Archive for the ‘USADA Doping Arbitration Decisions’ Category

Today USADA announced that UFC athlete, George Sullivan, of Red Bank, N.J., has accepted a one-year sanction for an anti-doping policy violation after declaring the use of a prohibited substance contained in a product that was inaccurately labeled.

Sullivan “declared the use of Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) on his sample collection paperwork when describing his use of a deer antler velvet product during an out-of-competition test conducted on July 13, 2016

Although “Sullivan did not test positive for any prohibited substances” his admission of use was enough to trigger an anti-doping policy violation (a reality that was previously demonstrated by Mirko Filipovic).

The substance in question,  Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1), is banned at all times under the UFC/USADA anti-doping policy and calls for a 2 year suspension.  USADA, however, exercised their discretion relying on Sullivan’s ‘forthright declaration‘ and cut the punishment in half providing the following reasons:

Under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, as well as the World Anti-Doping Code, an athlete’s period of ineligibility for using a prohibited substance may be decreased if the athlete lacks significant fault for the anti-doping policy violation. In this instance, USADA determined that Sullivan’s reduced degree of fault and his forthright declaration of the product at issue justified a reduction to one year from the maximum two-year period of ineligibility.

Sullivan’s one-year period of ineligibility began on January 31, 2016, the day after his most recent UFC bout.

This result may be good news for Lloyto Machida who is still awaiting his fate after voluntarily disclosing the use of a prohibited product during an out of competition test.

 

Today Chairman Michael J. Bellof released reasons for judgement handing Jon Jones a 12 month period of ineligibility due to a failed out of competition drug test administrated on June 16, 2016.

In short the sample tested positive for hydroxyclomiphene (a metabolite of clomiphre) and a letrozole metabolite.  These are ‘specified substances’ under the UFC’s custom anti-doping program with USADA calling for a punishment range from a reprimand up to a one year period of ineligibility.

Jones traced the substance back to a sexual performance pill he obtained from a friend.  The panel concluded that “He did not know that the tablet he took contained prohibited substances or that those substances had the capacity to enhance sporting performance“.

However, Jones was handed the maximum penalty because his “fault was at the top end of the scale….He made no enquiry at all about the Tadalafil pill which he did take.  He simply relied upon his tea ate to tell him what it was and how it could enhance sexual pleasure.  His degree of fault in fact verged on the reckless.”

It is also noteworthy that Jones failed to disclose the pill to USADA when they collected his sample with the reasons noting Jones “affirmed that he had no substances to declare (in particular he made no reference to either Cialis or Tadalafil) and by signing the completed form certified that the information he had given on the document, was correct.”

The arbitrator distinguished Jones’ situation from Tim Means and Yoel Romero who each received a 6 month suspension for consuming tainted supplements.  The arbitrator noted “The cases of Romero and Means, UFC athletes, provided instances of classic contaminated products in the form of dietary supplements, purchased from orthodox outlets, whose labels did not disclose the prohibited substances which each contained” calling these cases of “moderate” fault contrasted to Jones’ recklessness.

The legal lessons for other UFC athletes are twofold

  1. Accuracy is important when declaring substances used to USADA at the time of sample collection
  2. Due diligence is needed.

Not only did Jones fail in exercise diligence, he outright admitted this shortcoming at his own press conference shortly after his sample tested positive.

USADA expects the following from athletes claiming due diligence:

(i) read the label of the product used (or otherwise ascertain the ingredients),

(ii) cross-check all the ingredients on the label with the list of prohibited substances,

(iii) make an internet search of the product,

(iv) ensure the product is reliably sourced and

(v) consult appropriate experts in these matters and instruct them diligently before consuming the product.

The arbitration concluded with the following warning:

On the evidence before the Panel, the Applicant is not a drug cheat.  He did not know that the tablet he took contained prohibited substances or that those substances had the capacity to enhance sporting performance.  However by his imprudent use of what he pungently referred to as a “dick pill” he has not only lost a year of his career but an estimated nine million dollars.  This outcome which he admits to be a wake-up call for hi should serve as a warning to all others who participate in the same sport.

