Why Tim Means’ “Tainted Supplement” Defence Won’t Fly with USADA

[ErikMagraken]

Originally published here - Why Tim Means' "Tainted Supplement" Defence Won't Fly with USADA

UFC fighter Tim Means has been the latest athlete to be advised of a potential Anti-Doping Policy violation stemming from an out-of-competition sample collection.

He has recently speculated that the positive result may be due to tainted testing equipment or tainted supplements.

Assuming his suggestion that he ingested tainted supplements proves true, Means will still teach a valuable lesson to the rest of the UFC’s roster, namely that the brave new world of USADA’s anti-doping program is one of ‘strict liability’.

In other words, the prohibition against banned PED’s is absolute and athletes are responsible for what they put into their bodies even if they are wholly without blame.

While the ‘tainted supplement’ defence has yet to be tested under the UFC/USADA anti doping policy, USADA has a vast track record of dealing with this defence in other sports. You need look no further than the recent decision of USADA v. Asfaw to see they handed a two year ban to an athlete who was found to have indeed taken a banned substance unintentionally.

 

[ErikMagraken]

Update - it appears the ADP has been updated since I last read it and the 'tainted supplement' defence may actually workw ith s. 10.5.1.2 now reading

In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, the period of Ineligibility set forth in Article 10.2, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.

 

[Punch]

Update - it appears the ADP has been updated since I last read it and the 'tainted supplement' defence may actually workw ith s. 10.5.1.2 now reading

In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, the period of Ineligibility set forth in Article 10.2, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.

Thanks for the update Erik.

 

[ErikMagraken]

Thanks for the update Erik.

My pleasure, I published too hastily, did my due diligence after the fact and saw that I was wrong. Abort!

 

[Punch]

My pleasure, I published too hastily, did my due diligence after the fact and saw that I was wrong. Abort!

Happens to even the best homie.

So basically if you pop hot, regardless the thing to do that will serve you best is deny, deny, deny. Is this fighting or politics?

 

[Robbie Hart]

My pleasure, I published too hastily, did my due diligence after the fact and saw that I was wrong. Abort!

Good information Erik.....even I make mistakes....

 

[ThatOneDude]

Good information Erik.....even I make mistakes....

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Update - it appears the ADP has been updated since I last read it and the 'tainted supplement' defence may actually workw ith s. 10.5.1.2 now reading

In cases where the Athlete or other Person can establish that the detected Prohibited Substance came from a Contaminated Product, then the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, the period of Ineligibility set forth in Article 10.2, depending on the Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of Fault.

That seems fairly fair.

 

[SC MMA MD]

It seems to me unlikely that a supplement would be tainted with a SARM, since there are real oral anabolic steroids that are cheaper and clearly work. Since he already identified the supplement he thinks was tainted, it will be interesting to see if it gets tested and what shows up.

 

[ErikMagraken]

It seems to me unlikely that a supplement would be tainted with a SARM, since there are real oral anabolic steroids that are cheaper and clearly work. Since he already identified the supplement he thinks was tainted, it will be interesting to see if it gets tested and what shows up.

He'll have no choice but to do that if he wants to discharge his burden. Even then he's open to sanctions at USADA's discretion. Pulling off the 'tainted supplement' defense is no defense to violation, just goes to severity of punishment.

 

[Ryann Von Doom]

What if he brings a brand new bottle of the tainted sups and they test positive for it while what he popped for isnt listed?

 

[SC MMA MD]

^ my understanding is that the USADA would then be able to reduce/eliminate his penalty at their discretion.

 

[Ghost Bro]

^ my understanding is that the USADA would then be able to reduce/eliminate his penalty at their discretion.

Would that not mean he might've taken that separately and also the drug found in the supplement..that's like the worst case scenario.

Take it easy on the guy tho, he didn't mean it.

 

[Ryann Von Doom]

^ my understanding is that the USADA would then be able to reduce/eliminate his penalty at their discretion.

"REDUCE" lol if it's found in an unopened bottle and the one he supplies, why would he get anything?

 

[ErikMagraken]

"REDUCE" lol if it's found in an unopened bottle and the one he supplies, why would he get anything?

They could go as low as a reprimand (ie nothing) in those circumstances but the athlete would still need to prove that they exercised all due diligence before taking the supplement. Past arbitration decisions look to the following standard for athletes -

(i) read the label of the product used (or otherwise ascertain the ingredients),

(ii) cross-check all the ingredients on the label with the list of prohibited substances,

(iii) make an internet search of the product,

(iv) ensure the product is reliably sourced and

(v) consult appropriate experts in these matters and instruct them diligently before consuming the product.

 

[Papi Chingon]

Has a fighter ever sued a supplement company over the tainted supplement claim? It would seem logical if various supplements were indeed tainted, however, I haven't heard of this happening, so I am always wondering if it is just an excuse for the athletic commission.

 

[ErikMagraken]

Has a fighter ever sued a supplement company over the tainted supplement claim? It would seem logical if various supplements were indeed tainted, however, I haven't heard of this happening, so I am always wondering if it is just an excuse for the athletic commission.

I'd be more worried about a supplement company suing a fighter for the allegations sometimes made with zero evidence. But yes the lawsuits can fly both ways

 

[Jehannum]

gonna be dangerous if they let people off for tainted supplements, because then you can just taint your own supplement, or even better, take the PED you want the proper way and just taint the supplement if you get caught. am I wrong?

 

[ErikMagraken]

gonna be dangerous if they let people off for tainted supplements, because then you can just taint your own supplement, or even better, take the PED you want the proper way and just taint the supplement if you get caught. am I wrong?

Now we are crossing the line into a sophisticated fraud. One that would likely bring criminal repercussions and defamation lawsuits.