating that he had, in fact, not discussed TRT with Sonnen at any point.
Ultimately, although they found no evidence to support the issue of Sonnen's failure to properly disclose his condition, they reduced the suspension anyway, and Sonnen will be able to apply for a license in California once again as of March 2, 2011.
Penick's Analysis: The CSAC looked really bad here. The issue of the legitimacy of Sonnen's condition or of the testosterone treatment was honestly completely irrelevant to this situation. This was not about whether or not Chael's use of testosterone should be allowed, it was about whether or not he went through the proper procedures set forth by the CSAC to be allowed to use it for this bout. They claimed that they had faxed the information necessary to the CSAC before the October bout, but the CSAC had no record of that information, and Sonnen's defense did not provide proof that they had provided that information in the form of fax confirmations or in any other capacity.
The CSAC basically set a precedent that ignorance of their procedures is sufficient to reduce their penalties, and it happened because they seemed to be in a rush to get out of the meeting. There was confusion and a seeming lack of comprehension over what had been argued by both sides in the deliberation, and when the first motion to uphold the suspension was deadlocked at 2-2 they were very quick to move to the six month reduction. It made them look really bad; and really at the end of the day I don't have a complete problem with the suspension reduction itself, but the way they came to it is a different story. It was an embarrassing display at the end of the meeting, and doesn't give much faith as to their decisions in the future.
Despite providing no evidence to prove that he had adequately informed the CSAC of a diagnosed condition of hypogonadism - a condition which, according to Sonnen's and his doctor's testimony, required a regular regimen of testosterone replacement therapy - and admitting to injecting testosterone just days before the fight, Sonnen's one-year suspension was arbitrarily reduced to six months.
This came due to a 3-1 vote by members of the commission immediately after a motion to uphold the initial suspension and fine was deadlocked at two votes apiece.
Sonnen's defense spent the proceedings attempting to show that his testosterone use was justified and medically necessary. Sonnen also claimed that he had informed the CSAC prior to his October 2009 bout with Yushin Okami that he was undergoing this therapy, but no one on his defense team provided any proof that approval was received outside of supposed verbal confirmation.
Sonnen also claimed to have worked with the Dr. Davidson under the UFC's employ, believing him to be affiliated with the CSAC. That claim was refuted, but Sonnen again contended that he felt the commission had been sufficiently informed of his condition because he had no issues for the Okami bout.
Another contention from Sonnen was that he had informed Nevada State Athletic Commissioner Keith Kizer about the therapy and was subsequently told that it didn't need to be brought up again. Kizer has made multiple statements on record stating that he had, in fact, not discussed TRT with Sonnen at any point.
Ultimately, although they found no evidence to support the issue of Sonnen's failure to properly disclose his condition, they reduced the suspension anyway, and Sonnen will be able to apply for a license in California once again as of March 2, 2011.
Penick's Analysis: The CSAC looked really bad here. The issue of the legitimacy of Sonnen's condition or of the testosterone treatment was honestly completely irrelevant to this situation. This was not about whether or not Chael's use of testosterone should be allowed, it was about whether or not he went through the proper procedures set forth by the CSAC to be allowed to use it for this bout. They claimed that they had faxed the information necessary to the CSAC before the October bout, but the CSAC had no record of that information, and Sonnen's defense did not provide proof that they had provided that information in the form of fax confirmations or in any other capacity.
The CSAC basically set a precedent that ignorance of their procedures is sufficient to reduce their penalties, and it happened because they seemed to be in a rush to get out of the meeting. There was confusion and a seeming lack of comprehension over what had been argued by both sides in the deliberation, and when the first motion to uphold the suspension was deadlocked at 2-2 they were very quick to move to the six month reduction. It made them look really bad; and really at the end of the day I don't have a complete problem with the suspension reduction itself, but the way they came to it is a different story. It was an embarrassing display at the end of the meeting, and doesn't give much faith as to their decisions in the future.
Comment