The full reasons can be found here – jon-jones-usada-decision

Update December 8, 2016 – today it is reported that Jones and the NAC reached a deal where he will receive a one year suspension which coincides with the punishment he received from USADA.

__________________________________

It is reported that Jon Jones, who was pulled from UFC 200 days before his bout with Daniel Cormier due to a failed out of competition drug test, may in fact pull off the ‘contaminated product’ defense.

According to Jones’ lawyer

We’ve been able to establish the source of the prohibited substances. It came from a product that Jon took that was not labelled with either of these substances. We had it tested, the product was contaminated with both of them. I know USADA also independently had the product tested; their testing confirms what we found. We then sent essentially the same pills that we had had tested to be tested by USADA’s lab, which also found the same thing. So pretty much every time it’s been tested, it’s shown that the product is contaminated with both clomiphene and Letrozole, the two substances (Jones tested positive for).

Even unintentional ingestion of a banned substance is a violation of USADA’s and the Nevada Athletic Commission’s ‘strict liability‘ anti-doping standards, however, as has been demonstrated by Tim Means and Yoel Romero, reduced sanctions can follow true cases of contaminated products.

Jones raised several affirmative defenses in his answer to the NAC’s Complaint for Disciplinary Action.  He specifically argues that the NAC should “take into account” any punishment that USADA imposes and has arranged his USADA hearing to take place before his NAC hearing.

jon-jones-defence-screenshot

USADA is in the suspension business while the NAC is in both the suspension and financial penalty business.  Assuming Jones succeeds in obtaining leniency from USADA his legal team hopes that the NAC follows suit.  Only time will tell if they will but there is a legislative reason why the NAC should indeed respect USADA’s precedent.

In the most basic of legal terms the NAC and USADA do have ‘concurrent jurisdiction’ but for very different reasons.  The NAC have jurisdiction due to legislation.  USADA have jurisdiction due to private contract.  All things being equal both are free to impose their own sanctions irrespective of the other.  Recent legislative developments, however, may add fuel to fire Jones’ argument.

Last month a new regulatory framework came into force in Nevada overhauling some of the NAC’s anti-doping provisions.  One of the changes expressly allows reduced suspensions including the potential for no suspension where ‘one or more mitigating circumstances’ exist including the tainted supplement defense.

Additionally, the new regulations allow the NAC to require a promoter to “submit to the Commission a copy of any contract and each amendment to a contract entered into by the promoter and an organization that administers a drug testing program on behalf of the promoter” and allows the NAC to reject a contract that “does not contain sufficient terms to ensure protection of this State, the Commission or unarmed combat“.

I have checked with the NAC and they have not, as of yet, obtained a copy of the USADA contract with the NAC advising as follows:

nac-response-re-usada-contract

Despite not having the USADA contract on file, an exception exists where “A promoter is not required to submit to the Commission a copy of a contract…if the Commission, in its discretion, authorizes the promoter to arrange for a representative of the Commission to review the information and report to the Commission whether the contract or amendment complies with the provisions of subsection 1.

Assuming the NAC has ratified the USADA contract and are content that it “ensures protection of the State, the Commission (and) unarmed combat” then it only makes sense to honor findings and punishments imposed by USADA unless there are compelling reasons not to.  Only time will tell if the NAC accepts this reality of concurrent jurisdiction.

BJ Penn has had another set back in coming out of retirement to fight once again in the UFC.

The celebrated fighter with a history of an anti IV stance, has curiously admitted to USADA to using an IV in an out of competition setting.  Penn apparently admitted to having an IV administered during a USADA out of competition test administered in March.  The UFC released the following statement confirming that Penn has been provisionally suspended as a result of this admission:

“The UFC organization was notified today that the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) informed BJ Penn of a potential Anti-Doping Policy violation. Penn disclosed the usage of a prohibited method – the use of an IV in excess of 50 ML in a six-hour period – during a March 25, 2016, out-of-competition sample collection. In accordance with the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, Penn has received a provisional suspension, and has been removed from his scheduled bout against Cole Miller on June 4 in Los Angeles.

“UFC will announce a replacement opponent for Miller shortly, and additional information will be provided by USADA and UFC at the appropriate time as the process involving Penn moves forward.”

