It is reported that Jon Jones, who was pulled from UFC 200 days before his bout with Daniel Cormier due to a failed out of competition drug test, may pull off the ‘contaminated product’ defense.
We’ve been able to establish the source of the prohibited substances. It came from a product that Jon took that was not labelled with either of these substances. We had it tested, the product was contaminated with both of them. I know USADA also independently had the product tested; their testing confirms what we found. We then sent essentially the same pills that we had had tested to be tested by USADA’s lab, which also found the same thing. So pretty much every time it’s been tested, it’s shown that the product is contaminated with both clomiphene and Letrozole, the two substances (Jones tested positive for).
Even unintentional ingestion of a banned substance is a violation of USADA’s and the Nevada Athletic Commission’s ‘strict liability‘ anti-doping standards, however, as has been demonstrated by Tim Means and Yoel Romero, reduced sanctions can follow true cases of contaminated products.
Jones raised several affirmative defenses in his answer to the NAC’s Complaint for Disciplinary Action. He specifically argues that the NAC should take into account any punishment that USADA imposes and has arranged his USADA hearing to take place before his NAC hearing.
Despite not having the USADA contract on file, an exception exists where A promoter is not required to submit to the Commission a copy of a contract…if the Commission, in its discretion, authorizes the promoter to arrange for a representative of the Commission to review the information and report to the Commission whether the contract or amendment complies with the provisions of subsection 1.
Assuming the NAC has ratified the USADA contract and are content that it ensures protection of the State, the Commission (and) unarmed combat then it only makes sense to honor findings and punishments imposed by USADA unless there are compelling reasons not to. Only time will tell if the NAC accepts this reality of concurrent jurisdiction.
—
Author Erik Magraken is a British Columbia litigation lawyer, combat sports law consultant, founder of the Combat Law Sports Blog, and deeply appreciated UGer.
