New California Drug Testing

Fozzy

A new drug testing system comes into effect in California beginning on the 11th. It's the most strict system out of all the athletic commissions that regulate MMA. There were a load of notes in today's Wrestling Observer so I thought I'd share a few points of interest

The first major show that will fall under this new system will be the Affliction show in late January. The UFC don't have any California events scheduled at the moment

Steroid testing will be done at the WADA lab in UCLA. They are considered one of the top labs for steroid testing and they're pretty much cutting-edge. The levels of substances that they allow are lower than the levels previously used by the CSAC

One of the arguments that fighters who tested positive have used in the past is that shipping companies could have messed up their samples when delivering them to a lab. That argument will be partially eliminated now as any events in the southern half of California will have the samples brought straight to the UCLA lab without any third parties getting involved

In the past there would be an A sample and a B sample. If the A sample tested positive, the lab would send the B sample to another lab and ask them to test it without telling them what to look for. If the second lab found the B sample to test positive for the same thing as the A sample did then the commission would announce a failure. Now they will announce a failure as soon as the A sample tests positive. If a fighter wants to have their B sample tested after they've failed then they'll test that in the UCLA lab. No samples will leave that lab

Drugs of abuse will still be tested at Quest Diagnostics Center, same as before

There will be more extensive testing. Almost every fighter on a show, even the small shows, will be tested for drugs of abuse. On small shows the main event fighters, title fighters and some random undercard fighters will be tested for steroids. On major shows almost every fighter will be tested for steroids

The CSAC is attempting to get a law changed so that they can do random testing. It's stalled at the moment because of a budget crisis in the state but if it gets passed then they'll be able to do the random testing shortly after that

Another law has to do with overturning a decision if the winner tests positive

A slightly more minor thing is that any fighter who has ever tested positive for steroids now has to go in person to California to submit a sample when they want to get licensed. In the past they could just send some documents saying that they passed a test

Armando Garcia, who was the head of the commission, left them recently. Bill Douglas is now the lead guy, at least until they appoint someone new, which should be in six months time. I've heard some interviews with him in the past, he's a very intelligent person and a nice guy (which is a change from Garcia from what I can see). He's a big pro wrestling fan and he's said that the thing that really spurred him on to make the testing more strict was the death of Eddy Guerrero and how many wrestlers have died young

In the past fighters have been pulled from shows in California because of late declaration of prescription drug use. The biggest one was probably Nick Diaz back in March, who got pulled off a show because he said that he had been using medicinal marijuana but the commission said that they didn't have enough time to look into the case so they pulled him. Douglas says that now in a case like that, if the fighter believes that he'll pass the drug test then they'll let him fight and if he ends up failing then he'll have to deal with the suspension

The marijuana fines and suspensions have changed. In the past if you tested above 49 nanograms then you'd be fined $500 and suspended for 90 days. Now it's like this:

Between 15 and 49: $250 and 45 day suspension
Between 50 and 99: $500 and 90 day suspension
100 and above: $1000 and 180 day suspension

The lower suspension wouldn't really affect anyone as most people don't fight that often. The higher suspension could affect some people but most cases don't seem to test that high


I know that's a lot but it's still just a fraction of what was written in the Observer :pac: I really think that this could affect the Affliction show so it's worth taking a look at what's going on

Killme00

Fozzy wrote: »

A new drug testing system comes into effect in California beginning on the 11th. It's the most strict system out of all the athletic commissions that regulate MMA. There were a load of notes in today's Wrestling Observer so I thought I'd share a few points of interest

The first major show that will fall under this new system will be the Affliction show in late January. The UFC don't have any California events scheduled at the moment

Steroid testing will be done at the WADA lab in UCLA. They are considered one of the top labs for steroid testing and they're pretty much cutting-edge. The levels of substances that they allow are lower than the levels previously used by the CSAC

One of the arguments that fighters who tested positive have used in the past is that shipping companies could have messed up their samples when delivering them to a lab. That argument will be partially eliminated now as any events in the southern half of California will have the samples brought straight to the UCLA lab without any third parties getting involved

In the past there would be an A sample and a B sample. If the A sample tested positive, the lab would send the B sample to another lab and ask them to test it without telling them what to look for. If the second lab found the B sample to test positive for the same thing as the A sample did then the commission would announce a failure. Now they will announce a failure as soon as the A sample tests positive. If a fighter wants to have their B sample tested after they've failed then they'll test that in the UCLA lab. No samples will leave that lab

