Four questions from today’s UFC drug testing news conference

Anderson Silva

Today’s UFC press conference on performance-enhancing drugs and anti-doping measures promised much-needed action from the promotion following a spate of high-profile drug failures.

But as executives Dana White, Lorenzo Fertitta and Lawrence Epstein noted, there are still a lot of unanswered questions as the promotion prepares the framework for an out-of-competition testing program scheduled to take effect July 1.

Here are a few questions MMAjunkie sees on the horizon:

1. Will commissions follow UFC’s lead?

The UFC said today that it will bankroll fight-night testing for all events overseen by state athletic commissions or international organizations such as the promotion-backed CABMMA and IMMAF. That should be welcomed by the continually cash-strapped regulatory bodies, but what happens when the promotion asks the commissions to up their penalties for offenders?

A two-year or even possibly a four-year ban — per the WADA code — is on the table, but for state agencies, you can’t just snap your fingers and change the rules. It takes months, and sometimes years, to change regulatory code. Do the commissions, perhaps motivated by the prospect of attracting UFC events into the state, see the writing on the wall and push for change? Are state regulators prepared to suspend an athlete for two to four years?

2. Would the UFC add on to commission punishments?

If a state athletic commission or international body does not increase its punishments, it could lead to a situation in which a fighter could fall far short of the sanctions the UFC seeks for drug offenders.

In the case of a positive test from a titleholder, it could invalidate a situation in which the UFC would be forced to strip the belt — Fertitta said even a two-year suspension would force the promotion’s hand. Could the UFC initiate its own suspension, as it previously did with heavyweight Ben Rothwell? Fertitta said the promotion wants to be consistent, but stopped short of promising additional punishment.

3. Will commissions honor a UFC suspension?

The UFC is an independently owned company that promotes MMA events around the world. It’s not an athletic commission overseen by the state, and it’s not a part of the Association of Boxing Commissions, which maintains an administrative database that tracks suspensions brought upon fighters by commissions. State athletic commissions honor punishments brought by ABC members, but will they do the same from an independent promoter, particularly if they stretch four years? A fighter could be released by the UFC, but still be under suspension by the promotion. Will commissions refuse to issue a license?

4. What happens when there’s a dispute with a fighter on a failed test, or a fighter tests positive in the off-season?

The UFC said it’s committed to giving athletes due process when they come up positive for banned substances. Exactly how the promotion handles that is not yet clear. A third-party testing program such as USADA (U.S. Anti-Doping Agency), could oversee the process of collecting samples, sending them to WADA-accredited laboratories, and reporting the results. That’s just one part of the process, however. In the case of a disputed result, USADA ultimately defers to the American Arbitration Association (AAA). But according to UFC Chief Operating Officer Lawrence Epstein, that would not necessarily be the case. He said the entity with legal authority to adjudicate disputes will be “a variety of groups, including ourselves.”

As Epstein noted, the UFC will need to “strengthen our individual contracts” to give itself “stronger rights” to suspend athletes that test positive. But without the support of state and international regulatory bodies, he admitted the issue is, legally, “relatively unresolved,” and that the promotion will take a “proverbial leap of faith” if a framework isn’t set when the out-of-competition program takes effect July 1.

It’s a issue fraught with potential conflict over a fighter’s legal rights. As independent contractors, fighters could challenge the UFC’s ability to prevent them from making a living for four years if they haven’t signed a bout agreement to fight a particular opponent.