View Single Post
Old 08-28-2007, 09:14 AM   #162
can_of_cans

Brown Belt
 
can_of_cans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,322
vCash: 500
ttt



Quote:
Originally Posted by can_of_cans View Post
hey TUF noobs:

Independent Drug Test Proves Josh Barnett’s Innocence
Posted on July 24, 2002

UFC Heavyweight Champion Fights to Clear Reputation After NSAC’s Testing Procedures Result in False Positive

KIRKLAND, Washington--On April 22, 2002, the Nevada State Athletic Commission filed a complaint against Josh Barnett for alleged anabolic steroid use, stemming from a drug test after his win over Randy Couture in UFC 36 on March 22, 2002. The NSAC contacted Barnett and his trainer, Matt Hume, to schedule a hearing via teleconference on May 24, 2002. In addition to Barnett and Hume, Roy Silbert (United Full Contact Federation President), Dr. Mark Webber (drug testing expert and administrator for USA Power Lifting and the International Olympic Committee), Mark Ratner (NSAC commissioner), Dr. Flip Homansky (NSAC), Keith Kizer (NSAC attorney) took part in the meeting. The issues expressed were as follows:

NSAC issues:

The NSAC alleged two positive tests for anabolic steroids from samples taken on 11/02/01 and 03/22/02. Josh Barnett’s issues:
The NSAC did not provide Josh with a list of banned substances or inform him of any testing requirements for anabolic agents on either occasion. To date, Josh has not received a list of banned substances.
The NSAC claims that Josh tested positive for the same substances on 11/02/01, four months before his title fight with Randy Couture. Yet, the NSAC did not inform him that he had failed that initial test or provide him with the alleged results. According to the NSAC, Barnett’s first drug test revealed three anabolic metabolites, one of which remains in the human body for up to 18 months. If this was indeed the case, why did the NSAC and Zuffa subsequently allow Barnett to fight for the world championship just four months later with full knowledge that he might have steroids in his system?
The NSAC withholds a portion of each fighter’s purse until the drug test is completed. If the results are positive, the fighter must forfeit that portion of his purse. If Josh failed his drug test, why did the NSAC send that money to Barnett on both occasions with no notification of any problem?
The NSAC did not follow established protocol when testing Barnett. They did not provide tracking information for his samples. Nor did they separate Josh’s samples into two specimens in his presence. Because of these and other basic protocol errors, a positive test could not be accurately verified or validated. Many factors can contribute to a positive drug test—hence the term “false positive.” Without proper notification and protocol, the true cause of the positive result for anabolic steroids cannot be determined.
Josh Barnett has still not received results from the NSAC drug test on 11/02/01.

During the course of the meeting, both sides acknowledged the other side’s concerns. Hume informed the NSAC members that Dr. Webber had already scheduled another test with Aegis laboratories that would follow proper protocol and established Olympic standards.

The NSAC members and attorney agreed that a negative result and education from Dr. Webber would resolve this situation. NSAC attorney Keith Kizer stated that he would prepare a draft of the agreement for both parties to sign. It was agreed that this was to serve as the final hearing and that the signed draft would bring the issue to a resolution.

Dr. Homansky then invited Dr. Webber and Roy Silbert to come to Las Vegas on the weekend of June 22 to meet with the NSAC toxicology specialist. The purpose of the meeting was for Dr. Webber to educate the NSAC on the standards, methods of protocol and proper anabolic drug testing. Dr. Webber and Roy Silbert subsequently met with Dr. Homansky and the NSAC toxicology specialist in Las Vegas as requested.

On June 11, 2002, Barnett took a new test administered by Dr. Webber, who utilized Olympic-level protocol. The result of this test was negative, demonstrating that Josh is not currently using and could not have been using the alleged substances as charged due to the length of time that such substances remain present in the human body.

Approximately three weeks after the hearing, Barnett and Hume had still not received the draft from Keith Kizer, as discussed. However, they did receive a phone call stating that another hearing was to be scheduled. When asked why the draft of the aforementioned verbal agreement had not been prepared and why the NSAC wished to schedule a second hearing, Kizer stated that it was just a formality and he would get the draft to them right away.

Hume informed the NSAC members of Barnett’s travel schedule, which clearly stated that the only time Barnett would be away was the week of the UFC 38 in England in mid July. Unfortunately, when Kizer finally sent the draft of the agreement from the May 24 teleconference, it was inaccurate. In addition, the NSAC requested a second hearing during the time that Josh was scheduled to corner Ian Freeman in London, England—a time conflict of which the NSAC was well aware.

Barnett, Silbert and Hume worked diligently with the NSAC to develop a mutually acceptable draft of the May 24th agreement. Barnett also availed himself to the NSAC by telephone from England on the day and time of the scheduled hearing.

Unfortunately, the NSAC refused the draft and did not speak with Josh on their scheduled date. The NSAC then rescheduled the hearing for July 26, 2002. Barnett requested to be present at the hearing via telephone as he does not have the resources to pay for the travel expenses he would be forced to incur in order to appear in person.

Meanwhile, neither Zuffa LLC nor UFC president Dana White has bothered to contact Barnett to express any concern or support for that organization’s reigning heavyweight champion in this matter.

It is Barnett’s hope that the NSAC will have the integrity and honesty to honor the resolution that its members agreed upon during the hearing on May 24, 2002. He is also optimistic that Zuffa will exercise its substantial influence in Nevada and voice its support for their innocent champion.

Josh Barnett is very frustrated with this situation. “I am a fighter, not a lawyer,” he stated. “I am innocent, and I should be fighting right now.”

Source: AMC Pankration

can_of_cans is offline