It is unclear why Penn required or chose to use an IV.  Assuming it was for a legitamite and documented medical incident there is some hope he can have the use retroactively approved by USADA.

Of note, USADA has at least one precedent of handing out a retroactive TUE for IV use granting Floyd Mayweather this courtesy when he fought Manny Pacquiao.

Despite some ambiguity in the UFC/USADA Anti Doping Program, USADA has confirmed that athletes can indeed apply for retroactive TUE’s using WADA standards who have previously advised as follows on this issue:

Regarding your inquiry, the review process for the UFC program is identical to that of the Olympic program with respect to determining the medical need/appropriateness for the TUE. In both cases, the WADA international standards govern the criteria considered by the independent TUE Committee when taking in to account such requests.

The WADA TUE test is as follows –

a. The Athlete would experience a significant impairment to health if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld in the course of treating an acute or chronic medical condition.

b. The Therapeutic Use of the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method would produce no additional enhancement of performance other than that which might be anticipated by a return to a state of normal health following the treatment of a legitimate medical condition. The Use of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method to increase “lownormal” levels of any endogenous hormone is not considered an acceptable Therapeutic intervention.

c. There is no reasonable Therapeutic alternative to the Use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.

d. The necessity for the Use of the otherwise Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method cannot be a consequence, wholly or in part, of the prior Use, without a TUE, of a substance or method which was prohibited at the time of Use.

 

Following an adverse finding stemming from an out-of -competition test administered by USADA, Yoel Romero and the anti doping agency have reached a deal giving Romero a 6 month suspension.

Romero tested positive for Ibutamoren following an out-of-competition test conducted on December 16, 2015.  Romero alleged the substance came from tainted supplements and independent USADA testing “conclusively confirmed that a supplement Romero used was contaminated with Ibutamoren“.

Ingesting banned substances is a strict liability offence however, under the UFC/USADA tailor made anti-doping program proving a tainted supplement was to blame can lead to a reduced sentence from as little as a reprimand.

In reaching a 6 month suspension USADA issued the following press release –

April 4, 2016

USADA announced today that UFC athlete, Yoel Romero, of Miami, Fla., has accepted a 6-month sanction for an anti-doping policy violation after testing positive for a prohibited substance from a contaminated supplement.

Romero, 38, tested positive for Ibutamoren following an out-of-competition test conducted on December 16, 2015 in Miami, Florida. Ibutamoren is a Growth Hormone Secretagogue and a prohibited substance in the class of Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, which has adopted the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

Following notification of his positive test, Romero provided USADA with access to the dietary supplement products he was using at the time of the relevant sample collection. Although Ibutamoren was not listed on any of the supplement labels, preliminary testing conducted on one of the products indicated that it contained the prohibited substance. The presence of an undisclosed prohibited substance in a product is regarded as contamination.

At USADA’s request, the WADA-accredited laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah, independently obtained and analyzed the contents of an unopened container of the supplement in question. That testing conclusively confirmed that a supplement Romero used was contaminated with Ibutamoren. The product has since been added to the list of high risk supplements maintained on USADA’s online dietary supplement safety education and awareness resource – Supplement 411 (www.supplement411.org).

Under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, as well as the World Anti-Doping Code, the determination that an athlete’s positive test was caused by a contaminated product may result in a reduced sanction. The sanction for a doping offense resulting from the use of a contaminated product ranges from a reprimand and no period of ineligibility, at a minimum, to a two-year period of ineligibility, at a maximum.

Romero’s period of ineligibility began on January 12, 2016, the date on which he was provisionally suspended from competition. Because USADA was able to confirm, based on a negative fight night test result, that Romero’s use of the contaminated supplement began after he competed at UFC 194 on December 12, 2015, his competitive results from that event were not disqualified.
”This case clearly demonstrates some of the dangers inherent to supplement use,” said USADA’s Special Advisor on Drugs and Supplements, Dr. Amy Eichner. “When considering whether to incorporate supplements into a training plan, it is vitally important that athletes exercise the upmost care in order to avoid making a decision that could endanger their eligibility, reputation or general health and wellness.”

