Jump to
The world’s largest MMA promotion is hitting 2024 with at least one major change on the horizon. In a surprise move this past October, USADA announced that they would not be working with the UFC starting in 2024. In part, they claimed, due to the promotion’s seeming favorable treatment of Conor McGregor and delays in his re-entry to the promotion’s drug testing pool.
Eventually it all shook out that the UFC had, in fact, cancelled their contract with USADA entirely of their own volition—with the intention of setting up their own, in-house program. In announcing the move, UFC drug czar Jeff Novitzky & Chief Business Officer Hunter Campbell tore into USADA CEO Travis Tygart and their soon-to-be-former partner—outlining what they felt were a whole series over overstepping actions from the agency, particularly noting the statements that the company had released about McGregor. They also offered a brief outline of the UFC’s plans for the new year.
In a press release on December 28th, we got a few more details, as well as a look at the complete new Anti-Doping Policy. After pouring over the document and comparing it to the previous USADA policy, we’ve done our best to give readers a complete rundown of all the differences.
UFC sets up anti-doping website, preps for life beyond USADA
The broad strokes of the UFC’s plan don’t appear to have changed at all from previous announcements. Most notably that the promotion will no longer be housing all branches of its drug testing operation under one roof. Instead, the UFC is going à la carte, using Drug Free Sport International (DFSI) as its sample collection agency; the Sports Medicine and Research Testing Laboratory (SMRTL) for its sample processing; and an apparently newly formed Combat Sports Anti-Doping agency (CSAD), headed by former ‘FBI guy’ George Piro, to hand out the punishments.
Most notably from the press release, however, is section four—detailing the the “Comprehensive List of Prohibited Substances.” With the UFC now contracting with each of these vendors individually, it seems as though they could have a lot more flexibility in terms of how they want their services to be tailored. Notably, in working with SMRTL, the UFC has announced that they will be using a “criteria for prohibited substances” that is “modeled after WADA’s In and Out of Competition programs.”
The “Prohibited List,” detailing which substances are allowed and which substances are not, will generally remain the same as the prior program. The criteria for prohibited substances will be modeled after WADA’s In and Out of Competition programs with modifications based on historical findings [i.e. marijuana removed from the prohibited list]. In addition, Decision Concentration Limits [thresholds] will be established that allow the program to differentiate between intentional use cases of prohibited substances and cases stemming from unintentional exposure to low level contaminants.
All things considered, it’s not much different than what was in the UFC’s Anti-Doping policy under USADA, which also noted that their standards would be modeled after the “World Anti-Doping Code.” However once we actually dug into the policy itself, the differences became much more clear.
Early on, a notable omission in the new Anti-Doping policy pertaining to “Establishing Facts and Presumptions,” seems to provide the UFC more room to decide what constitutes a drug test failure. The previous USADA Anti-Doping policy included this paragraph, which has been removed from the new Policy document:
Analytical methods or decision limits approved by WADA after consultation within the relevant scientific community and which have been the subject of peer review are presumed to be scientifically valid. Decision Concentration Levels set forth in the UFC Prohibited List shall not be subject to challenge.
Further down the document, in section 4.2.1/4.2.2 WADA’s absence is again notable. While the UFC has claimed up front that they are still modeling their program off of WADA’s “Prohibited List,” its continuous absence from their policy in comparison to USADA’s version is difficult not to note. The promotion appears to be making absolutely sure that they are not legally binding themselves to WADA’s standards for the future.
What’s more, it seems the UFC has opened the door for more arguments as to what can/should be considered a prohibited substance with their section on “UFC’s Determination of the Prohibited List.” That section basically outlines that whatever the UFC decides is prohibited is not open to challenge from athletes.
But the USADA iteration included the language that their list “shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person,” (emphasis mine). The new policy has removed the “other person,” as someone ineligible to challenge the prohibited list. Does that just mean that the list isn’t challengable in any capacity and the language has only been simplified, or does it mean fighters could bring in expert testimony to challenge a substance ban?*
Alongside those changes to drug testing policy, a further note on “Decision Concentration Limits” looks like another interesting departure.