Drugs of abuse will still be tested at Quest Diagnostics Center, same as before

There will be more extensive testing. Almost every fighter on a show, even the small shows, will be tested for drugs of abuse. On small shows the main event fighters, title fighters and some random undercard fighters will be tested for steroids. On major shows almost every fighter will be tested for steroids

The CSAC is attempting to get a law changed so that they can do random testing. It's stalled at the moment because of a budget crisis in the state but if it gets passed then they'll be able to do the random testing shortly after that

Another law has to do with overturning a decision if the winner tests positive

A slightly more minor thing is that any fighter who has ever tested positive for steroids now has to go in person to California to submit a sample when they want to get licensed. In the past they could just send some documents saying that they passed a test

Armando Garcia, who was the head of the commission, left them recently. Bill Douglas is now the lead guy, at least until they appoint someone new, which should be in six months time. I've heard some interviews with him in the past, he's a very intelligent person and a nice guy (which is a change from Garcia from what I can see). He's a big pro wrestling fan and he's said that the thing that really spurred him on to make the testing more strict was the death of Eddy Guerrero and how many wrestlers have died young

In the past fighters have been pulled from shows in California because of late declaration of prescription drug use. The biggest one was probably Nick Diaz back in March, who got pulled off a show because he said that he had been using medicinal marijuana but the commission said that they didn't have enough time to look into the case so they pulled him. Douglas says that now in a case like that, if the fighter believes that he'll pass the drug test then they'll let him fight and if he ends up failing then he'll have to deal with the suspension

The marijuana fines and suspensions have changed. In the past if you tested above 49 nanograms then you'd be fined $500 and suspended for 90 days. Now it's like this:

Between 15 and 49: $250 and 45 day suspension
Between 50 and 99: $500 and 90 day suspension
100 and above: $1000 and 180 day suspension

The lower suspension wouldn't really affect anyone as most people don't fight that often. The higher suspension could affect some people but most cases don't seem to test that high


I know that's a lot but it's still just a fraction of what was written in the Observer :pac: I really think that this could affect the Affliction show so it's worth taking a look at what's going on

Is there a list of what they can and cannot take. Hopefully they wont fail anyone for using a bloody inhaler or somesuch? But its a BIG step in the right direction.

Colm_OReilly

I'm glad there's tougher regulations on this. I'm kinda a purist when it comes to Sport and hate steroidal use.

Alas I know that it is rampant, and probably everyone's doing it. Still doesn't sit right with me.

BTW, people should definitely take a look at "Stronger, Better, Faster" - Great documentary on drug use.

Maldini2706

I think the positives about this aren't that it's tougher but that they've sorted out their ridiculous testing procedures. Sherk got ****ed over big time by them.

Fozzy

Maldini2706 wrote: »

I think the positives about this aren't that it's tougher but that they've sorted out their ridiculous testing procedures. Sherk got ****ed over big time by them.

No he didn't. What makes you say that?

Sherk's "evidence" that he brought before the commission was one tablet in a tub of supplements that was tainted with something that he didn't test positive for. And somehow they halved his suspension for that

Maldini2706

Fozzy wrote: »

No he didn't. What makes you say that?

Sherk's "evidence" that he brought before the commission was one tablet in a tub of supplements that was tainted with something that he didn't test positive for. And somehow they halved his suspension for that

There was loads of stuff, check this thread on mma.tv for more details. Nick Thompson, a training partner of Sherk's and a lawyer (kidpresentable on the forum) sums it all up perfectly with his post:

For those of you who haven't seen or don't remember the old threads, I will briefly address the issues as I remember them.

1 - There was no chain of custody for Sherk's piss. This isn't a technicality. This is a big deal. If you don't know who had Sean's piss, how can you verify that it was his piss?

2 - There was documented carry over (someone else's piss) in the machine. This is obviously a violation of hte lab's protocol.

3 - Sherk did not test all of his supplements because its prohibitively expensive. Of the supplements he did test, one of the xyience supplements came back positive (though it was for something other than nandrolone).

4 - Sherk passed a lie detector test. Though not conclusive, can be allowed as evidence in civil trials.

5 - And to me the most important, Sherk was denied due process. Whether you think Sherk did it or not, I think it against American ideals of fairness to deny him due process. Sherk was told that he would be able to present his case (call witnesses and cross-examine the state's witnesses). Once the CSAC received his brief (and in my opinion saw the strength of his case) they arbitrarily changed their procedures so that all Sherk was allowed to do was make a statement.