USADA conducts the year-round, independent anti-doping program for all UFC athletes. USADA is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental agency whose sole mission is to preserve the integrity of competition, inspire true sport, and protect the rights of clean athletes. In an effort to aid UFC athletes, as well as their support team members, in understanding the rules applicable to them, USADA provides comprehensive instruction on the UFC Anti-Doping Program website (www.ufc.usada.org) regarding the testing process and prohibited substances, how to obtain permission to use a necessary medication, and the risks and dangers of taking supplements as well as performance-enhancing and recreational drugs. In addition, the agency manages a drug reference hotline, Drug Reference Online (www.ufc.globaldro.com), conducts educational sessions, and proactively distributes a multitude of educational materials, such as the Prohibited List, easy-reference wallet cards, and periodic athlete alerts.

In this site’s ongoing efforts to track USADA anti-doping punishments under the UFC/USADA Anti-Doping Policy, Glieson Tibau has become the second athlete to be formally sanctioned by USADA for violating the policy.

Tibau tested positive for EPO in both an in competition and out of competition test.  Tibau admitted to using EPO and accepted a 2 year suspension by USADA.  His win from the in competition test was overturned to a loss and the Comissao Atletica Brasileira de MMA, the regulatory body overseeing the bout, accepted USADA’s findings and are also honoring their suspension and overturning of the bout result.

USADA issued the following press release

USADA announced today that Janigleison Herculano Alves aka Gleison Tibau, of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, an athlete in the UFC, has received a 2-year sanction for an anti-doping policy violation.

Tibau, 32, tested positive for erythropoietin (EPO) following both out-of-competition and in-competition tests conducted on October 23, 2015 in Coconut Creek, Florida, and on November 7, 2015 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, respectively. EPO is a synthetic hormone used to stimulate the body’s production of red blood cells, thereby increasing oxygen transport and aerobic power, and is a prohibited substance in the class of Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, Related Substances and Mimetics under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy.

Tibau’s period of ineligibility began on November 7, 2015, the date on which he last competed. In addition, Tibau has been disqualified from all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to October 23, 2015, the date on which his first positive sample was collected in violation of the UFC Anti-Doping Policy. As the regulatory body that sanctioned Mr. Tibau’s bout on November 7, 2015, the Comissao Atletica Brasileira de MMA (CABMMA) has recognized USADA’s sanction and, in accordance with the CABMMA Anti-Doping Policy, reversed the outcome of Mr. Tibau’s bout from a “win” to a “loss.”

USADA conducts the year-round, independent anti-doping program for all UFC athletes. USADA is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental agency whose sole mission is to preserve the integrity of competition, inspire true sport, and protect the rights of clean athletes. The anti-doping program run by USADA for UFC athletes includes education, science and research, testing, and results management. Official UFC Anti-Doping Program information and athlete resources are available at UFC.USADA.org.

Update May 21, 2016 – In addition to the below Brandao remains on the NSAC’s agenda for their May 25 meeting noting “Hearing on Disciplinary Complaint against mixed martial artist Diego Brandao, for possible action

_________________________________________

Update May 20, 2016Today USADA issued a press release stating that Bradao accepted the anti-doping violation and agreed to a 9 month sanction.   The press release reads as follows:

USADA announced today that Diego Brandao, of São Paulo, Brazil, tested positive for a prohibited substance and has accepted a nine-month sanction for his anti-doping policy violation.

Brandao, 28, tested positive for Carboxy-THC, a metabolite of marijuana and/or hashish, above the decision limit of 180 ng/mL, stemming from an in-competition sample collected on January 2, 2016 at UFC 195 in Las Vegas, Nev. Marijuana and hashish are in the class of Cannabinoids on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List, and prohibited, in-competition, under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy.

Cannabinoids are listed as Specified Substances on the WADA Prohibited List. Under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, the standard sanction for an anti-doping policy violation involving a Specified Substance is a one-year period of ineligibility, which may be reduced to a public reprimand and no period of ineligibility depending on the athlete’s degree of fault.

