Let’s Talk Admitted Doping for New or Returning Athletes to the UFC

This month the UFC’s new anti-doping policy has come into force.

One area worth paying attention to is how new or returning athletes that admit to, or were known to be doping are treated under the policy. And whether overseeing Athletic Commissions treat them differently as the UFC’s in house anti-doping provisions are not binding on government Commissions.

Section 5.7.4 of the UFC’s Anti-Doping-Policy (“ADP”) squarely addresses this situation. This section notes what happens if you are new to the UFC, or if you are returning to the UFC (for example after ‘retiring’) and admit to doping during the period prior to being bound by the ADP.

These athletes must make themselves “available for Testing for a minimum of 180 days before competing” or alternatively “one year after the Athlete’s last established Use, whichever is shorter“.

The language, however, does not seem to make it mandatory that the athlete pass doping tests during this window. It seems to make clean tests a matter of discretion. Specifically it notes that “At the Independent Administrator’s discretion, such Athletes may also be required to provide a
minimum of two negative Samples during the minimum 180 day notice period before being cleared for
competition.“. The bold emphasis on the word discretion is mine.

I can think of two different ways to interpret this. The first is that an athlete can be “available for testing” but never actually be tested. Therefore two negative samples don’t exist but they can still compete. A second is that the athlete can be tested and fail leaving discretion as to what happens to that athlete for that failure. This is a point that the Independence Administrator should clarify.

If you are returning but were not doping in your absence section 5.7.3 applies and also notes that being available for 180 days of testing is required. This section, however, can be waived by the UFC “in exceptional circumstances or where the strict application of that rule would be manifestly unfair to an Athlete.” What constitutes “exceptional circumstances” or “manifest unfairness” is not defined.

The relevant sections read as per below. I welcome hearing from anyone who interprets these sections differently.