USADA calls NSAC's drug-testing procedures "inadequate," recommends tougher stance
LAS VEGAS – This past week, the Nevada State Athletic Commission invited a panel of experts to speak at the commission's monthly meeting in an effort to gain a better understanding of what can and should be done to prevent athletes from gaining an unfair advantage through the use of performance-enhancing drugs.
While the range of opinions varied widely in some aspects, almost everyone agreed on one thing.
The NSAC (and consequently, commissions around the nation) needs to do a better job.
"You can do better," U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart said. "You can do a lot better. I ask you to do better on behalf of clean athletes.
"When I've got athletes coming to me to put a program in because they don't think yours is adequate, that's not good for our athletes. We need better."
Blood vs. urine
The question of what type of drug testing is needed in combat sports recently has garnered a great deal of attention. First, it was boxers Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao debating over the terms of testing in their on-again, off-again big-money fight. More recently, UFC champion Georges St-Pierre and challenger Josh Koscheck suggested "Olympic-style" testing was needed for their December contest.
Currently, the NSAC (which along with the New Jersey and Ohio commissions are often trend-setters for the remainder of the country) tests athletes' urine post-fight, though off-season testing of urine can also be ordered for licensed athletes.
Tygart, head of USADA – the nonprofit company that helps regulate sport in the U.S. – suggested that any credible drug testing program needs to involve both urine and blood testing since neither can be comprehensively trusted since certain substances can only be found in blood while others can be located solely in urine.
"If you want to have an effective program, you at least have to have the right to do both (urine and blood testing)," Tygart said. "The right gives you that deterrent. You can decide later after you have that right how much you're actually going to do and when you're actually going to do it. But I think if you don't have the right to do it, it sends a loud message to dirty athletes: Go do whatever drug will give you a benefit that can only be detected in blood.
"Everybody with a heartbeat now knows [human growth hormone] is only detected in blood. It will be a free-for-all, if it's not already, for human growth hormone use if you don't have the right to at least collect blood."
The evolution of cheating
Designer steroids have long been considered the biggest concern in regards to athletes cheating to gain an edge on their adversaries. But as new substances such as HGH and Erythropoietin (EPO) gain prominence in the landscape of sport, it becomes more and more likely that athletes will be tempted to do whatever it takes to succeed in the increasingly financially rewarding arena of combat sports.
As such, experts such as Robert Voy, the former chief medical officer for the United States Olympic Committee, believe the rush to keep up with the technology means commissions in charge of combat sports need to be prepared for constant evolution.
"This business of testing for performance-enhancing drugs is going to be in the future a never-ending situation," Voy said. "There are people that insist upon – either through science or in some way – finding an advantage in a sport, particularly in a professional sport where the awards are financial. We'll always have to have an open-ended list of performance-enhancing drugs and always be looking for the new substances."
And as Tygart reminded the commission, it's not just substances that need to be addressed. Technologies such as blood transfusions have to be monitored as well.
"You can't specifically list every drug that would fall in the category of anabolic steroids," Tygart said. "That's the designer steroid issue. Secondly, [the NSAC doesn't] prohibit methods that aren't drugs. There are methods such as gene doping, such as transfusions, that would be very beneficial (to combat sports athletes)."
Tygart believes the NSAC should institute a policy similar to that of USADA's, which allows for no-advance-notice testing of both blood and urine. Essentially, fighters would need to be available for immediate testing at any and all times, as opposed to the 24-hour notice that athletes are currently given.
"You can't give people notice," Tygart said. "It allows an athlete ample time to mask, to catheterize, to dilute, to do a number of different things to get a different substance, a different urine supply, a Whizzinator – you see these devices that are out there – and athletes are using them.
"No question, there's a big difference, and you have to have a premium on no-advance-notice testing."
Cost/benefit analysis
While USADA's suggestions would almost certainly ensure a level playing field for mixed martial artists, the costs quickly would add up. With Nevada's state government already strapped for cash (along with most local governments in the current economic climate), commissioners questioned whether the goals are feasible financially.
Tygart suggested the NSAC couldn't afford not to – a claim perhaps bolstered by the UFC's Dennis Hallman recently estimating as many as 50 percent of all MMA fighters are on the juice.
