Will Canelo be stripped of his Ring title?

[Enlightened-One]

The situation might change in the next day or so and I could be ultimately proven wrong, but it’s been six days since the NSAC served Canelo with a six months ban and the Mexican is still The RING champion.

Don't their ratings panel meet on a monthly basis? If Canelo is going to be stripped, I'd expect it would happen after being put to a vote in said meeting, rather than instantly.

I expect we'll hear a decision next week.

You're probably right.

[Enlightened-One]

It seems that the expectations I stated more than a month ago have been met by The RING’s decision to not strip Canelo of his championship status and nor remove him from their rankings, due to the following reasons (articulated by Doug Fischer):

1) The tests that came back positive were conducted February 17 and February 20. No one who I spoke with (trainers, doctors and others) said that the ingestion of Clenbuterol at that time would have any impact whatsoever on Canelo’s abilities for his planned May 5 fight.

2) The levels of Clenbuterol in Canelo’s system were “consistent” with meat contamination, according to Dr. Daniel Eichner, director of the Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory and one of the most respected professionals in his field.

3) Receipts from restaurants where Canelo ingested meat in the time period that would have led to positive tests on February 17 and February 20 were provided to the NAC.

4) A hair-follicle test showed absolutely no trace of Clenbuterol in his system. Though hair-follicle testing is not currently approved for PEDs, one would reasonably expect to find Clenbuterol in the test, as substances ingested as long as years prior to the test, can still cause a positive result.

5) It is well established that Clenbuterol has been used in a slew of slaughterhouses throughout Mexico, despite a government ban on the activity. MMA fighters, NFL football players, professional soccer players, golfers and many other athletes who have travelled to Mexico have subsequently tested positive for the substance. Many have received no punishment whatsoever.

6) If the May 5 fight had been slated to take place in California, Texas, New York or many other places, Canelo would have likely been allowed to fight, as those states do not have a zero-tolerance drug policy when it comes to Clenbuterol.

Thoughts?

[jamamb]

THE RING will remove from its ratings any rated boxer – including a champion – if such boxer at some point undergoes drug testing and that boxer tests positive for a performance-enhancing drug.

thats there policy, they might want to change it then

whatever the reasons, its fact that canelo tested positive, and by there policy shouldve been removed. fischer said it himself before releasing that article.probably needs some rewording of the policy i think

[jamamb]

oh ya, btw, the full article on the ring site (not just the bit eo pasted) says the ring editorial board wanted to enforce there policy but was overuled by the publisher of the magazine, which seems interesting

in fact, those 6 reasons given above were provided by the publisher

THE RING’s policy was challenged by the magazine’s newly appointed publisher, Stefan Friedman, who provided the Editorial Board with the following reasons why it was “wrong” to strip Alvarez::............

fischer then writes

I understand and agree with many (but not all) of Friedman’s points, especially No. 6, which I believe to be true, but the fact for the matter is that the Canelo-Golovkin rematch was scheduled to take place in Nevada, and the commission of that state had to follow their rules. That’s all the Editorial Board wanted to do. But we have been overruled.

[Enlightened-One]

THE RING will remove from its ratings any rated boxer – including a champion – if such boxer at some point undergoes drug testing and that boxer tests positive for a performance-enhancing drug.

thats there policy, they might want to change it then

whatever the reasons, its fact that canelo tested positive, and by there policy shouldve been removed. fischer said it himself before releasing that article.probably needs some rewording of the policy i think

On the contrary, Doug Fischer actually suggested more than a month ago that Canelo may not be stripped of his RING championship and rating. He even cited several reasons, which I paraphrased in a post I submitted earlier on in this thread.

At the time, I wasn’t sure if he was expressing his own opinion or simply providing possible justification for The RING to potentially refrain from punishing Canelo.

I don’t necessarily agree with The RING’s decision, but nor do I agree with the NSAC’s zero-tolerance policy either.

It seems that both sets of rules need to be revised, because it’s clear that the commission didn’t want to impose a suspension on Canelo, but they were compelled to do so due to the contents of their own rulebook, and The RING shouldn’t need to keep exercising its sole discretion to permit exceptions to their own rules, because it renders them as being meaningless.

Doug Fischer has even admitted (in the article I supplied a link to) that The RING’s own rules are “vague and have led to some sketchy past decisions” and “far from perfect.”

[jamamb]

dougie mustve back tracked because he defo said in one of his mailbags that theyd be forced to remove canelo. or maybe he wasnt expecting the new publisher to overrule the editorial board , as turned out happening

seems pretty clear reading that they were gonna enforce the polcy but then friedman overrided them , providing those 6 reasons to support his decision

[Enlightened-One]

dougie mustve back tracked because he defo said in one of his mailbags that theyd be forced to remove canelo

looks like it was the publisher who ultimately made the decision for the mag

Like I said before, more than a month ago, Doug Fischer explained several reasons why Canelo may not necessarily be stripped of his championship and removed from The RING’s ratings, despite their rules, due to the manner in which they handled previous PED situations.

He listed them and explained the reason why each situation was dealt with differently.

I don’t really have a problem with the publisher’s decision, since the status of The RING championship and also their ratings are nowhere near as prestigious as they used to be, as long as they revise their rules in order to set the expectations of fight fans accordingly.

