Major change in UFC anti-doping policy
Hunter Campbell: “If an athlete has a positive drug test, we aren’t putting them in a fight until their case is resolved — but what we can do is give the athlete an opportunity to adjudicate their issue without the public rushing to judgment.”
There is a presumption in US law that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. There is a presumption among MMA fans that fighters are guilty of doping when a test is flagged. But it’s not always so. 62 cases have been adjudicated, and 21 were rules by USADA to be non-intentional use.
In response, ESPN‘s Brett Okamoto reports that there is a major change underway in the UFC’s anti-doping program. Starting in mid-July, the UFC is now announcing violations only after the case is resolved.
“I have nothing but the highest caliber of respect for USADA, but it would be obtuse on our part if we did not take a look after a three-year period and say, ‘What are the things we’ve learned and what changes might we need to make to this program?'” explained UFC Chief Legal Officer Hunter Campbell. “If an athlete has a positive drug test, we aren’t putting them in a fight until their case is resolved — but what we can do is give the athlete an opportunity to adjudicate their issue without the public rushing to judgment. Announcing the test result creates this narrative around the athlete before people understand the facts.”
“Part of the feedback Jeff [Novitzky], UFC drug czar and I have received from the athletes is, ‘I would have appreciated the opportunity to adjudicate this, so the story could be I tested positive, a full investigation was conducted and it was found the use was unintentional,'” Campbell said. “That story is very different than giving somebody a six-month window, where they are trying to defend themselves against accusations they are a cheater.”
The UFC is also discussing how to handle 2nd-time offenders. Right now the penalty doubles. But is that reasonable if the failures are inadvertent?
“One of the reasons a guy like Jon Jones was facing four years is that he was a multiple offender of the program,” explained Campbell. “My issue with that is that Jon Jones was found to have not done anything intentional in his first offense. He was found to have a exercised a degree of irresponsibility. I do not think anyone who has two unintentional violations should have to face a four-year suspension. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime. You have to have, and we will continue to have, increasing penalties in the event a violation is found to be intentional.”
“This program is meant to punish and catch intentional cheaters,” Novitzky said. “None of us are saying there will be no liability when it comes to unintentional use, but to punish that level of liability in the same manner of someone who was knowingly using something is not what this program was meant to do.”