Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Lowkick


Liver Kick


Caged In


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


Bloody Elbow


Fightlinker


Fightnomics


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


MMA Convert


Fightline


Fight Medicine


CompuStrike


MMA Frenzy


Fighters


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


MMA Dude Bro


Sherdog Radio


The Fightworks Podcast


Eddie Goldman


Pro MMA Radio


MMA Torch


Video Corner


Fight Hub


The Fight Nerd


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

California not drug testing USADA-tested UFC stars like Jon Jones to save money?

By Zach Arnold | September 13, 2017

Print Friendly and PDF

UFC ace Jon Jones failed a USADA drug test for the steroid turinabol. The B sample came back positive for turinabol.

Andy Foster, Executive Officer of the California State Athletic Commission, publicly pleaded for due process rights while claiming that five attorneys for the state of California were investigating the failed USADA drug test.

Both USADA & the California State Athletic Commission are expected to have appeals hearings with Jon Jones over the turinabol drug test result.

Percolating underneath the impending appeals hearings is the serious revelation that the California State Athletic Commission does not drug test UFC fighters who are tested by USADA. This blockbuster development was revealed by Andy Foster during a Sherdog Radio interview.

It is nothing new for athletic commissions to approve third-party drug testing collectors like USADA or VADA to collect samples from fighters. What is new is the admission from California that USADA-tested fighters are not drug tested by the California State Athletic Commission.

“We use them to avoid redundancy.”

That answer doesn’t pass the smell test. It is one thing for an athletic commission to approve supplemental drug testing to an agency like USADA. It is an entirely different situation to outsource drug testing to USADA under the rationale of redundancy and saving money.

The allure for California to outsource drug testing of top UFC fighters to USADA is easy to understand. It doesn’t make it right. It creates a scenario of “what ifs” when a fighter fails a USADA test. Would the fighter have tested positive for the same drug under a California-administered drug test? Are there different protocols relating to chain of custody in handling samples?

The attorney expected to represent Jon Jones in his appeal with California is Howard Jacobs. Jacobs represented Alexander Shlemenko and faced ridiculous due process roadblocks from a completely biased California State Athletic Commission board that engaged in disparate treatment. That resulted in a Los Angeles Superior Court judge putting California on blast. Jacobs will be facing the same hostile board in trying to represent a client who is staring at the prospect of at least a two-year suspension.

The history of the California State Athletic Commission handling drug testing affairs for fighters has been legally sketchy. Given the high-profile nature of the fighter in question (UFC top star Jon Jones), they can’t afford to screw up when the world is watching.

Topics: CSAC, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 3 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

3 Responses to “California not drug testing USADA-tested UFC stars like Jon Jones to save money?”

  1. Jonathan says:

    At this point, Jon Jones completely sickens me. What makes me even more sick is that he will be allowed to fight again. Let it be known that we all know what type of person he is. Also, I feel for Cormier, but he still got his ass beat and cried like a bitch, in front of everyone. No one looks good in this situation, and this is what is so damn infuriating about it.

  2. Diaz's packed bowl says:

    So the money saved wont go far paying five lawyers? Well at least the tax payers aren’t paying those shysters.

    Foster sounds like a good ol boy jes tryin’ tuh hep out the ufc ‘when they come tuh town”. And he seems to be promoting the theory that it was tainted supplements in a last ditch hail mary to protect ufcs golden brown goose.
    That excuse however makes no sense if you think about it. If it was a tainted supplement it would have shown in a previuos test. If JJ used another brand of supplement or tainted dick pill the day before the fight they would have mentioned THAT!. However JJ and Malki claimed it was a set up initially. Changing supplements would have been noticed by someone. And what are the odds that JJ would just decide to try another supplement during his weight cut that just happened to have steroids in it?
    Most likely it was some old steroid metabolite stored in his fat cells, or damaged tissue which came out during his weight cut.
    JJ or someone on his team didn’t factor in the weight cut when timing the cycle.
    Or JJ was using his brothers toofbrush by mistake.

  3. Diaz's packed bowl says:

    I had a good laugh at Winklejohns suggestion that it was “tainted gatorade”.
    I can hear JJ’s excuse already…
    “After the weigh in, I was handed a gatorade type drink from the dollar store and of course I looked at the ingredients and it said taurine was in there, and I was like allright. But my eyes was foggy from the weight cut and all, and I misread it, it actually read turinabol.”

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image