Brandao accepted a nine-month period of ineligibility, which began on January 2, 2016, the date of sample collection; however, per the Policy, Brandao is eligible for an additional one-month reduction in sanction length pending the satisfactory completion of an approved anti-doping educational program. Further, Brandao’s positive test also falls under the jurisdiction of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, who may impose additional sanctions, including fines or a period of ineligibility that is longer than the period set forth above.

As a result of the doping violation, Brandao has been disqualified from all competitive results achieved on and subsequent to January 2, 2016, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.

___________________________

Today the UFC issued a press release advising that featherweight Diego Brandao tested positive for marijuana metabolites in an in-competition test at UFC 195 which took place in Las Vegas, Nevada.

The press release reads as follows:

The UFC organization was notified today that the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) informed Diego Brandao of a potential Anti-Doping Policy violation involving Carboxy-Tetrahydrocannabinol (“Carboxy-THC”) which is a metabolite of marijuana and/or hashish, above the decision limit of 180 ng/mL, stemming from an in-competition sample collected following his fight on January 2, 2016 in Las Vegas.

These readings, if accurate, not only violate the UFC’s/USADA’s in house Anti-Doping Program but also are above what the Nevada State Athletic Commission tolerates for the in-competition window.

As the recent Nick Diaz saga demonstrated, the NSAC is not shy to issue heavy fines and suspensions for in competition marijuana failures.  Brandao’s reported positive test was conducted by USADA, not the NSAC, but assuming the test results are shared with the NSAC (and reportedly they have) or assuming that the NSAC administered tests with the same results they will have jurisdiction to issue penalties against Brandao.

The fighter’s woes won’t end there though as the USADA Anit-Doping Policy spells out tough penalties, which can be imposed simultaneously to anything the NSAC chooses to do, for in competition marijuana failures.  Marijuana is labeled as a ‘specified substance’ under the policy with the following prescribed punishment –

10.2.2 The period of Ineligibility shall be one year where the Anti-Doping Policy Violation involves a Specified Substance.

The policy also allows “forfeiture of title, ranking, purse or other compensation“.

If the above was not enough the Policy also allows the UFC to level their own fine if they so wish with Section 10.10 reading as follows –

UFC may impose a fine on an Athlete or other Person who commits an Anti-Doping Policy Violation up to the sum of $500,000 depending on the seriousness of the violation and the relative compensation of the Athlete or other Person

Brandao may unfortunately learn a very costly lesson if he cannot clear himself of this alleged positive result.

Mirko “Cro Cop” Filipovic recently retired from MMA in the midst of a doping scandal.  Cro Cop admitted to out of competition use of HGH shortly after being subject to USADA testing and now has the distinction of being the first fighter to be sanctioned under the UFC’s/USADA anti doping regime.

He was handed a 2 year ban with USADA noting it could have been 4 years but for his prompt admission of wrongdoing.

The USADA released the following press release:

USADA announced today that Mirko “Cro Cop” Filipovic, of Zagreb, Croatia, an athlete in the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), has received a 2-year sanction for his anti-doping policy violations.

Filipovic, 41, admitted to the use, attempted use, and possession of human growth hormone (“hGH”) following an out-of-competition test conducted on November 4, 2015 in Zagreb, Croatia. On the day he was tested, prior to any results being reported, Filipovic contacted the UFC to advise them that he had been using hGH in violation of the UFC Anti-Doping Policy. Thereafter, on November 9, 2015, Filipovic admitted to USADA as well that he had been using the prohibited substance.

Human growth hormone is a Prohibited Substance in the class of Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors and Related Substances under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy. Due to Filipovic’s prompt admission of his anti-doping policy violations, he avoided the imposition of a four-year sanction, as permitted under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy where aggravating circumstances are present.

Filipovic’s period of ineligibility began on November 9, 2015, the date he first admitted to his anti-doping policy violations to USADA. In addition, Filipovic has been disqualified from all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to October 30, 2015, the date on which he first used hGH in violation of the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, including forfeiture of any title, ranking, purse or other compensation.

