Felipe Olivieri gave an out of competition sample to USADA on January 11, 2016, prior to his losing debut effort against Tony Martin. Finally, almost a year after the original violation was announced, USADA have announced a sanction of two years due to the positive test for methyltestosterone metabolites.

USADA laid out the reasons for the delay in the announcement, stating that the Brazilian UFC lightweight underwent an appeal and arbitration process, including accusations during arbitration that the chain of custody on his sample was broken, and that the WADA lab in Rio which conducted the test was incompetent.

It is worth noting that the Rio lab has been suspended by WADA several times. In 2012 the lab was banned from carrying out a specific type of test (IRMS) for nine months, after giving a false positive.

In August 2013, the lab’s WADA accreditation was suspended completely due to “repeated failures,” and wasn’t reinstated until May 2015.

In June 2016, only 13 months after having its accreditation re-instated, the lab was again suspended from any anti-doping testing on blood or urine samples, due to “non-conformity with the International Standard for Laboratories.” The accreditation was re-instated in late July after the lab apparently addressed the unspecified issues.

As a result of the Rio lab’s suspension, Olivieiri’s samples—no longer sealed, as both were tested in the Rio lab—were transported to another WADA accredited lab—SMRTL in Utah—where the B sample was tested and found to contain methyltestosterone metabolites.

In addition to the Rio lab’s accreditation being revoked, it was also revealed that USADA’s doping control officer (DCO) put incorrect dates on the form attached to the samples, though both the athlete and the officer signed off that the forms were correct.

Despite these errors, the arbitrator appeared to suggest that it’s on the athlete to prove that procedures were not followed in his particular case. It is not enough for him to prove that the DCO made typographical errors, and that the lab had its accreditation revoked a few months later. The athlete apparently has to, somehow, show that his particular sample was mishandled.

The arbitrator stated:

Finally, in response to the allegations of the Applicant regarding the analysis of the Rio Laboratory there is the provision in the UFC ADP in 3.2.2 that extends a presumption to the work of the laboratory. That provision provides a presumption that the laboratory has conducted Sample analysis and custodial procedures in 17 accordance with the ISL. The Applicant must rebut that presumption by establishing that a departure from the ISL has occurred which could reasonably have caused the Adverse Finding. The Applicant has produced no evidence that establishes a departure from the ISL. Therefore, the Applicant has not met the threshold condition to rebut the presumption of Article 3.2.2.

The ISL is the International Standard for Laboratories, which all WADA-accredited labs have to follow. As a reminder, the Rio lab had its accreditation revoked in June 2016 ‘due to a non-conformity with the International Standard for Laboratories" (“ISL”).’

The arbitration process in place for the UFC’s anti-doping policy has some issues. Firstly, athletes are banned by the UFC policy Article 4.3 from challenging a substance’s classification on the banned list. Secondly, any positive test apparently results in a presumption of guilt, at which point the athlete has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are innocent.

Even when forms are incorrectly filled in, and the lab conducting the test has its accreditation revoked just months later (and 3 times in the last 3 years) for failing to meet the required standards, the athlete still has to somehow provide evidence that his particular sample was mishandled in a way that caused a positive test.

It should be noted that the “neutral” arbitrator the UFC uses also has a contract with the UFC to “...Design a customized adjudication program for the UFC. MGSS monitors these rules and regulations on an ongoing basis keeping these organizations up-to-date and in compliance with its regulatory obligations.” The arbitrator also oversees the administration of the UFC’s program, as well as acting as adjudicators (arbitrators).