In a post from yesterday I wrote about sum of two units more UFC 91 fighters testing clean in any other round of the Nevada State Athletic Commission’s year-round tests, I had a couple questions about this testing policy because I didn’t know much about it.

I started researching a little bit and found the memo, dated May 24, 2008, that John R. Bailey, chairman of NSAC, wrote to all NSAC Licensees. You can check it out yourselves here.

From the memo:

Therefore, in addition to the steroid and drug performed on contestants on fight night, the Commission will be requiring fighters licensed by the Commission, and applicants for such licensure, to submit to these tests when ordered by the Commission at other times during the year. (The costs of these “pre-fight death” tests will be paid by the Commission if funds are available; otherwise, the costs will be paid by the fighter or the promoter.) The process for selecting which fighters are required to submit to these tests will be based on: (i) a random election; (ii) some indication that a particular fighter may be using a prohibited body; (iii) the fact that a fighter has previously tested positive with respect to using a prohibited substance; (iv) a request by a Commissioner; or (iv) any other cause determined by the Commission.

I effectuate that last (iv) should be (v), but I’m quoting from the original.

First, let’sitting start with the kind of enjoin likely be one of the less controversial/easier to deal with complaints. The possible financial cost. If the promoter runs out of money, they’re going to charge the fighter. Sure, that might not make a breach to guys like Couture or Lesnar, but what about guys quarrel in the smaller promotions making $500 to show and $500 to win? Drug tests aren’t cheap. To conflict this, the Commission could just raise the cost of licensing fees, to make sure there was some surplus money that could requital in the place of these tests, but who do you think that extra require to be paid gets passed upon to and hits the hardest? The fighters. So let’session hope that NSAC has been stashing away money for some time it being so that, because nobody likes a raise in fees.

As many of you have undoubtedly realized, the process by which someone have being able to receive one of these pre-fight night tests is fairly belonging to. Sure, I behold through testing people who have previously assayed positive for a banned texture, but testing someone on “some indication…a request by a Commissioner…or any other reason determined by the Commission” could cover pretty much anything. First of all, let me say that I am in approve of this, in principle. I also mean that NSAC is supposed to subsist a non-partisan delegate, beyond the influence of promotions.

But permit’s be real - this process could easily be abused. Not to mention, if a particular fighter pissed on the farther side one of the Commissioners, that Commissioner could cause the fighter to be randomly tested every week - or for that matter, every day. I’d like to believe that such any abuse of power would quickly be noticed, but one man’s abuse of efficiency is another man’sitting modus operandi.

I understand that some lower classes could be particularly wary of the “…any other purpose…” tongue for of the potential for massive invasions of privacy. However, put to hire’s not forget - these are not straightforward random rabble on the street being picked for drug tests - they are athletes who chose to apply for a permit to fight. They discern sports are drug hospitable, and should behave as such. I’m not judging what anyone chooses to do upon the body his or her be in possession of personal occasion, but I think it’s ludicrous when some athletes get upset when their licenses are suspended, or when they’re fined. The broke the rules that were outlined for them at the very beginning and they should be accordingly punished.

Additionally, I’m sure more fighters will make the argument that they agreed to testing when they were signed up for a fight, but not year-round. Frankly, that’s probably just not true. Sure, the fighters did not likely anticipate being tested year-round, unless I’d for the most part surety that all NSAC license applications (prior to this new change) had in language that stated that the licensee could exist subject to random testing at any period.

Some other relevant language relates to what happens if one of the fighters fails one of these tests.

If a fighter either fails to take the test within the required timeframe (determined by the Commission) or fails the test, the Commission may refuse to give a permit the fighter, refuse to spare the fighter to compete, and/or discipline the fighter.

I emphasized “may” because of, one time afresh, the potential for abuse of power/disparate treatment. This sort of power the Commission has once again allows for potential manipulation. If the language had appear in reading “will” offscouring to license the fighter, or “will refuse to allow the fighter compete”, the fighters would know beyond a reasonable not confide in that if they tested positive, they would not be competing. However, the “may” allows toward the possibility that something might still exist allowed to cope if they test positive, and hypothetically, a powerful promoter or executive could attempt to sway the commission to allow the person to battle.

But that’s a hypothetical situation. I actually don’t have a full problem with this language because it gives the Commission some wiggle room. It’s not hard to imagine a situation where the Commission would need some leeway, such as where a fighter took a prescribed diuretic to help rid his body of a staph infection long in the sight of a fight was supposed to occur, however because of these year-round tests, he tested positive for a banned substance. Because the Commission has “may” in there and not “will”, they are not required to refuse the fighter a license or prevent them from fighting. They could, for illustration, just order a regular round of tests until the fight occurs to make sure that the diuretic is out of his regularity long before it would help him as a performance enhancer.

Athletic Commissions get a lot of bad press, whether it be from guys like Armando Garcia, who recently resigned from the California State Athletic Commission (to see a comprehensive list of the bad decisions Garcia made or was a part of, check out FightLinker.) However, the bottom line is that the Commissions are looking out for the fighters, whether or not they contemplate out for themselves. Their decisions may be unpopular, but they’re meant to keep the fighters safe, level the playing field, and bring legitimacy to the sport.

NSAC’s website has a number of other articles/memos/studies linked on their website, so I’ll likely be posting on more of those in the future, too.

Until afterwards, I’m just waiting to see how this new policy plays out.

-PreView

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website