If each situation is going to be dealt with according to individual merit, then simply say so. This is a far better approach than pretending to adopt a zero-tolerance policy that they keep having to exercise exceptions to.

[Deleted_Scenes]

dougie mustve back tracked because he defo said in one of his mailbags that theyd be forced to remove canelo. or maybe he wasnt expecting the new publisher to overrule the editorial board , as turned out happening

seems pretty clear reading that they were gonna enforce the polcy but then friedman overrided them , providing those 6 reasons to support his decision

You remember correctly. I, and others, questioned him on the issue in the comments section of that very mailbag, and he categorically stated that Ring would follow NSAC's ruling (as they had done in past cases), and that a suspension for Canelo would mean he'd be stripped. It was only after NSAC's ruling that things started to change.

[greg]

..I'm pretty sure those 6 reasons can be successfully challenged by any half-way decent lawyer..

[jamamb]

out of curiosity, have the ring editorial board been overruled by there magazine publisher before?

[Deleted_Scenes]

out of curiosity, have the ring editorial board been overruled by there magazine publisher before?

Almost certain the answer to that is 'no'.

[Enlightened-One]

..I'm pretty sure those 6 reasons can be successfully challenged by any half-way decent lawyer..

The reasons that were cited by The RING are factuality accurate, so they can't be refuted.

You can't do it, so why would a lawyer fair any better? They might know the law but they can't rewrite history!

This imaginary lawyer of yours would have to propose other reasons to justify an accusation that The RING have acted inappropriately in regards to the handling of this matter, but I can't think of any. Can you?

The entire foundation of The RING's ratings system is based solely on OPINION.

People are legally entitled to possess a variety of OPINIONS, but they aren't entitled to their own version of the FACTS. And the FACTS cited by The RING to justify the OPINION that drove their decision are true, even if we don't agree it.

[greg]

..I'm pretty sure those 6 reasons can be successfully challenged by any half-way decent lawyer..

The reasons that were cited by The RING are factuality accurate, so they can't be refuted.

You can't do it, so why would a lawyer fair any better? They might know the law but they can't rewrite history!

This imaginary lawyer of yours would have to propose other reasons to justify an accusation that The RING have acted inappropriately in regards to the handling of this matter, but I can't think of any. Can you?

The entire foundation of The RING's ratings system is based solely on OPINION.

People are legally entitled to possess a variety of OPINIONS, but they aren't entitled to their own version of the FACTS. And the FACTS cited by The RING to justify the OPINION that drove their decision are true, even if we don't agree it.

...I certainly don't have time to do a complete research..some of the points above though seem to be irrelevant and shouldn't have affected the "verdict" imo..point 1) - even if true, is it really relevant whether it could have an impact on Canelo's abilities or not on fight night? - don't think so...point 3) - "receipts of restaurants have been provided ..." - if that's not the ultimate proof of his "innocence", I don't know what is...point 4) a hair-follicle test raises more questions than provides answers... point 6) what bearing does it have on the FACT that Canelo got caught using PEDS? none whatsoever...............

I found the following opinion rather interesting especially the last part:

[Enlightened-One]

..I'm pretty sure those 6 reasons can be successfully challenged by any half-way decent lawyer..

The reasons that were cited by The RING are factuality accurate, so they can't be refuted.

You can't do it, so why would a lawyer fair any better? They might know the law but they can't rewrite history!

This imaginary lawyer of yours would have to propose other reasons to justify an accusation that The RING have acted inappropriately in regards to the handling of this matter, but I can't think of any. Can you?

The entire foundation of The RING's ratings system is based solely on OPINION.

People are legally entitled to possess a variety of OPINIONS, but they aren't entitled to their own version of the FACTS. And the FACTS cited by The RING to justify the OPINION that drove their decision are true, even if we don't agree it.

...I certainly don't have time to do a complete research..some of the points above though seem to be irrelevant and shouldn't have affected the "verdict" imo..point 1) - even if true, is it really relevant whether it could have an impact on Canelo's abilities or not on fight night? - don't think so...point 3) - "receipts of restaurants have been provided ..." - if that's not the ultimate proof of his "innocence", I don't know what is...point 4) a hair-follicle test raises more questions than provides answers... point 6) what bearing does it have on the FACT that Canelo got caught using PEDS? none whatsoever...............

I found the following opinion rather interesting especially the last part:

It doesn’t matter if you feel that the six reasons are irrelevant or not, they are facts.

A lawyer cannot undermine those six universally-recognised facts, even if their relevance is questionable, because they can’t rewrite history and neither do they have any right to challenge an OPINIONS-based system.

The RING’s ratings system is entirely based on OPINIONS and they frequently apply exceptions to their own rules, based on their own OPINIONS.

Rightly or wrongly, The RING has cited six universally-recognised facts to justify their actions.

[greg]

.. considering possible conflict of interests my contention being that these might be carefully chosen facts to make the "right" decision..

[Enlightened-One]

.. considering possible conflict of interests my contention being that these might be carefully chosen facts to make the "right" decision..

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that what you're proposing is entirely possible, but unfortunately none of us will ever find out for sure.