The biggest thing for me though is what many people don't realise, there are huge amounts of supplements containing illegal substances. I mention in in the thread, but tests done by the IOC and several universities found that out of 600-odd supplements tested 15% had illegal substances.

FWIW the "carry over" he talks about is that the person who was tested before Sherk tested positive for nandrolone, they didn't clean the machine before testing him. There was no way he could pass.

Nandrolone postives are almost always dodgy, I've read a lot about them ever since Linford Christie came back for a once off race 4 years after retiring and tested positive for nandrolone. Look it up there are ****loads of dodgy nandrolone cases. This case is dodgy in several different regards. There's a reason they've changed their testing policies and several reasons Garcia lost his job.

Fozzy

I haven't the time to reply with much detail now, but not all that stuff is true :pac:

rovert

This will likely be trouble for fighters who dope in the short run but the dopers will always find ways to get around testing as some of the finest minds in science are involved in the industry. Bill Douglas has always struck me as very fair and thorough in the interviews Ive read and heard.

You are such a schill for the Observer Fozzy

Fozzy

I've got the time to reply now

Maldini2706 wrote: »

There was loads of stuff, check this thread on mma.tv for more details. Nick Thompson, a training partner of Sherk's and a lawyer (kidpresentable on the forum) sums it all up perfectly with his post:

1 - There was no chain of custody for Sherk's piss. This isn't a technicality. This is a big deal. If you don't know who had Sean's piss, how can you verify that it was his piss?

There was a chain of custody. The CSAC had the documents to show who had his samples at all times. The reason that they've got rid of that chain of custody for half of the state now is because they were fed up with lawyers always trying to make a big deal out of it when really it had nothing to do with the cases

2 - There was documented carry over (someone else's piss) in the machine. This is obviously a violation of hte lab's protocol.

Documented where? This is one of the many things that Sherk has said that he never proved in any way. If that were the case then there'd have been more positive tests from that same show

Sherk had two samples tested three times, a few days apart. All were positive

3 - Sherk did not test all of his supplements because its prohibitively expensive. Of the supplements he did test, one of the xyience supplements came back positive (though it was for something other than nandrolone).

Doesn't prove anything

4 - Sherk passed a lie detector test. Though not conclusive, can be allowed as evidence in civil trials.

Again, that doesn't prove anything. The commissions rely on hard facts and not lie detector tests that can be beaten. The commission didn't hold the lie detector test themselves either, so it has no relevance

Also, Sherk passed the test for not knowingly using steroids. If he unknowingly used them then that's still a failure

5 - And to me the most important, Sherk was denied due process. Whether you think Sherk did it or not, I think it against American ideals of fairness to deny him due process. Sherk was told that he would be able to present his case (call witnesses and cross-examine the state's witnesses). Once the CSAC received his brief (and in my opinion saw the strength of his case) they arbitrarily changed their procedures so that all Sherk was allowed to do was make a statement.

That's not the way that the commission works. Sherk was never told that he could call witnesses or anything like that. Bill Douglas has spoken about how the members of the commission were bemused by what Sherk's lawyer was doing at the hearing. The way the commission look at it, when your samples test positive then you've failed a test. Sherk's lawyer made a presentation about how he hadn't failed a test. I think that there's notes on the commission's website about that hearing, I'll go check

Here it is: http://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/about_us/meetings/20071204_minutes.pdf

Mr. Jacobs (Sherk's lawyer) gave a PowerPoint presentation in relation to the defense of Mr. Sherk.

Mr. Walker (the state's lawyer) advised Mr. Jacobs that the Commission can take any position on this appeal because the presentation appears that it is geared toward the Commission not having the authority to dismiss the violation when in fact, the Commission could choose that route. Mr. Walker continued that the doping offense has already occurred and Mr. Jacobs is focused on “if a doping offense has occurred.” The doping offense already occurred.

As for the "carryover" bit:

Commissioner Noonan asked for Dr. Barry Sample’s position on the carryover issues. Dr. Sample stated that he was going to respond to each page that Mr. Jacobs pointed out in his PowerPoint presentation. Dr. Sample refuted Mr. Jacobs’ defense.

rovert wrote: »

You are such a schill for the Observer Fozzy

Amn't I just? :pac: