UFC Jon Jones granted NASC license

USADA Statement on the Nevada State Athletic Commission Granting Jon Jones a One-Fight License

 

Colorado Springs, Colo. (January 29, 2019) – “We agree with and support the NSAC decision today to license Jon Jones to fight in Nevada and while USADA does not have jurisdiction over the licensing, we appreciate being able to collaborate with the NSAC to ensure a fair outcome. This decision is the same conclusion we reached based on the facts and science under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy and the California Commission reached under its rules. The NSAC conducted a hearing, weighed the facts, listened to the independent experts, and appropriately determined that the trace amounts of M3 found in Jones’ samples were residual and provided no performance-enhancing benefit and respected the principle of double jeopardy. Anti-doping cases in all sports are sometimes complex and a fair system must look at each one individually, taking all evidence into account to reach a just conclusion ensuring intentional cheats are punished. We look forward to coordinating efforts with the NSAC to make certain our programs complement one another moving forward.”

***

For your convenience, we’ve also included the key scientific points from the testimony delivered by Dr. Matt Fedoruk, USADA’s Chief Science Officer, who joined today’s hearing by phone:

“I concur with Dr. (Daniel) Eichner’s answers. I would just like to add that the detection of long-term metabolite isn’t limited to just the DHCMT compound in question. The long-term metabolite for other anabolic agents has been one of the factors in increasing the detection window of prohibited steroids in anti-doping.”

“With regards to Mr. Jones’ passport – and it was mentioned at the beginning of the hearing – the importance of longitudinal samples and looking for signs of doping over time as we collect more samples from an athlete, I would like to testify that both Mr. Jones’ steroid passport and his blood passport do not show any signs of doping with anabolic agents.”

“Finally, with regards to the (procedural anti-doping policy) question that was asked (by the commission), I completely agree that every case needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis because every athlete is exposed to different prohibited substances in different ways and their particular set of circumstances in that the science for each single case has to be analyzed independently rather than making the same type of decisions and coming to a conclusion without all the evidence that pertains to that particular athlete’s particular case.”

“I think you’re looking for some direction regarding how we handle an athlete that tests positive and continues to test positive. One of the important things that you can do is continue to conduct testing to demonstrate that the compound is still being seen in residual amounts rather than the parent or the short or medium metabolites that were discussed. And there’s been other cases that we’ve seen where athletes continue to test positive for anabolic agents for an extended period of time. And it’s no fault of the laboratory. Their job is to detect the substance and to the best of their ability. And therefore we need to look at the science in order to make the best possible decisions and the most fair decision for athletes.”

 

Leave a Reply