Is it fair to call Josh Barnett a former UFC Champion? - MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos
General MMA Discussion Discuss King Of The Cage, Ultimate Challenge UK, and HDNet Fights as well as general mixed martial arts discussion.

View Poll Results: Considering the history is do you think Barnett should be called a former UFC champ?
Yes, he did win the belt. 19 43.18%
Hell No!! Cheaters shouldn't be recognized. 22 50.00%
Who? 3 6.82%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 02:51 AM Thread Starter
Toxic's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: See that guy over in the window, with the binoculars?
Posts: 21,821
Is it fair to call Josh Barnett a former UFC Champion?

Considering he failed the drug test and was stripped of the title do you think its fair he is considered a former champion because personally I fail to see him as such.

"If you get hit and it hurts hit him back you not knocked out yet."-Joe Doerksen
The Toxic Terrors (FFL)
Demetrious Johnson*Eduardo Dantas*Emanuel Newton*Will Brooks*Michael Page

Toxic is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 02:59 AM
Super Ultra Great Delicious Wonderful
osmium's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 6,517
No, if you get popped for steroids in the fight you won the belt in that invalidates your effort. The fight basically didn't even happen at that point.
osmium is offline  
post #3 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 03:08 AM
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 864
Being stripped of the title makes it invalid IMO.
sNuFf_rEaLiTy is offline  
post #4 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 03:17 AM
On a Rampage
rockybalboa25's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,845
Blog Entries: 1
I'd have to say I agree. If Sonnen had beat Silva he wouldn't be a former UFC champion.
rockybalboa25 is offline  
post #5 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 03:30 AM
Gabba Gabba Hey

dudeabides's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 19,066
It mattered, they didn't just hand Randy back the belt he had to fight Rodriguez for it (that didn't go so well, though). So he is a former champ even if such a short lived one. If you were a champ for even a second, you were a champ. So afterwards you're a former champ.

Nobody F's with the Jesus
(Sig by Killz)
dudeabides is offline  
post #6 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 03:33 AM
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 864
Originally Posted by dudeabides View Post
It mattered, they didn't just hand Randy back the belt he had to fight Rodriguez for it (that didn't go so well, though). So he is a former champ even if such a short lived one. If you were a champ for even a second, you were a champ. So afterwards you're a former champ.
it mattered because there was no champion.
sNuFf_rEaLiTy is offline  
post #7 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 04:10 AM
The Mad Titan
Guy Incognito's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Following The Path To Jesus Set By His Disciple Vitor Belfort
Posts: 5,111
Barnett was screwed over.

I posted this in another thread, but really, it deserves its own. Many fans are new to MMA within the last 5 years, and take some things that the NSAC say at their word. Maybe this will get you thinking a tad differently. This thread also gives credibility to Josh's statements about how he was never beaten, and essential screwed out of the title.

A lot of people talk about steroids being the reason that Josh Barnett beat Randy Couture. People seem to forget that Zuffa managment and Josh Barnett had BIG TIME disagreements about how much the Babyface Assassin was worth, plus other problems BEFORE the fight with Couture. Now tell me that the UFC and NSAC didn't have some sort of agenda after reading the following:

News - |

Independent Drug Test Proves Josh Barnett’s Innocence
Posted on July 24, 2002

UFC Heavyweight Champion Fights to Clear Reputation After NSAC’s Testing Procedures Result in False Positive

KIRKLAND, Washington--On April 22, 2002, the Nevada State Athletic Commission filed a complaint against Josh Barnett for alleged anabolic steroid use, stemming from a drug test after his win over Randy Couture in UFC 36 on March 22, 2002. The NSAC contacted Barnett and his trainer, Matt Hume, to schedule a hearing via teleconference on May 24, 2002. In addition to Barnett and Hume, Roy Silbert (United Full Contact Federation President), Dr. Mark Webber (drug testing expert and administrator for USA Power Lifting and the International Olympic Committee), Mark Ratner (NSAC commissioner), Dr. Flip Homansky (NSAC), Keith Kizer (NSAC attorney) took part in the meeting. The issues expressed were as follows:

NSAC issues:

