Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) lightweight Pitor Hallmann failed his UFC Fight Night 51 drug test for the anabolic steroid drostanolone, according to the Brazilian Athletic Commission (CABMMA), following his split-decision loss to Gleison Tibau back on Sept. 13, 2014.
Once news of the test result became public, "Pletwal" slammed CABMMA for its "unprofessional" and "unreliable" testing procedures, and went into great detail about how the parties responsible for drawing his blood mishandled the entire process.
Turns out it doesn't matter, since he failed for tainted urine -- twice -- according to CABMMA COO Cristiano Sampaio (via MMA Fighting):
"We test every fighter on the card when they arrive at the arena on fight day. After the fight, we randomly choose four fighters, or pick four fighters, to do post-fight blood tests. For this event, we picked the main and co-main event fighters to test for HGH and testosterone. In Piotr's case, he tested positive (for drostanolone) in his pre-fight urine test. If he wants to appeal the result, I will send the request to the UCLA Olympic Lab and they will test the second urine sample. If he's talking about our collecting procedures, I'll ask ABCD to send him a report of the whole procedure. But if he's questioning our integrity and responsibility as a regulation body in Brazil, we will have a response for him. I hope that's not the case."
Hallman's urine and blood samples were tested at the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, according to the report, the world's largest World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited sports drug-testing facility, and conducted by a doping control officer (DOO) credentialed by WADA and Brazilian Agency of Doping Control (ABCD).
The appeal process would allow the lab to test his second sample to either verify or refute the initial findings.
Drug testing procedures have been in the news lately after questions were raised over how UFC handled Cung Le's blood sample at UFC Fight Night 48 in Macau, China. Le returned positive for Human Growth Hormone (HGH), but experts cast serious doubts on the validity of that finding.
In Hallmann's case, not so much.