Jon Jones (UFC Champion) caught for doping again. Does this mean we will get a refund for UFC 214?

[Good_Sir]

Hello boys and girls,

As it turns out, Jon "Bones" Jones tested positive for steroids yet again. The failed drug test was confirmed by both USADA and the CSAC. Buh-bye, Jonny. 

https://www.mmafighting.com/2017/8/22/16187202/jon-jones-failed-drug-test-at-ufc-214

Since I'm fairly new to betting, I was wondering if people who placed bets on that fight will be getting a refund once the news has been officially confirmed and sentenced?

I tried to read through the betting rules in this PDF provided by Unibet, but I'm still not quite sure what the stipulations are. I see certain stipulations under boxing, which also apply to MMA, but nowhere does it say anything regarding doping. It's only present under the "Athletics" and "Swimming" chapters, but not in the aforementioned. 

Would somebody be so kind to enlighten me on this matter? 

 

Thank you very much in advance for your kind support.  

[FreedoM]

Cheating is a personal decision, some people will never cheat no matter how bad it is, others will cheat no matter how good it is. I guess it is in their BONES. It's only logical that you will get your money back because the match never happened :)

[JeppeL]

Well hello @Good_Sir :)

It's unfortunate when this happens, luckily we don't see it too often.

Once the event has been completed and an official winner found, that result stands as the result of the bets placed on the event. We never void(refund) bets on this basis, as it's a very slippery slope and we believe the most fair way of doing it for everyone involved is to have the original settlement count. An example of the slippery slope would be the question of how long we should go back and void bets in these instances, e.g when Tour de France riders are busted years after winning stages or even the whole event - the issue is exactly the same, but just a different timeline.

For good measure, here's the official rule from our terms and conditions staing this:

(Section B, 5.2)

2) Settlement of bets will not include any changes deriving from and/or attributable to, but not limited to: disqualifications, penalisations, protests, sub judice results and/or successive changes to the official result after the event has been completed.

 

Please fire away if you have any more questions or comments about this, we're always interested in hearing the opinions of our players - I do hope though, that the explanation from our side seems sensical :)

/Jeppe

[Good_Sir]

Thank you, Jeppe, for your response.

 

Although I do understand these terms and conditions from a business perspective or for the sake of general practicality, I do however think that adequate and fair measures should be implemented to better safeguard players from rigged events or foul play.

 

An option could be to "lock in" the gains for an extended period of time after the event has been completed to make sure that the authorities involved have a sufficiently large time-frame to f.e. test urine samples and reach a verdict. Once that time-frame has transpired, no refunds are possible and the finalized transaction will be completed into the balance of the players based on the original outcome. The latter to avoid the transpiring of overly large periods of time like the analogy you made with the Tour De France.

 

Otherwise I don't quite see how it could be possible to make sports betting truly fair in any sort of way. There's just so many ways on too many levels to absolutely rig an event. Players should at least get some chance at betting on true sportsmanship rather than having to factor in a plethora of criminal, yet obviously very real, influencing factors. I think this would also greatly benefit the influx of new players, the leaving of disgruntled ones and the promotion of betting as a relatively safe form of entertainment with the wider public. I fail to comprehend how this wouldn't have a positive impact on the revenue stream of betting companies.

 

 

[WuDu]

---

@Good_Sir wrote:

 

An option could be to "lock in" the gains for an extended period of time after the event has been completed to make sure that the authorities involved have a sufficiently large time-frame to f.e. test urine samples and reach a verdict. Once that time-frame has transpired, no refunds are possible and the finalized transaction will be completed into the balance of the players based on the original outcome. The latter to avoid the transpiring of overly large periods of time like the analogy you made with the Tour De France.

 

 

 

---

Good luck being a betting company declining to pay out its customers! I can already see the threads popping up: "I just won 10000 Euro betting on xxx and Unibet refuses to pay me. SCAAAAAAAAAMMMMMM!"

I'd say foul play is a part of betting you have to accept and account for. Simple as that! I remember betting on 3rd division Paderborn beating the HSV in the first round of the German cup in 2004. They won because the ref (Robert Hoyzer) placed bets himself which became a yuuuuuge scandal back in the day. I would have been pissed if the bookie declined to pay out. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, this might not help you right now, but in the long run, it's the only way to go...

[JeppeL]

@Good_Sir I understand the background and thought for wanting it to work as you suggest, but I don't see it as feasible for us to implement. It quickly becomes  a slippery slope and the vast majority of bettors aren't interested in having to wait X amount of time to get their winnings. Maybe if fighters were getting caught for illegal substance abuse in 50%+ of all fights, but even then it would seem more likely for the decision to lie with the sports body of when to announce an official result(it's from these all our bets are settled).

/Jeppe 

[Sect7G]

I've been a fan of the UFC for nearly 25 years... believe me when I say that there could be a seperate betting forum for wagering which guys will get popped for PED's.  Still over 70% likely do to some extent and there's no way Unibet or any company should consider holding bets until a fighter is cleared.  The bike doping scandal showed cheaters from 10+ years ago whom got caught because of detection tecqniques finally caught up to the cheaters from the past.  Now of course there's new masking agents and other methods which go under todays radar.  A lot of cat and mouse stuff.