The NSAC alleged two positive tests for anabolic steroids from samples taken on 11/02/01 and 03/22/02. Josh Barnett’s issues:
The NSAC did not provide Josh with a list of banned substances or inform him of any testing requirements for anabolic agents on either occasion. To date, Josh has not received a list of banned substances.
The NSAC claims that Josh tested positive for the same substances on 11/02/01, four months before his title fight with Randy Couture. Yet, the NSAC did not inform him that he had failed that initial test or provide him with the alleged results. According to the NSAC, Barnett’s first drug test revealed three anabolic ****bolites, one of which remains in the human body for up to 18 months. If this was indeed the case, why did the NSAC and Zuffa subsequently allow Barnett to fight for the world championship just four months later with full knowledge that he might have steroids in his system?
The NSAC withholds a portion of each fighter’s purse until the drug test is completed. If the results are positive, the fighter must forfeit that portion of his purse. If Josh failed his drug test, why did the NSAC send that money to Barnett on both occasions with no notification of any problem?
The NSAC did not follow established protocol when testing Barnett. They did not provide tracking information for his samples. Nor did they separate Josh’s samples into two specimens in his presence. Because of these and other basic protocol errors, a positive test could not be accurately verified or validated. Many factors can contribute to a positive drug test—hence the term “false positive.” Without proper notification and protocol, the true cause of the positive result for anabolic steroids cannot be determined.
Josh Barnett has still not received results from the NSAC drug test on 11/02/01.

During the course of the meeting, both sides acknowledged the other side’s concerns. Hume informed the NSAC members that Dr. Webber had already scheduled another test with Aegis laboratories that would follow proper protocol and established Olympic standards.

The NSAC members and attorney agreed that a negative result and education from Dr. Webber would resolve this situation. NSAC attorney Keith Kizer stated that he would prepare a draft of the agreement for both parties to sign. It was agreed that this was to serve as the final hearing and that the signed draft would bring the issue to a resolution.

Dr. Homansky then invited Dr. Webber and Roy Silbert to come to Las Vegas on the weekend of June 22 to meet with the NSAC toxicology specialist. The purpose of the meeting was for Dr. Webber to educate the NSAC on the standards, methods of protocol and proper anabolic drug testing. Dr. Webber and Roy Silbert subsequently met with Dr. Homansky and the NSAC toxicology specialist in Las Vegas as requested.

On June 11, 2002, Barnett took a new test administered by Dr. Webber, who utilized Olympic-level protocol. The result of this test was negative, demonstrating that Josh is not currently using and could not have been using the alleged substances as charged due to the length of time that such substances remain present in the human body.

Approximately three weeks after the hearing, Barnett and Hume had still not received the draft from Keith Kizer, as discussed. However, they did receive a phone call stating that another hearing was to be scheduled. When asked why the draft of the aforementioned verbal agreement had not been prepared and why the NSAC wished to schedule a second hearing, Kizer stated that it was just a formality and he would get the draft to them right away.

Hume informed the NSAC members of Barnett’s travel schedule, which clearly stated that the only time Barnett would be away was the week of the UFC 38 in England in mid July. Unfortunately, when Kizer finally sent the draft of the agreement from the May 24 teleconference, it was inaccurate. In addition, the NSAC requested a second hearing during the time that Josh was scheduled to corner Ian Freeman in London, England—a time conflict of which the NSAC was well aware.

Barnett, Silbert and Hume worked diligently with the NSAC to develop a mutually acceptable draft of the May 24th agreement. Barnett also availed himself to the NSAC by telephone from England on the day and time of the scheduled hearing.

Unfortunately, the NSAC refused the draft and did not speak with Josh on their scheduled date. The NSAC then rescheduled the hearing for July 26, 2002. Barnett requested to be present at the hearing via telephone as he does not have the resources to pay for the travel expenses he would be forced to incur in order to appear in person.

Meanwhile, neither Zuffa LLC nor UFC president Dana White has bothered to contact Barnett to express any concern or support for that organization’s reigning heavyweight champion in this matter.

It is Barnett’s hope that the NSAC will have the integrity and honesty to honor the resolution that its members agreed upon during the hearing on May 24, 2002. He is also optimistic that Zuffa will exercise its substantial influence in Nevada and voice its support for their innocent champion.

Josh Barnett is very frustrated with this situation. “I am a fighter, not a lawyer,” he stated. “I am innocent, and I should be fighting right now.”
The NSAC have always been in the fertitas pockets. Randy has been on HGH since forever but has never been caught because of it.

Last edited by Guy Incognito; 06-19-2011 at 04:28 AM.
Guy Incognito is offline  
post #8 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 04:21 AM
The Mad Titan
Guy Incognito's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Following The Path To Jesus Set By His Disciple Vitor Belfort
Posts: 5,111

Guy Incognito is offline  
post #9 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 04:45 AM
The Forum Drunk
xeberus's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 9,450
I have to say yes.

If the fight was ruled a no contest or DQ etc then its void and the guy he beat retains the belt then he was never champ. But if he was champ, he was champ and is a former champ.. thats not to say there isn't a big side note there that says "I cheated, I'm a bitch, my testicles are the size of sun dried raisins"

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Sig by D.P.

xeberus is offline  
post #10 of 25 (permalink) Old 06-19-2011, 07:32 AM
oldfan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: NC.
Posts: 8,824
Blog Entries: 1
He deserves it more than Bas IMO

Donít pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, heíll just kill you.
oldfan is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome