I took this from a paid newsletter I subscribe to. Normally I wouldn't share the whole thing since it's paid but this backs up a lot of what's been speculated over the years.
This isn’t a UFC story itself, but involves USADA, which UFC used for its drug testing until this year. It basically started when USADA complained about 23 Chinese swimmers who had tested positive but were continued to be allowed to compete.
Then U.S. sprinter Emiyon Knighton tested positive for trenbolone, a powerful steroid, by USADA, but was allowed to compete because an arbitrator believed the result was caused by contaminated meat.
The China anti-doping agency (CHINADA) then cited a recent WADA statement, it said that 31 percent of U.S. athletes were inadequately tested in the 12 months prior to the Tokyo Games.
“In light of the above, we strongly call on the International Testing Agency (ITA) to intensify testing on the U.S. track and field athletes,” CHINADA said in a statement on its WeChat account. “We also strongly recommend that the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) strengthen anti-doping supervision of the U.S. track and field, prevent the doping risks and strictly investigate relevant cases, in an endeavor to truly protect the legitimate rights and interests of the clean athletes around the world, and to rebuild the trust of global athletes in fair play.”
There were then accusations that USADA has allowed athletes who have tested positive to continue to compete.
On 8/8, the World Anti Doping Association (WADA) released what I’d consider a shocking statement, backing that up.
“The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) responds to a Reuters story of 7 August 2024 exposing a scheme whereby the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) allowed athletes who had doped, to compete for years, in at least one case without ever publishing or sanctioning their anti-doping rule violations, in direct contravention of the World Anti-Doping Code and USADA’s own rules.
“This USADA scheme threatened the integrity of sporting competition, which the Code seeks to protect. By operating it, USADA was in clear breach of the rules. Contrary to the claims made by USADA, WADA did not sign off on this practice of permitting drug cheats to compete for years on the promise that they would try to obtain incriminating evidence against others.”
It should be noted in the very controversial case where they greatly cut back on a Jon Jones suspension for Turinabol in 2017 from four years given it was his second offense, to 15 months. USADA’s claim was they did so because Jones would essentially turn state’s evidence. Jones later denied he ever did so and nothing ever resulted from it. It should be noted that an arbitrator used in the case recommended the shorter sentence because they believed he never willfully attempted to cheat. However, many UFC athletes who were suspended during that period on first occasions had to serve two years even with similar claims that they didn’t know how the drug ended up in their system and like Jones, no contaminants were found in supplements they had used.
“Within the Code there is a provision whereby an athlete who provides substantial assistance can subsequently apply to have a proportion of their period of ineligibility suspended. However, there is a clear process for that, which does not involve allowing those who have cheated to continue to compete while they may or may not gather incriminating evidence against others and while they could retain a performance-enhancement effect from the substances they took. When WADA eventually found out about this non-compliant practice in 2021, many years after it had started, it immediately instructed USADA to desist.
“WADA is now aware of at least three cases where athletes who had committed serious anti-doping rule violations were allowed to continue to compete for years while they acted as undercover agents for USADA, without it notifying WADA and without there being any provision allowing such a practice under the Code or USADA’s own rules.
“In one case, an elite level athlete, who competed at Olympic qualifier and international events in the United States, admitted to taking steroids and EPO yet was permitted to continue competing all the way up to retirement. Their case was never published, results never disqualified, prize money never returned, and no suspension ever served. The athlete was allowed to line up against their unknowing competitors as if they had never cheated. In that case, when USADA eventually admitted to WADA what had been going on, it advised that any publication of consequences or disqualification of results would put the athlete’s security at risk and asked WADA to agree to non-publication. Being put in this impossible position, WADA had no choice but to agree (after verifying with its Intelligence and Investigations Department that the security threat was credible). The athlete’s doping was therefore never made public.
“In another case of a high-level athlete, USADA never notified WADA of its decision to lift an athlete’s provisional suspension, which is an appealable decision, despite being required to do so under the Code. Had WADA been notified, it would never have allowed this.
“How must other athletes feel knowing they were competing in good faith against those who were known by USADA to have cheated? It is ironic and hypocritical that USADA cries foul when it suspects other Anti-Doping Organizations are not following the rules to the letter while it did not announce doping cases for years and allowed cheats to carry on competing, on the off chance they might help them catch other possible violators. WADA wonders if the USADA Board of Directors, which governs USADA, or U.S. Congress, which funds it, knew about this non-compliant practice that not only undermined the integrity of sporting competition but also put the co-operating athletes’ security at risk.