Is Chael Sonnen’s Punishment Unjustified?

White’s case rests on the argument that Sonnen paid a reasonable price with his initial 6-month suspension in December of 2010. White also suggested boxers typically do not receive sentencing this harsh for worse offenses.

White isn’t alone in his beliefs. Members of the media as well as UFC and even Chael Sonnen fans have expressed similar sentiments.

I share the concerns of those who believe athletic commissions, California or otherwise, often exercise a twisted form of justice. Athletes who admit to impropriety receive Draconian punishment while those who obfuscate, willfully deceive or simply put up a fight often have penalties reduced.

Many athletic commissions also step beyond the purview of their mission. Take marijuana use, for example. There isn’t a shred of credible scientific or legal evidence THC, the active pharmacological component in marijuana, is in any way “performance enhancing” as we understand the term. With rare exception, use of marijuana is strictly prohibited by law, but is only tested for by commissions because of how the drug is classified under U.S. federal law. Still, no one wants a fighter competing high.

The problem arises in the commissions’ testing methods, namely, urinalysis. There is no dose correlation as it relates to pharmacological impairment and a positive urinalysis. In other words, the commissions are right to want to keep fighters impaired from marijuana use from walking into a cage, but urinalysis - even those that reveal high levels of THC in urine samples - only tell us a fighter has used, not when they used. That means fighters who test for high concentrations of THC could be perfectly sober walking into a cage - something the commission is perfectly ok with - yet be punished for recreational use. In this particular circumstance, we have commissions trading their responsibility for public safety with the desire to be vice cops.

The other problem with commissions is their “shoot first, ask questions later” style of adjudication. If a fighter tests positive for elevated levels of testosterone or acts in some manner otherwise deemed disagreeable, commissions employ a punishment first. Only after a fighter has been notified they’re being punished do they receive the opportunity to attempt punitive mitigation. Unlike a normal court system where guilt has to be established under the initial presumption of innocence, commissions work backward.

That’s how commissions have been designed. I’m not saying they are abusing their power. They are exercising their power under the law as it’s intended. The seemingly arbitrary or counter-intuitive methods of delivering justice often irk our sensibilities, but they aren’t circumventing law.

That brings us to Chael Sonnen. White and most fans agree the six-month suspension he initially received in December for testing positive for elevated levels of testosterone was appropriate. Sonnen claimed he medically needed testosterone to live. The CSAC countered that he should’ve disclosed it properly especially if the testosterone use was being monitored by a licensed medical practitioner. His initial suspension of a year was reduced to six months and he was forced to pay a small fine.

In White’s opinion, that was where matters should’ve stopped.

Instead, Sonnen was indefinitely suspended this month until June 29, 2011. The commission believes Sonnen perjured himself (or was, at best, purposefully not forthcoming with the truth) in his December hearing. Why? During the previous hearing, Sonnen lied about his ability to use testosterone replacement therapy in Nevada as a leveraging point to get his punishment in California lessened.

We do run into the problem of definitively proving Sonnen lied. Perjury was not established in a formal court of law before judge and jury. But any thorough review of the facts clearly shows that Sonnen’s statements before the CSAC in December were knowingly dishonest.

And this is where everything falls apart for the Chael Sonnen defense.

Some have suggested that the CSAC’s use of Sonnen’s statements to the media as proof of contradiction isn’t relevant. Those interviews aren’t at all necessary to demonstrate Sonnen told falsehoods. Still, statements to the media are absolutely admissible as proof of perjury. Let’s say a cop is on trial for lying about an arrest. He claimed the arrest happened at night on the stand. But the prosecution finds a CNN interview where he says he arrested the kid at 2pm. That is completely admissible as proof of perjury. It may not be dispositive, but it is a contradictory statement that is perfectly relevant.

What about boxer bias? Do they get off easy for much worse crimes? That question is harder to answer. I’m no Bert Sugar and certain I’m not considering all of the relevant cases.

In terms of popular expression, many fans have suggested Mike Tyson was let off the hook for biting both of Evander Holyfield’s ears in a widely-promoted title fight in 1997. Not so. Tyson was fined $3 million, suspended for more than a year by the Nevada State Athletic Commission and came dangerously close to receiving a lifetime ban from the sport.

With respect to boxers who committed similar crimes outside of the sport that affected their ability to be licensed in the sport, the examples are few and far between. Kendall Holt pleaded guilty to money laundering in 2009, but never lost his license. Holt’s manager, Henry Cortes, was the central figure in the money laundering scandal. New Jersey subsequently revoked his managerial license. Ricky Hatton lost his license with the British Boxing Board of Control due to his widely-publicized cocaine abuse. While exceedingly rare, it isn’t entirely without precedent for commissions to view unlawful behavior beyond the scope of the sport as relevant criteria for licensing.

But there is no case that comes readily to mind where a boxer not only lied to a commission, but lied about their dealings with a different commission to play off the other. Worse, Sonnen told the CSAC at this month’s hearing that White indicated to him he was “effectively retired” if he didn’t have his license reinstated that day. That clearly is not true. Isn’t it reasonable to ask if he perjured himself again?

I am profoundly sympathetic with those who believe the method of delivering justice and enforcing law among state athletic commissions is overly punitive. However, knowing their heavy-handedness and capricious standards, to be so reckless as to offer testimony that’s fabricated or thoroughly mischaracterized about interaction with another commission is entirely unforgivable.

For all of their problems, commissions are essential. At their core, they provide a helpful service. Neither Sonnen nor any other fighter should be permitted to undermine the commission’s central authority in the pursuit of economic opportunity.

Chael Sonnen’s punishment is justified. Given the state of clumsy or oppressive sentencing many state commissions often hand out for petty misdeeds, that’s saying quite a bit.