Ostarine, Contamination and a question For USADA
Today USADA announced a 180 degree turn on a doping suspension they handed out in 2017.
Amanda Ribas evaluated positive for ostarine following an out-of-competition urine test conducted on June 7, 2017. USADA handed her a 2 year suspension. Ribas “accepted” this sanction. As the suspension neared completion USADA announced that ‘time served is punishment enough because they now believe the ostarine was likely from product contamination. On a similar note 4 other athletes were handed a decreased suspension for Ostarine on the same basis in recent weeks.
There is nothing controversial about having decreased penalties tied to the degree of an athletes fault. That is a good thing. What is noteworthy about these recent decreased suspensions, however, is that they don’t seem to square well with the actual wording in the UFC/USADA customized made anti-doping-policy (the “ADP”). lack of clarity of when athletes accused of doping can expect leniency is not desirable.
The ADP has a particular section handling decreased sanctions for product contamination. specifically section 10.5.1.2 of the ADP reads as follows:
10.5.1.2 Contaminated Products
In cases where the athlete or other person can establish
that the detected Prohibited substance came from a
Contaminated Product, then the period of Ineligibility
shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of
Ineligibility, and at a maximum, the period of Ineligibility
set forth in short article 10.2, depending on the Athlete’s or
other Person’s degree of Fault.
The phrase “contaminated product” is defined as well and implies “A product that contains a Prohibited substance that
is not disclosed Camiseta Leicester City on the product label or in information available in a reasonable
Internet search.”
When a legal file includes a defined phrase the technical reading of the file requires insertion of the full definition for the phrase. Doing this with the contaminated product definitions shapes the section as follows:
In cases where the athlete or other person can establish
that the detected Prohibited substance came from a product that contains a Prohibited substance that
is not disclosed on the product label or Camiseta VfL Wolfsburg in information available in a reasonable
Internet search, then the period of Ineligibility
shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of
Ineligibility, and at a maximum, the period of Ineligibility
set forth in short article 10.2, depending on the Athlete’s or
other Person’s degree of Fault.
On the plain reading of this section the onus is on an athlete to show contamination. They should do so by pointing to a particular contaminated product which fails to list the prohibited substance. At least that’s what USADA told Tom Lawlor who evaluated positive for Ostarine in 2016. Lawlor was unable to point to any particular contaminated product and was hit with a full two year suspension.
Why am I pointing this out? because Ribas, Mendes, Vettori, O’Malley and Montano were also not able to show a source of contamination but they were given leniency under the contaminated product provision.
I reached out to USADA asking if they have changed the requirements of s. 10.5.1.2 of the ADP or if they are applying the section differently. They say there is no change of policy. specifically USADA’s communications director Adam Woullard recommended as follows:
“There has been no particular change to the UFC Anti-Doping policy to allow us to decrease Ribas’ sanction. The current policy allows USADA to decrease sanctions based on a number of factors. An effective anti-doping program considers the available science and information for each athlete and acts accordingly.”
It is hard to see how this is not a change of policy as USADA themselves note in the Rivas press release that “As Ribas was unable to identify the source of her positive test, Camiseta Copa Mundial de Fútbol and taking into consideration the possibility that her positive test was the result of an ostarine contaminated dietary supplement product, USADA believes it is fair to allow Ribas to return to competition after serving the majority of her two-year sanction”
It appears USADA is prepared to efficiently take ‘judicial notice’ that products can be contaminated with Ostarine and these cases set the precedent that decreased sanctions can be handed out even if an athlete cannot discharge their concern under s. 10.5.1.2.
Ostarine is not the only prohibited substance that has been linked to product contamination. The question is will USADA extend the same courtesy to other athletes who test positive for substances other than Ostarine who maintain no wrongdoing but cannot point to a particular contaminated product? Why or why not?
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
Josh Barnett Handed Public Reprimand After Doping violation Traced Back to Contaminated ProductMarch 24, 2018With 2 comments
Tim Means’ “Tainted Supplement” defence and the UFC’sAnti Doping Policy February 5, 2016 In “Doping”
UFC fighter Diego Ferreira Sues Supplement producer “For Not less Than $1,000,000” Alleging Fraud July 28, 2018
