UnderGround Forums USADA recreational drug use penalties could be 0

11 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 61662

A recent World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) conference resulted in rational changes to the policy around recreational drugs, or as WADA labels them “substances of abuse." Historically, Cannabinoids (cannabis, hashish, THC, etc), Narcotics (heroin, Fentanyl, Morphine, etc), and Stimulants (Cocaine, MDMA, DMA, etc) have not been prohibited out of competition, but have generally been prohibited during the in-competition window.

However, under the newly ratified policy, if an athlete can demonstrate that the use was out of competition and was not intended for the purposes of performance enhancement, the penalties are notably reduced, potentially to as low as nothing.

“During the extensive two-year review process for the 2021 version of the World Anti-Doping Code, we received considerable stakeholder feedback related to substances of abuse, such as cocaine or cannabis. It was felt that the use of these drugs was often unrelated to sport performance,” explained WADA spokesman James Fitzgerald to Cycling Weekly. “While the code does not prohibit the use of these drugs out of competition, sometimes a presence is detected at an in-competition test even though the use occurred in a social context with no effect. It was felt also that in cases where an athlete has a drug problem and is not seeking or benefiting from performance enhancement, the priority should be on the athlete’s health rather than on imposing a lengthy sporting sanction.”

USADA immediately instituted the changes into the UFC/USADA Anti-Doping Policy (“ADP”), which now reads:
“When a violation of Articles 2.1 or 2.2 involves a Substance of Abuse and the Athlete can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation did not enhance, and was not intended to enhance, the Athlete’s performance in a Bout, then, the period of Ineligibility may be reduced or eliminated, as determined by USADA in its sole discretion based upon the Athlete’s participation in a rehabilitation program.”

Fighters still may be subject to sanction from State, Tribal, Provincial, and Municipal athletic commissions, some of which are not progressive around the issue of recreational drug use.

11 days ago
2/15/06
Posts: 23744
"Fighters still may be subject to sanction from State, Tribal, Provincial, and Municipal athletic commissions, some of which are not progressive around the issue of recreational drug use."

That must be a concern for fighters that are using those drugs. You willingly submit to the drug tests in order to fight and then an AC could still sanction you depending on where you fight.
10 days ago
8/9/05
Posts: 3206
party on wayne
party on garth
10 days ago
10/21/10
Posts: 13659
StrikingMMA - "Fighters still may be subject to sanction from State, Tribal, Provincial, and Municipal athletic commissions, some of which are not progressive around the issue of recreational drug use."

That must be a concern for fighters that are using those drugs. You willingly submit to the drug tests in order to fight and then an AC could still sanction you depending on where you fight.

I cornered a pro fighter a couple weekends ago and when we submitted his pee test, the AC guy literally told us “don’t worry everyone tests positive for THC, we don’t even look at it..” 

10 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 61666
StrikingMMA - "Fighters still may be subject to sanction from State, Tribal, Provincial, and Municipal athletic commissions, some of which are not progressive around the issue of recreational drug use."

That must be a concern for fighters that are using those drugs. You willingly submit to the drug tests in order to fight and then an AC could still sanction you depending on where you fight.

Varies a lot from AC to AC. For example, Texas and Mohegan don't tolerate recreational drug use. Other areas, as noted above, don't care. It's definitely going to be an issue going forward.

10 days ago
11/8/19
Posts: 42

Fighting on acid would be sweet

10 days ago
11/28/03
Posts: 108273

curious if someone pops for weed under usada in a state where its legal, if theres any penalty. i assume not

10 days ago
2/15/06
Posts: 23764
SidRival135 - 
StrikingMMA - "Fighters still may be subject to sanction from State, Tribal, Provincial, and Municipal athletic commissions, some of which are not progressive around the issue of recreational drug use."

That must be a concern for fighters that are using those drugs. You willingly submit to the drug tests in order to fight and then an AC could still sanction you depending on where you fight.

I cornered a pro fighter a couple weekends ago and when we submitted his pee test, the AC guy literally told us “don’t worry everyone tests positive for THC, we don’t even look at it..” 


I meant to get back to this and mention that you can't be sure if the next AC will treat it the same way. Kirik addressed that in the next post.

If I was a coach or fighter I would just say to avoid all things that could trigger a negative. That's the safest approach.
9 days ago
10/21/10
Posts: 13660
StrikingMMA -
SidRival135 - 
StrikingMMA - "Fighters still may be subject to sanction from State, Tribal, Provincial, and Municipal athletic commissions, some of which are not progressive around the issue of recreational drug use."

That must be a concern for fighters that are using those drugs. You willingly submit to the drug tests in order to fight and then an AC could still sanction you depending on where you fight.

I cornered a pro fighter a couple weekends ago and when we submitted his pee test, the AC guy literally told us “don’t worry everyone tests positive for THC, we don’t even look at it..” 


I meant to get back to this and mention that you can't be sure if the next AC will treat it the same way. Kirik addressed that in the next post.

If I was a coach or fighter I would just say to avoid all things that could trigger a negative. That's the safest approach.

Agreed. And for the record my athlete was clean even weed. Me on the other hand. 

9 days ago
2/8/12
Posts: 5703