Concentration level arbitration
It’s not that past UFC policy didn’t include notes about “thresholds” (i.e. how many picograms of a substance constitute a drug test failure) and how those thresholds might be applied, but the UFC’s new policy includes this note in section 2.1.3.2:
…in cases where either the Athlete’s A or B Samples measure within 20% above the Decision Concentration Level, the athlete is entitled to challenge the determination that the applicable concentration was above the Decision Concentration Level. Further, the Independent Administrator has the ability to review such cases and determine whether an Anti-Doping Policy Violation has been committed…
Essentially, there’s more gray area and wiggle room for the various metabolites that might cause fighters to fail a drug test. The threshold is no longer a hard line, but something that can be arbitrated or, potentially even dismissed entirely if the Independent Administrator (George Piro) sees fit.
Also missing in the new policy is this bit of language concerning fighters who have used banned substances previous to entering the UFC. In both the past and present policies, the UFC would not consider admission of past PED use a violation of policy, provided the use took place before entering a contract with the promotion, the USADA version included this note as well, however:
…unless the Athlete’s Use of the substance or method in question was pursuant to a valid medical prescription or recommendation, such conduct may also be considered in sanctioning or counted as a violation for purposes of Article 10.7 if the Athlete subsequently commits an Anti-Doping Policy Violation.
In the past, fighters who were doping outside the UFC for means of performance enhancement would potentially have that conduct held against them if they failed future drug tests. Under the new policy, it seems that may not be the case.
Guilt by association
One of the major battlefields in MMA lately has been the crackdown of gambling among athletes. Regulations surrounding fighters potentially betting on themselves or fixing contests are so strict, that they don’t just stretch to athletes and coaches, but family members or other insiders who might have knowledge about a contest not generally available to the public as well.
That was a stance also mirrored by the UFC’s drug testing policy under USADA, which included this policy on simple possession of performance enhancing substances:
Possession by an Athlete Support Person In-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method, or Possession by an Athlete Support Person Out-of-Competition of any Prohibited Substance or any Prohibited Method which is prohibited Out-of-Competition in connection with an Athlete, competition or training, unless the Athlete Support Person establishes that the Possession is consistent with a TUE granted to an Athlete in accordance with Article 4.4 or other acceptable justification.
Once again, that language appears to be missing from the new Anti-Doping Policy, potentially providing fighters more leniency surrounding teammates or coaching staff that might be found with performance enhancing substances. Furthermore, in a later section relating to the UFC’s ability to carry out an investigation of an athlete who retires or has their contract terminated during said investigation, language including “Athlete Support Personnel” has been entirely removed. As has language in reference to anti-doping hearings pertaining to persons other than UFC athletes.
Although the new document does include a section about “complicity” which counts any knowing coverup of doping activity as a policy violation, a subsection on “Prohibited Association” meant to keep fighters from partnering with athletes who are under USADA suspension has been removed. All told, it seems the UFC has focused their new policy to only cover fighters under contract wherever it can.
Conor McGregor rule
The return of Conor McGregor has become an inescapable part of the story of the fractured relationship between the UFC and USADA. McGregor suffered a brutal leg injury back in 2021, during his trilogy fight against Dustin Poirier. Following that loss, the ‘Notorious’ Irishman departed the promotion’s drug testing pool on an indefinite hiatus.
When other fighters, fans, and media started to point out that McGregor’s removal from the USADA system seemed to be a way for him to treat his injury with banned substances, McGregor had this to say:
“Everything was fully disclosed before I began. The state of allowance for athletes to recover from injuries as horrific as the one I overcame must be assessed. My thoughts are with [Chris Weidman] and Anderson Silva. The 3 of us, and only us, know the severity of this injury.”
Whatever substances or procedures McGregor may have used during his time away, USADA policy stated that he would need to undergo six months of testing eligibility and pass two drug tests before he could return to competition. Policy language also allowed that six month window to be bypassed by the UFC, provided that the two drug tests were still passed.
…UFC may grant an exemption to the six-month written notice rule in exceptional circumstances or where the strict application of that rule would be manifestly unfair to an Athlete provided that in either instance the Athlete provides a minimum of two negative Samples before returning to competition.
That language in bold has been removed from the UFC’s new policy.
Testing labs
Under USADA policy, testing of UFC athlete samples could only be carried out by WADA accredited labs. As aforementioned it appears the UFC is invested in making sure that they are not bound by WADA approval processes for the future. As such, while it’s only a minor change in the language, the UFC’s new testing policy includes a very small, but likely meaningful phrase.