"You can't afford not to do it," Tygart said. "You have to find ways to have a great policy, provide some education – there's no cost to that – and then look at the money you have. Can you find new revenues? Can you shift revenues? I don't know. Take a dollar 'Integrity of Sport' contribution from the pay-per-view to (Floyd) Mayweather-(Shane) Moseley, and that will fund your program for the next five years. The money is there. You just have to decide, I think, that it's a priority and spend the time to try and come up with a program that can be the most effective that it can given the resources.
"I look at the pay-per-view money, and I look at the purses for the athletes – and granted, that's the big fight and the one fight. I look at the revenues the casinos are making. The casinos have an interest. They have an interest in having a level playing field. The odds go against them when someone's cheating to win. ... Don't let money stop you from putting a policy in place that works."
The tip of the iceberg
The NSAC, as well as other commissions across the country, face a difficult task in attempting to curtail all potential use of performance-enhancing drugs and procedures.
The two-hour-plus meeting also touched on challenges such as testing processes, suitability of defense against legal challenges, potential adverse reactions to blood testing, quality of facilities testing the samples, combating evasion techniques and much more. It was a mountain of information to consider, and NSAC officials were using the hearing as a fact-finding mission only, so no immediate changes were made or scheduled.
Despite the challenges, most experts agreed something needed to be done.
"My personal opinion is that using an anabolic steroid or a performance-enhancing drug that increases unfairly the individual's opportunity to gain endurance, muscular strength, etc., is a risk to the health of the participants in the sport," Voy said. "In fact, my personal opinion has always been that the use of anabolic steroids in the sport of boxing ... could be likened to a criminal act in terms of having not only an unfair advantage but an advantage which would be cheating and difficult for the opponent to deal with fairly."
Following the meeting, Tygart told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) that even if the NSAC could start simply by implementing the new policies with main-event fighters, the results could prove beneficial for the entirety of the sport.
"Make no mistake; when an athlete cheats with drugs, it is fraud," Tygart said. "A lot of taxpayer money is being defrauded when athletes cheat and win."
And despite being a guest of the NSAC, Tygart pulled no punches in pushing the commission to adopt a more stringent set of testing guidelines.
"Please, no disrespect," Tygart said. "I appreciate your willingness to consider these issues and hopefully do better.
"I think frankly, [the current testing system] is inadequate. You guys deserve better. Your athletes deserve better."
LAS VEGAS – This past week, the Nevada State Athletic Commission invited a panel of experts to speak at the commission's monthly meeting in an effort to gain a better understanding of what can and should be done to prevent athletes from gaining an unfair advantage through the use of performance-enhancing drugs.
While the range of opinions varied widely in some aspects, almost everyone agreed on one thing.
The NSAC (and consequently, commissions around the nation) needs to do a better job.
"You can do better," U.S. Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart said. "You can do a lot better. I ask you to do better on behalf of clean athletes.
"When I've got athletes coming to me to put a program in because they don't think yours is adequate, that's not good for our athletes. We need better."
Blood vs. urine
The question of what type of drug testing is needed in combat sports recently has garnered a great deal of attention. First, it was boxers Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao debating over the terms of testing in their on-again, off-again big-money fight. More recently, UFC champion Georges St-Pierre and challenger Josh Koscheck suggested "Olympic-style" testing was needed for their December contest.
Currently, the NSAC (which along with the New Jersey and Ohio commissions are often trend-setters for the remainder of the country) tests athletes' urine post-fight, though off-season testing of urine can also be ordered for licensed athletes.
Tygart, head of USADA – the nonprofit company that helps regulate sport in the U.S. – suggested that any credible drug testing program needs to involve both urine and blood testing since neither can be comprehensively trusted since certain substances can only be found in blood while others can be located solely in urine.
"If you want to have an effective program, you at least have to have the right to do both (urine and blood testing)," Tygart said. "The right gives you that deterrent. You can decide later after you have that right how much you're actually going to do and when you're actually going to do it. But I think if you don't have the right to do it, it sends a loud message to dirty athletes: Go do whatever drug will give you a benefit that can only be detected in blood.
"Everybody with a heartbeat now knows [human growth hormone] is only detected in blood. It will be a free-for-all, if it's not already, for human growth hormone use if you don't have the right to at least collect blood."
The evolution of cheating
Designer steroids have long been considered the biggest concern in regards to athletes cheating to gain an edge on their adversaries. But as new substances such as HGH and Erythropoietin (EPO) gain prominence in the landscape of sport, it becomes more and more likely that athletes will be tempted to do whatever it takes to succeed in the increasingly financially rewarding arena of combat sports.
