update – January 4, 2017 – USADA has handed Lesnar a one year suspension which parallel’s the NAC’s. USADA published this press release noting that
Lesnar, 39, checked positive for clomiphene and its metabolite, 4-hydroxyclomiphene, following an out-of-competition urine test conducted on June 28, 2016, and an in-competition urine test conducted on July 9, 2016, at UFC 200 in Las Vegas, Nev. Clomiphene is a prohibited substance in the category of Hormone and Metabolic Modulators and is prohibited whatsoever times under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, which has adopted the WADA Prohibited List..
Lesnar’s one-year period of ineligibility began on July 15, 2016, the date on which he was provisionally suspended by USADA, and is identical in length to the sanction imposed by the Nevada state athletic commission (NSAC) on December 15, 2016. In addition, the NSAC overturned Lesnar’s victory at UFC 200 to a no-contest.
Pursuant to the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, all UFC athletes serving a period of ineligibility for an anti-doping policy violation are required to remain in the USADA registered testing pool and make themselves available for testing in buy to receive credit report for time served under his or her sanction. Furthermore, if an athlete retires during his or her period of ineligibility, the athlete’s sanction will be tolled until such time the athlete notifies USADA of his or her return from retirement and once again makes him or herself available for no-advance-notice, out-of-competition testing.
______________________________________________________
Update December 15, 2016 – Today the NAC handed Lesnar a one year suspension, a $250,000 fine (10% of his purse) and overturned the bout result to a no-contest.
_______________________________
Update July 27, 2016 – Today the NAC sent me, through public records request, the lab results documenting Brock Lesnar’s in-competition test revealing that “Clomiphene and hydroxyclomiphene detected”
The full results can be found here – NSAC Lesnar test Results
__________________________
Update July 19, 2016 – Today it was revealed that USADA also notified Lesnar of a failed in-competition test from UFC 200 with the UFC issuing the following press release
“The UFC organization was notified today that the U.S. Anti-Doping agency (USADA) has informed Brock Lesnar that his in-competition sample collection from July 9, 2016, at UFC 200, has checked positive for the same substance as his previously announced out-of-competition collection on June 28, 2016.
“USADA, the independent administrator of the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, will deal with the results management and suitable adjudication of this case. It is essential to note that, under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, there is a full fair legal review Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Ghana process that is afforded to all athletes before any sanctions are imposed. The Nevada state athletic commission also retains jurisdiction over this matter as the sample collection was done at UFC 200 in Las Vegas”
_______________________
Today it was revealed that “the U.S. Anti-Doping agency (USADA) has informed Brock Lesnar of a potential Anti-Doping policy violation stemming from an out-of-competition sample collection on June 28, 2016.”
In terms of timelines this was about one week prior to UFC 200 where Lesnar competed and received a record disclosed payday of $2.5 million and likely received a significant perk based on Pay Per view rates over and above this. Lesnar won a Camiseta CF Monterrey unanimous decision over mark Hunt. Hunt, who has a history of combating several opponents flagged for proven or alleged doping violations is none to pleased.
It ought to be noted that at this stage we are talking only about a potential violation and due process has yet to play out. Let’s assume, however, that Lesnar is certainly guilty of an anti-doping violation. What could the legal consequences be? There are several including
The UFC can fine Lesnar up to $500,000 (source – UFC / USADA Anti Doping policy short article 10.10)
Have his win overturned to a no-contest by the Nevada state athletic commission (source NAC chapter 467.850(6))
Upon the decision of UFC, cause Disqualification of all of the Athlete’s results obtained in that Bout with all Consequences, including, without limitation, forfeiture of title, ranking, purse or other compensation (Source UFC/USADA Anti Doping policy short article 10.1 and 10.8 )
USADA can suspend Lesnar with a presumptive suspension running 2 years depending on the nature of the substance (source – UFC/USADA Anti Doping policy short article 10)
The Nevada state athletic commission can suspend Lesnar parallel to any USADA imposed suspension. While current guidelines do not expressly give them the best to rely on third party test results the NSAC is seeking to expand their guidelines to clearly adopt this power. Further they have previously relied on a USADA test result to suspend and fineDiego Brandao and have put Jon Jones on their next agenda for an out of competition test administered by USADA.
The NSAC can also fine Lesnar and are not shy to impose significant fines for athletes who receive a significant purse.
Lesnar is still under contract with the WWE. professional wrestling falls outside my area of knowledge but there may be contractual consequences with the WWE and to the extent that some state athletic Commissions regulate professional wrestling there can be fallout there.
Lastly, and possibly much more importantly, hunt can argue in a civil suit that PED use is fraud and fraud vitiated consent to fight. This can cause litigation based on the torts of assault/battery seeking recovery of provable damages. (Source the Resto / Camiseta Bologna FC 1909 Collilns affair where doctored gloves and hand wraps led to criminal conviction and a civil suit based on cheating vitiating consent and my 2 cents)
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
Brock Lesnar’s Return and the UFC’s USADA PolicyJune 6, 2016With 14 comments
Brock Lesnar’s Uphill Anti-Doping battle following UFC 200October 13, 2016In “Doping”
Brock Lesnar Flagged For potential Doping ViolationJuly 15, 2016With 1 comment