Why Silva’s test results came after the fight
“But it’s important to remember that the kind of work that WADA laboratories do is different than what a drugs-of-abuse lab does.”
On Tuesday, Feb 3, Kevin Iole revealed that Anderson Silva had failed a blood test for two PEDs. Shortly afterwards it was learned that the test had been administered on on Jan. 9. Further, again on Tuesday, Feb 3, Nick Diaz failed a test for marijuana that had been administered on Jan 31.
The hardcore fanbase immediately began to speculate that something was wrong, that perhaps the Nevada State Athletic Commission held back on the results, or otherwise ensured that they came out after the fight was over. A bout of that magnitude brings many, many millions into Nevada, and no small amount to the commission itself, providing an incentive to hold back on a result that would have resulted in the cancellation of the fight.
Imagine if Woodley vs. Gastelum was the main event …
However, Iole investigated, and the tinfoil hats can go back on the shelf for now. The sample was sent to the WADA-accredited Sports Medicine Research & Testing Laboratory (SMRTL) in Salt Lake City, Utah. Iole spoke with the Executive director of SMRTL and the former science director of the United States Anti-Doping Agency, Dr. Daniel Eichner, who explained the process.
He said he was unable to speak specifically about Silva’s case, but said there is a lack of understanding of how testing procedures work.
The key thing, he said, is that everything is done anonymously. The sample is sent to the lab by a WADA-certified collector, who does not put the athlete’s name on the sample but rather a number.
The lab doesn’t know who requested the test or who is being tested, Eichner said.
“We’re independent and we have no knowledge of who is getting tested when,” Eichner told Yahoo Sports. “We get a unique sample, a biological sample that is either urine or blood, sometimes both, and it comes in the mail to us. We log it into the system. The analyst will go through that sample and depending upon what kind of testing is requested, whether it’s a full WADA screen or whatever, and they’ll look for the illegal substances.
“It’s important to remember that the analyst only sees a sample number and has no idea whether it corresponds to any particular athlete or any particular event. If there is an event coming up and we get a sample from an athlete in that event, that analyst would have zero idea that that’s what this is.”
Eichner said the lab looks for every known prohibited substance and metabolite, which he called “quite a vast and extensive screening process.”
If anything is detected during the initial screen, that triggers more work.
“If we see anything that could look remotely like a prohibited substance, we then go back to that urine sample in the A bottle and then we do a confirmation process,” Eichner said. “We look specifically for that compound of the parent drug or the metabolite.”
He said the tests can be lengthy, particularly if there are multiple prohibited substances found, as was the case in Silva’s Jan. 9 sample.
Eichner said that though his lab makes every attempt to turn around the samples as expeditiously as possible, he isn’t going to do so at the expense of accuracy.
“Obviously, we would like to get reports out as soon as possible,” Eichner said. “But it’s important to remember that the kind of work that WADA laboratories do is different than what a drugs-of-abuse lab does. We’re not comparing us to the same things. If you’re trying to compare us to a workplace drug-testing program, it’s not at all the same thing.
“Would we like to get the reports out before an event? Of course. Of course we would. But think of the Olympic movement: You strip people of gold medals. You don’t stop them from racing. Sometimes these things take longer and then you have to go back and sanction after the fact.”
The urine test the Diaz failed is exactly the kind of recreational drug screen that Dr. Eichner described as being relatively simple and quick. Both Silva and Diaz will likely be temporarily suspended at the next NSAC meeting onFeb. 17; at that point disciplinary hearings will be scheduled for March or April.