Daniel Cormier is nonplussed at Jon Jones’s constant proclamations of innocence and believes that any such claims are a case of revisionist history.
Jon Jones’s run-ins with USADA have been very well-documented, and perhaps no one is keeping better track of Jones’s testing record than his chief nemesis Daniel Cormier. After all, both of Jones’s USADA suspensions stemmed from test failures in connection to a Jones/Cormier fight. There was the suspension prior to UFC 200, where Jones tested positive for clomiphene and letrozole; and there was also the failed drug test for Turinabol following his UFC 214 KO victory over Cormier. After the test failure, that outcome of the bout was reversed to a no-contest. Jones has maintained his innocence throughout all the positive tests, which Cormier declares has left him baffled.
“You know what I don’t get about this guy? I don’t understand how he goes, ‘They proved me innocent.’ They never proved him innocent,” Cormier said on ESPN’s “DC and Helwani” show. “They never once said he was innocent, so I don’t get it. I don’t get how he can say that publicly and people can repeat it publicly that he was proven innocent.
“No, they said the drugs were found in his system, but through excessive cooperation or something – I can’t remember the word – they took his sentence back. It was never innocent.”
Following the UFC 214 failure, Jones received a reduced suspension for providing “substantial assistance,” which is what Daniel Cormier is referring to; however, independent arbitration did make an official finding that Jones did not intentionally cheat, and it was also later revealed that the amount Jones tested positive for could not have led to any positive performance benefits. As for the UFC 200 test, USADA later determined that Jones did take a tainted supplement, and as was the case with UFC 214, independent arbitration declared that Jones was not a drug cheat and did not take any performance-enhancing drugs intentionally.
These are the factors that lead Jones to continue declaring that his innocence has been proven, but nonetheless, Cormier remains at a loss for how Jones could proclaim said innocence. I wouldn’t count on Cormier someday reconsidering his position on Jones regardless of what independent arbitration, USADA, or anyone else has to say about the subject, as the former double champ is not exactly impartial when it comes to the polarizing figure.
“It is what it is, I still can’t stand the guy and retired, not retired, see him publicly, I’ll probably still get into it. It’s just the way it is,” Cormier said.
Do you share Daniel Cormier’s bewilderment of Jon Jones’ claims of innocence? Or do you think he is too biased to consider all aspects of Jones’s testing history?