As such, experts such as Robert Voy, the former chief medical officer for the United States Olympic Committee, believe the rush to keep up with the technology means commissions in charge of combat sports need to be prepared for constant evolution.
"This business of testing for performance-enhancing drugs is going to be in the future a never-ending situation," Voy said. "There are people that insist upon – either through science or in some way – finding an advantage in a sport, particularly in a professional sport where the awards are financial. We'll always have to have an open-ended list of performance-enhancing drugs and always be looking for the new substances."
And as Tygart reminded the commission, it's not just substances that need to be addressed. Technologies such as blood transfusions have to be monitored as well.
"You can't specifically list every drug that would fall in the category of anabolic steroids," Tygart said. "That's the designer steroid issue. Secondly, [the NSAC doesn't] prohibit methods that aren't drugs. There are methods such as gene doping, such as transfusions, that would be very beneficial (to combat sports athletes)."
Tygart believes the NSAC should institute a policy similar to that of USADA's, which allows for no-advance-notice testing of both blood and urine. Essentially, fighters would need to be available for immediate testing at any and all times, as opposed to the 24-hour notice that athletes are currently given.
"You can't give people notice," Tygart said. "It allows an athlete ample time to mask, to catheterize, to dilute, to do a number of different things to get a different substance, a different urine supply, a Whizzinator – you see these devices that are out there – and athletes are using them.
"No question, there's a big difference, and you have to have a premium on no-advance-notice testing."
Cost/benefit analysis
While USADA's suggestions would almost certainly ensure a level playing field for mixed martial artists, the costs quickly would add up. With Nevada's state government already strapped for cash (along with most local governments in the current economic climate), commissioners questioned whether the goals are feasible financially.
Tygart suggested the NSAC couldn't afford not to – a claim perhaps bolstered by the UFC's Dennis Hallman recently estimating as many as 50 percent of all MMA fighters are on the juice.
"You can't afford not to do it," Tygart said. "You have to find ways to have a great policy, provide some education – there's no cost to that – and then look at the money you have. Can you find new revenues? Can you shift revenues? I don't know. Take a dollar 'Integrity of Sport' contribution from the pay-per-view to (Floyd) Mayweather-(Shane) Moseley, and that will fund your program for the next five years. The money is there. You just have to decide, I think, that it's a priority and spend the time to try and come up with a program that can be the most effective that it can given the resources.
"I look at the pay-per-view money, and I look at the purses for the athletes – and granted, that's the big fight and the one fight. I look at the revenues the casinos are making. The casinos have an interest. They have an interest in having a level playing field. The odds go against them when someone's cheating to win. ... Don't let money stop you from putting a policy in place that works."
The tip of the iceberg
The NSAC, as well as other commissions across the country, face a difficult task in attempting to curtail all potential use of performance-enhancing drugs and procedures.
The two-hour-plus meeting also touched on challenges such as testing processes, suitability of defense against legal challenges, potential adverse reactions to blood testing, quality of facilities testing the samples, combating evasion techniques and much more. It was a mountain of information to consider, and NSAC officials were using the hearing as a fact-finding mission only, so no immediate changes were made or scheduled.
Despite the challenges, most experts agreed something needed to be done.
"My personal opinion is that using an anabolic steroid or a performance-enhancing drug that increases unfairly the individual's opportunity to gain endurance, muscular strength, etc., is a risk to the health of the participants in the sport," Voy said. "In fact, my personal opinion has always been that the use of anabolic steroids in the sport of boxing ... could be likened to a criminal act in terms of having not only an unfair advantage but an advantage which would be cheating and difficult for the opponent to deal with fairly."
Following the meeting, Tygart told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com) that even if the NSAC could start simply by implementing the new policies with main-event fighters, the results could prove beneficial for the entirety of the sport.
"Make no mistake; when an athlete cheats with drugs, it is fraud," Tygart said. "A lot of taxpayer money is being defrauded when athletes cheat and win."
And despite being a guest of the NSAC, Tygart pulled no punches in pushing the commission to adopt a more stringent set of testing guidelines.
"Please, no disrespect," Tygart said. "I appreciate your willingness to consider these issues and hopefully do better.
"I think frankly, [the current testing system] is inadequate. You guys deserve better. Your athletes deserve better."
