CSAC insists Barnett test was 'random,' confident with integrity of result

"It was just a random selection ... and in some cases if there's prior history, that is also a flag ... it allows us that opportunity to test that individual and require a clean test prior to renewal of a license ... The inspector that observed this particular test is one of our drug testing experts in terms of the correction procedure, and works on many events of this nature, and oversees a lot of the drug testing that's performed by our staff. In this particular case, this was a hands-on test that he performed himself ... And in terms of the lab itself, we have been using the same lab that tests the NFL and the International Olympic Games, as recently as the last Games, they tested every sample ever took there. They test the NCAA for all the sports, all minor league baseball. It's a very, very tough lab to dispute - the best of them all. So it was almost a trial, so to speak, to see what the process was going to be like moving forward so we can learn from this. And it just so happens that the first one we've ever done here in California produced a result. First one ever. I mean, right out of the gate."
California State Athletic Commission's assistant executive officer, Bill Douglas, talks to MMA Fanhouse in wake of the pre-fight drug test that returned a positive result for Affliction headliner Josh Barnett -- the second of his career. "The Babyface Assassin" has been denied a license to compete at "Trilogy" on August 1 against Fedor Emelianenko and is expected to be replaced by Vitor Belfort in the main event. Barnett previously stated that his drug test was not random and that he was planning an appeal pending the results of his second sample. No matter what the outcome, Barnett will have an uphill battle trying to market himself to a stateside promotion going forward.
39 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So by hands on he means this inspector handled Barnett and shook it for him too.
by O damn he got caught on Jul 23, 2009 11:22 AM EDT reply actions
Why the hell would Barnett complain that the test wasn’t random? Did he want a 50/50 chance of getting away with it? You have tested positive before, and you are fighting in the main event, of course you are gonna get tested.
If you don’t cheat, then you couldn’t care less if the test is random or not. You don’t have anything to worry about.
by naturalshadow on Jul 23, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
If you have ever taken one for a probation officer, they basically do everything but that.
by BNF on Jul 23, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I just got off papers in April, I can’t piss right anymore without some old guy standing right next to me staring at my junk.
by O damn he got caught on Jul 23, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
LMAO… I have stage fright ever since high school.
by BNF on Jul 23, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
LOL BNF, same here. I prefer to piss in peace.
by Kobajack on Jul 23, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
I wonder who wants that job?? Someone’s like, "you know what I can do, and do really well?? I can watch sausage. I’m just going to apply here, under hobbies I’ll write “loves to stare at dongs”."
by O damn he got caught on Jul 23, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
For 30 years I’ve been asking permission to take a piss. I can’t squeeze a drop without say-so.
by PW on Jul 23, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
LMAO at O Damn!! But yeah I like to pee in peace as well…………
by Dragon on Jul 23, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
“The inspector that observed this particular test has a keen eye for penis; this isn’t something you can just fall into, you’ve got to be a natural born pole scout.”
by O damn he got caught on Jul 23, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
No the guy that said that line was Red the old librarian man.
by Dragon on Jul 23, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Red said it, but Brooks was the old librarian. Red said it when he ws on work release at the grocery store.
by Colbert on Jul 23, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Red said it, but Brooks was the old librarian. Red said it when he ws on work release at the grocery store.
Sorry, was screwing with my screen name.
by PW on Jul 23, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I am actually great at peeing in front of people. It’s my calling. In the Air Force, guys would stand there forever trying to get started. I could fill up my cup no problem…all frothy and glorious. They put an x on the floor where the inspector had to stand. It was so close I could feel the guy’s breath. So I just developed an ability to piss and get out of there before he tried to make love to me.
Anyway, what sucks is that we all eventually were selected to be the observer. That job sucks. A poor guy is standing there, wiener in hand, and nothing is happening. You could hear a pin drop and he starts angrily trying to coax out a few drops. I was never sure if I should try to give a pep talk or what. I would usually just start talking about something random while looking at the wall. Wiener watching isn’t for the faint of heart.
by Punch You in the Ovaries on Jul 23, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
LOL; yea there were a lot of sausage watchers in the army too…
by O damn he got caught on Jul 23, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Hahahaha, that reminds of that dude from that crappy movie Waiting who can’t piss unless he imagines everyone in the restaurant standing there cheering for him.
by PW on Jul 23, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I just liked the end when that kid from Bones burns everyone.
by PW on Jul 23, 2009 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions
this is a very poor statement. very poor! he goes on and on about all the drug testing this lab has done, but then ends by saying this was the first one that was done. very hard to follow what this man is trying to say. i believe he may not know even what he’s trying to say. California is a very fishy state when it comes to drug testing. that state and it’s athletic commission have made more goofs than good decisions.
by deuce 4 on Jul 23, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course his drug test wasn’t random. If you already have a previous positive test you will be looked at much more closely, as you should be. Did he think he would be given a month advance notice so he could cycle off in time? Idiot.
by PW on Jul 23, 2009 11:25 AM EDT reply actions
You can tell Bill Douglas is really proud that he got someone.
by Tom on Jul 23, 2009 11:25 AM EDT reply actions
Barnett should be banned if this holds up. Time to hold people accountable.
by JJKID on Jul 23, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions
I agree. Like in every other professional sport, they should be banned. Barnett can go back to bouncing clubs.
by neeko on Jul 23, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
i will judge barnett in 1 august not now….bring BRETT ROGER,he’s still undefeated, and maybe he will shock the world like what he did against ARLOVSKI….foking cheaters…
by karim on Jul 23, 2009 11:32 AM EDT reply actions
Screw Barnett!!!! it’s time to figure out how Affliction is going to save it’s show.
by theonetheonly on Jul 23, 2009 11:38 AM EDT reply actions
lol the only way that affliction could save their show is if the headline event was DANA VS FEDOR !
by ian on Jul 23, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I hope Affliction dies and Fedor comes to the UFC and we actually see what he can do agianst better competition.
by Cantrim on Jul 23, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions
i wonder how he wud do against good fighters in a cage and with rules that hes not used to, japan allows alot of stuff that should’nt b allowed and im hoping that fedor does’nt need wat he needed in pride to win..
by guyverbob on Jul 23, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
OK MMAMANIA, enough w/the articles on this tool…
by neeko on Jul 23, 2009 11:50 AM EDT reply actions
For the record, while there are flaws in the testing process, no one in American sporting history has ever successfully gotten a positive test thrown out through the arbitration process. The USADA is like 33-0 in arbitration. Smarter and richer people than Barnett have tried.
by Drake_Labatt on Jul 23, 2009 12:30 PM EDT reply actions

by 























