It has now widely been reported that Canelo Alvarez tested positive for ingesting the banned substance Clenbuterol ahead of his scheduled May 5 rematch with Gennady Golovkin. The failed drug tests were conducted out-of-competition taken through the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association. Samples tested on February 17th and 20th were positive for the substance.

VADA does not hand out their own sanctions, rather they are a privately hired anti-doping watchdog who simply pass their drug test results to sanctioning bodies and regulators.

The Nevada State Athletic Commission has jurisdiction over this bout and after learning of the positive test issued a temporary suspension to Alvarez and scheduled a hearing on April 1o, 2018 where the fighter will have to answer the anti-doping allegations.

So what legal principles are in play?

As previously discussed, in 2016 the NSAC overhauled their anti-doping landscape in an effort to bring predictability and consistency when punishing drug cheats.

First and foremost the regulations make it clear that fighters have the right to have a B sample tested prior to an anti-doping violation being established. Alvarez enjoys this same right under VADA. It is unclear if his B sample is being tested but given that B sample results almost always confirm A sample findings it is a good bet this will not be an out for Alvarez.

Alvarez’s camp seems resigned to this fate blaming the positive result not on shoddy lab work but on tainted Mexican beef.

Assuming the sample can be traced back to tainted beef this does not exculpate Alvarez from a violation. Among the 2016 changes were a codification of the ‘strict liability’ nature of doping offenses with the regulations noting

it is not necessary to establish that the unarmed combatant intentionally, knowingly or negligently used a prohibited substance or that the unarmed combatant is otherwise at fault for the presence of the prohibited substance

In other words, athletes are responsible for what enters the body and if the prohibited substance is there a violation occurred.

From there the inquiry moves to what punishment will be issued. The NSAC came under wide criticism for handing out inconsistent penalties for doping violations in the past. The 2016 amendments attempted to address this giving scheduled penalties for infractions. Specifically, they call for a default suspension of 9-24 months for a first anti-doping violation with a fine from 15-30% of a fighters purse.

So is this Alvarez’s fate? Not necessarily. The amendments also allow reduced suspensions including the potential for no suspension where ‘one or more mitigating circumstances’ exist. Included in the definition of ‘mitigating circumstances’ is the ‘contaminated product’ defense with the regulations noting:

The hearing can take various twists and turns with NSAC regulations calling for increased and decreased penalties in various circumstances. The most important takeaway, however, is that if Alvarez can credibly trace the clenbuterol to tainted meat the bout may still be on.

—

Author Erik Magraken is a British Columbia litigation lawyer, combat sports law consultant, founder of the Combat Law Sports Blog, and profoundly appreciated UGer.