I was reading the article "Drug Testing Becomes Focus in Overeem-Rogers Bout" on Sherdog and came across the following quote concerning testing during this weekend's fights:
"Tim Luecken[h]off, commissioner for the Missouri Office of Athletics, said the regulatory body will test for 'all illegal and unprescribed drugs.' Lueckenoff refrained from discussing the drug testing timetable (pre-, post-fight or both) or what type of testing will be done per the agency’s testing protocol. The state athletic agencies that do test normally utilize urinalysis sampling, which can detect the presence of steroids and other drugs of abuse, but doesn’t account for the synthesized Human Growth Hormone (HGH)."
I had always just assumed that the testing protocol utilized by the various athletic commissions were described in detail in the operative rules and/or regulations of the respective athletic commission. That is, I assumed the rules dictated when testing was done -- whether before the fight, after the fight, or both before and after.
It turns out that under the Missouri Rules (specifically the Rules of the Department of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration, Division 2040—Office of Athletics, Chapter 8—Mixed Martial Arts), not every fighter is required to submit to a drug test, i.e. the Office of Athletics has discretion to determine whether a particular fighter will be required to submit to a test.
Specifically, under 20 CSR 2040-8.050(6)(B):
"A contestant licensed by the office may be required to submit to any medical examination or test ordered by the office prior to participation in a bout, including a drug test. . . [f]ailure to submit to a test upon notification and/or failure to pay all applicable testing fees may result in disciplinary action being taken against the contestant’s license and the contestant being disallowed by the office to participate in the bout."
Based on the above, it is clear that the Office of Athletics has discretion to determine which fighters get tested. I reached out to Tim Lueckenhoff (the Commissioner of the Missouri Office of Athletics) and he confirmed that whether testing is required for a particular fighter is discretionary with the Office.
More importantly, Tim Lueckenhoff clarified that, despite the "may" language in the second sentence above -- which seems to mean that a fighter who refuses to submit to a required test could still be allowed to participate in a fight, the Office would NOT permit a fighter to compete if they refused a test, i.e. the Office would exercise its discretion under this provision and disallow the fighter from competing.
I think this is a very important clarification because otherwise a fighter (on this weekend's card for example) could refuse to submit to testing and potentially still be allowed to compete, which could potentially lead to injury etc. Equally important is Mr. Lueckenhoff's statement above in the article that testing would be required of the fighters this weekend -- a fact that he confirmed when we spoke.
After looking at the Missouri Rules, I checked the Nevada State Athletic Commission Rules and confirmed that the NSAC also has discretion to determine which fighters should be tested. Like Missouri, once the NSAC determines that a fighter is required to submit to a test, the test is mandatory.
Specifically, NAC 467.850(5) provides as follows:
"An unarmed combatant shall submit to a urinalysis or chemical test before or after a contest or exhibition if the Commission or a representative of the Commission directs him to do so."
I reached out to Keith Kizer, Executive Director of the NSAC, and he confirmed both (1) that the Commission does not administer tests for every fight; and (2) that once the commission requests a test, the fighter does not have the option to refuse the test. According to Kizer, if the fighter refuses, "he or she would not be allowed to compete." Keith Kizer also stated that approximately 60-65% of fighters are tested in Nevada (sometimes before, sometimes after, and sometimes before and after). In addition, Mr. Kizer indicated that the NSAC administers approximately 700 tests a year. With respect to who gets tested, Keith Kizer stated that there "is no set pattern (nor would one want to have a set pattern), but for the most part those athletes tested are (1) both main event fighters, (2) any title fight fighters, and (3) the undercard winners (in case of a draw, we still test one of the athletes)."
Keith Kizer said it usually does not come up, but past history could factor in to the determination of who gets tested. Similarly, Mr. Lueckenhoff confirmed that past history and other considerations could factor in to who gets tested.
This is likely at play this weekend.
While some may argue that every fighter should be tested for every fight, I think testing approximately 60-70% is probably good enough given the deterrent effect, i.e. most fighters will not be willing to take the risk that they will be in the 60-70% and will be deterred from using drugs before a fight.
Given the scale of this weekend's Strikeforce card (and the allegations referred to in the Sherdog Article above), it should come as no surprise that the athletes competing will be tested. Moreover, Mr. Lueckenhoff was clear that the Office of Athletics takes drug use very seriously and issues severe sanctions if a fighter fails to test clean.
Let's hope this does not become an issue.
Fight Lawyer