For purposes of Article 2.1, Samples shall be analyzed only in laboratories accredited or otherwise approved by WADA or other designated qualified laboratories.
A followup section on the “Purpose of Analysis of Samples” removes all mention of WADA as well.
Suspension periods
While all the language about drug testing, WADA association, guilt by association, and establishing PED thresholds is interesting, the most important change is in section 10. That’s the part of the UFC’s Anti-Doping Policy that covers suspension length and punishments for various types of infractions.
At first blush, the promotion seems to be sticking with USADA regulations, suspending fighters two years for a “non-specified substance,” and one year for a “specified substance”. However, it looks like the promotion is taking a much more lenient view on evading drug tests and/or tampering with evidence. Where USADA carried a minimum punishment of 2 years and a maximum of 4 years for these violations, the new UFC policy will carry a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 2 for “intentional violations” and a minimum verbal reprimand and maximum 1 year suspension for “negligent violations.”
For whereabouts violations, USADA policy gave a maximum 2 year suspension and a minimum of 6 months. The new UFC policy still carries a maximum of 2 years, but allows for as little as a reprimand “depending on the Athlete’s degree of fault.”
For trafficking or administering prohibited substances, the UFC is still going with a minimum of four years and as much as a lifetime ban for Athletes involved in these activities. But, as has been noted throughout the document, language pertaining to “support personnel” (and, surprisingly, violations “involving a minor”) have once again been removed. All language from the USADA policy involving punishments for “Prohibited Association” have been entirely removed as well.
As for the section on non-performance enhancing drugs or a “Substance of Abuse,” (cocaine, marijuana, heroin, etc.) both USADA and new UFC policies allow for the forgoing of any suspension if “the Athlete can establish… that the violation did not enhance, and was not intended to enhance, the Athlete’s performance….” However, language in the USADA document that required athletes found to be using a “substance of abuse” to complete a drug treatment program at their own expense has been removed.
Snitch clause simplification
Among USADA’s notable UFC policies was the ‘snitch clause’ (a label infamously tagged on Jon Jones after he received a 30-month reduction in sentence from USADA for providing the company with “substantial assistance”). Essentially it’s the opportunity for a fighter, no matter how much PED trouble they might be in, to bargain for a potential reduction in punishment if they’re willing to turn over evidence against other people they know are doping or providing substances to athletes.
In the past, this was a pretty substantial part of the Anti-Doping policy in which specific language was included that made it clear that in order to get a reduction in sentence, an athlete would have to provide evidence that “results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or bringing forward a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules committed by another Person,” or “results in WADA initiating a proceeding against a Signatory, WADA-accredited laboratory.”
Under the new policy, all that language is gone, noting simply that:
The Independent Administrator in its sole discretion may suspend all or any part of the period of Ineli-
gibility and other Consequences imposed in an individual case in which it has results management
authority where the Athlete has provided Full and Complete Cooperation. The extent to which the
otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended or eliminated shall be based on the
seriousness of the Anti-Doping Policy Violation and the significance of the Full and Complete Co-
operation provided by the Athlete.
Summary
To sum up, the major changes to the UFC’s new Anti-Doping Policy appear to be a broad-scale (but undetermined as to consistency or distance) move away from WADA as a standard setter for UFC policy. The promotion may still be using WADA’s prohibited list as a guideline for their policy, but references to the agency throughout the document have been removed. Where USADA was insistent in using WADA standards as their own, the new UFC policy is seemingly not.
The other major change is the removal of practically all language concerning “Athlete Support Personnel.” USADA had a range of policies and punishments meant to cover coaches, trainers, cornermen, etc. who might help provide fighters with the means to dope. The new UFC policy appears to be largely unconcerned with trying to adjudicate violations involving figures other than the athletes they have under contract.
Finally, there seem to be more arbitration options open to fighters concerning what constitutes a doping violation. Thresholds are going to be privately established by the UFC with a 20% grey area open for arbitration. Suspension periods for violations other than failed drug tests have been lowered, and more options for the UFC to simply give fighters verbal reprimands have been included. It may be that fighters won’t notice much difference in practice, but it also wouldn’t be terribly surprising if the end result were fewer drug test failures going forward.
*After further consideration, I believe this language is meant to reflect the general removal of support personnel as persons of interest in the UFC drug testing program at large. So that no one other than UFC contracted athletes would need to challenge the Prohibited Substances List.
culturesink 