“Ultimately, our goals are to keep the Octagon clean and to protect the rights of clean athletes within the UFC,” said USADA CEO Travis Tygart. “Not only do athletes need to consider their health and safety when it comes to the use of prohibited substances, but also the damage that such use can inflict on their own legacy.”

USADA conducts the year-round, independent anti-doping program for all UFC athletes. USADA is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental agency whose sole mission is to preserve the integrity of competition, inspire true sport, and protect the rights of clean athletes. The anti-doping program run by USADA for UFC athletes includes education, science and research, testing, and results management. Official UFC Anti-Doping Program information and athlete resources are available at UFC.USADA.org.

Update October 12, 2015 – Cro Cop, in a post on his website, has now admitted to taking banned growth hormone noting as follows –

With each blood plasma, I had a little mix of growth hormone to make my shoulder heal faster. Growth hormones are on the list of banned substances. I knew that already..After 6 days of growth hormone and plasma injections, the USADA came to test me. I gave them my blood sample and urine samples and immediately told the UFC about the test

—————————–

First Mirko “CroCop” Filipovic announced retirement citing chronic injuries, shortly after the UFC published a press release announcing CroCop “has been provisionally suspended at this time due to a potential Anti-Doping Policy violation.”.

CroCop has become the first known athlete to reportedly have a potential violation in the UFC’s USADA era.  So what next?

Unlike many State and Provincial regulatory schemes with fairly sparse rules about anti doping management, the USADA Anti-Doping Policy “ADP” spells due process rights out clearly and even addresses the issue of retirement.

Retirement plays a role but won’t save CroCop from punishment.  While the policy does not apply to retired athletes with the ADP coming to an end at “such time as they give notice to UFC in writing of their retirement from competition” retirement does nothing to stop sanctions from being applied to an athlete who had a sample taken from them prior to retirement.

Clause 7.9 of the ADP specifically spells out the following powers after retirement is announced

If an Athlete retires or ceases to be under contract with UFC while USADA is conducting the results management process, including the investigation of any Atypical Finding or Atypical Passport Finding, USADA retains jurisdiction to complete its results management process. If an Athlete retires or ceases to be under contract with UFC before any results management process has begun, and USADA had results management authority over the Athlete at the time the Athlete committed an Anti-Doping Policy Violation, USADA has authority to conduct results management in respect of that Anti-Doping Policy Violation

So where does this leave CroCop?  Assuming the alleged violation related to an “adverse finding” (ie doping) he can waive his rights to contest the finding and take the punishment USADA hand out.  These sanctions include suspension (likely two years) also include a fine of up to $500,000 at the UFC’s discretion with 10.10 of the ADP providing as follows –

UFC may impose a fine on an Athlete or other Person who commits an Anti-Doping Policy Violation up to the sum of $500,000 depending on the seriousness of the violation and the relative compensation of the Athlete or other Person

If CroCop does not waive his rights he can demand testing of the B sample.  If this tests negative then “the entire Test shall be considered negative“.

If the B sample is not tested or confirms the initial findings then USADA will issue their punishment and CroCop will have the right to either admit the violation and accept his punishment or contest it and request formal arbitration requiring USADA to prove their allegations on a balance of probabilities.

CroCop has been a pioneer in many ways in MMA with his early career rooted in PRIDE’s “we don’t test for steroids” Era

He now may end his career with the unwelcome distinction as trailblazer for the modern USADA anti-doping era.

Adding to this site’s archives of USADA anti-doping punishments (which are relevant for UFC fighters as these precedents set the tone for the suspensions they can expect under the UFC’s Anti-Doping Policy) a decision was released today setting out a two year ban for an athlete found using testosterone.

Today’s decision (Oscar Tovar) involves a cyclist who was tested in competition.  CIR analysis was used on a urine sample which revealed the use of testosterone.

USADA’s press release reads as follows –

After a thorough review of the case, including a review of Tovar’s medical records, USADA determined that a two-year period of ineligibility was the appropriate outcome in this case. Tovar’s two-year period of ineligibility began on May 17, 2015, the day the sample was collected. In addition, Tovar has been disqualified from all competitive results achieved in competitions sanctioned by the UCI or any Code signatory on and subsequent to May 17, 2015, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.