There are a number of reasons to feel Lyoto Machida’s 18-month suspension is longer than is fair or reasonable. For one, the substance carries a longer, two-year penalty due to its inclusion in the “Anabolic agents” class alongside anabolic steroids, despite WADA themselves apparently admitting it has “no intrinsic anabolic properties.”

There’s also the fact that there’s no good evidence that 7-keto-DHEA can enhance athletic performance at all, nor is there any evidence it is harmful to athlete health, and one of those two things has to be true under WADA’s own criteria for prohibited substances.

There’s also evidence that it’s more difficult - though not impossible by any means - for Brazilian athletes to check the status of supplements they take, compared to U.S. athletes.

Now there’s another factor: If it wasn’t for his disclosure of 7-keto-DHEA use, Lyoto may not have received any suspension at all. Bloody Elbow has had a chance to review the lab findings in Machida’s case, and the results show atypical findings rather than an adverse analytical finding, the latter of which would be considered a doping policy violation.

Adverse Analytical Finding vs. Atypical Finding

An adverse analytical finding (AAF) is one which proves an athlete has taken a prohibited substance or method. From WADA’s own Q&A:

An AAF is a report from a WADA -accredited laboratory or other WADA-approved laboratory that, consistent with the International Standard for Laboratories (ISL) and related Technical Documents, identifies in a sample the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers (including elevated quantities of endogenous substances) or evidence of the Use of a Prohibited Method.

An atypical finding (ATF) on the other hand is a result which is out of the ordinary, but is not, in itself, proof of a doping violation without further evidence. From WADA’s own Q&A:

An ATF is a report from a WADA-accredited laboratory or other WADA-approved laboratory which requires further investigation as provided by the International Standard for Laboratories or related Technical Documents prior to the determination of an Adverse Analytical Finding.

Lyoto Machida’s Results

All of Lyoto Machida’s lab results came back with atypical findings, rather than adverse analytical findings.

The first A sample result said the following:Analytical Finding: No prohibited substances Comments: The initial screening procedure ratio of 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA as approximately 80 to 1, which is atypical. [sic]

There was then a “confirmation screening” of the A sample - which is the same sample as the first test, not the separate B sample - which had the following:Analytical Finding: The ratio of 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA is 35, which is atypical.

This time, there was no comment. It is worth noting that despite the test being on the same sample, the ratio of 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA has decreased from 80 to 1, to 35 to 1. While the two results are rather different, it doesn’t appear that the difference is evidence of any testing errors.

It's also important to note that while a high ratio can be made to sound like an inherently bad thing, a high 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA ratio does not indicate any performance enhancement. It's basically like finding someone who eats a lot of oranges has more vitamin C in their urine than the average person.

The combined report for the two initial A sample results stated:

Test Result: No Prohibited Substance(s) or Prohibited Method(s), or their Metabolite(s) or Marker(s) on the test menu were detected.

Analysis Details / Explanation / Opinion: The initial screening procedure of 7b-OH-DHEA to DHEA is approximately 80 to 1, which is atypical.

The “A” -confirmation analysis was performed; ratio of 7b-OH-DEA to DHEA is 35 to 1, which is atypical. [sic]

The B sample was also tested, and the report returned the following results:

Test Result: No Prohibited Substance(s) or Prohibited Method(s), or their Metabolite(s) or Marker(s) on the test menu were detected.

Analysis Details / Explanation / Opinion: The ratio of 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA is 58, which is atypical.

USADA state in their communications that Lyoto Machida was receiving an adverse analytical finding based on his admission:

“USADA subsequently notified you that the Laboratory’s initial screening report was being regarded as an Adverse Analytical Finding based on your admission of use of 7-keto-dehydroepiandrosterone (“7-keto-DHEA”), which was further supported by the Laboratory’s initial screening report of an atypical ratio of 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA (emphasis mine).”

This language is used because an atypical ratio of 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA apparently doesn’t count as a doping violation, as evidenced by every report specifically stating that no prohibited substances or metabolites were found, and no adverse analytical finding being announced on the results. It does not appear that any ratio of 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA, absent further evidence, is an adverse analytical finding.

What does that mean for Machida? Well, based on WADA’s guidance for handling atypical results of other substances, it suggests that without any further proof of exogenous 7-keto-DHEA use, Lyoto Machida would have been subject to further testing, but not have been found in violation of the anti-doping policy, and as a result, would not have received any suspension.

It is possible that USADA have follow up tests which they chose not to perform on Lyoto Machida’s samples which would have shown exogenous 7-keto-DHEA use and returned an adverse analytical finding as a result. I searched and found no guidance from WADA on this subject (unlike for atypical luteinizing hormone / human chorionic gonadotropin results). I could also not find any evidence that there is a WADA-accepted carbon isotope ratio test specifically for 7-keto-DHEA or its related metabolites, unlike for testosterone and DHEA.

That doesn’t mean that there isn’t such a test, just that I couldn’t find any evidence of one. There is, however, no evidence of USADA requesting or performing any such tests on Lyoto Machida’s sample(s).

In the interests of accuracy, I reached out to USADA to request information on how an atypical 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA ratio would be handled/investigated. As of publication time, I have received no response. For those keeping count at home, this is the fourth batch of questions I have sent in two weeks that USADA have not responded to.

There is also the question of whether or not testing for 7β-OH-DHEA to DHEA ratios is even conducted on all samples, and as a result, whether or not the atypical ratio would even have been found. I asked USADA questions relating to this - at USADA’s request - on November 19th. I still have not received any response.

Why does any of this matter? Well, if it turns out that Lyoto would not have received a suspension based on his test results alone - and based on the evidence we have, that is a distinct possibility - it means he received an 18-month suspension for being honest. If he hadn’t admitted to using 7-keto-DHEA, there is a real chance he would have faced no punishment at all. Instead, he received a suspension that could well mean the end of his career. Over a substance the evidence says doesn’t even enhance athletic performance.

Whether intentional or not, USADA are sending the message that being honest doesn’t count for much, and athletes are better served by never disclosing anything to USADA willingly.