clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

New report suggests Jon Jones failed drug test was 'erroneous' and 'shouldn't have been done'

New, 203 comments
Jayne Kamin-Oncea-USA TODAY Sports

Prior to his UFC 182 title defense against Daniel Cormier earlier this month in Las Vegas, UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones failed a pre-fight drug test for cocaine metabolites. Now that the promotion -- as well as the state of Nevada -- has been able to tally the gate and cut all the checks, the information was leaked shared with the media.

But you knew that already.

What you didn't know was why. But don't feel bad, because nobody does. That includes the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC), who has yet to explain the purpose of an out-of-competition drug test that carries no penalties if flunked.

To put it simply, it doesn't matter if you pass or fail and therefore, probably shouldn't have been administered in the first place.

From Yahoo! Sports:

The unanswerable question at this stage is why a test was conducted for street drugs. No one at the commission can answer that and it appears that the test was done erroneously.

One person familiar with the procedures involved in anti-doping said a test for recreational drugs, or so-called drugs of abuse, would not be following the WADA Code and thus shouldn't have been done.

The commission faced a conundrum once it received Jones' test result. It had a known cocaine user only days out from a mega-fight and it was powerless to do anything.

Can we even consider it a failed drug test if the substance was not banned at the time of testing? That also leads me to wonder why the information was made public if there was no obligation to disclose it, as well as no further course of action to be taken.

Was it to explain Jones' trip to rehab?

I'm not a tin foil hat kind of guy, but something is not adding up. Is this a case of sabotage, or a cover up? If the answer is neither, then it becomes a matter of ignorance at best, and incompetence at worst, which to me is even scarier than the first two options, considering we have a regulatory body charged with the health and safety of the fighters it chooses to license.

Let's hope the people we expect to have answers can actually come up with some at the Jan. 12 admistrative hearing, to address what they have called an "oversight." In the meantime, Jones will retain his light heavyweight title and his win over Cormier stands, simply because he didn't break any rules.