Can Tim Means avoid a suspension for his positive test?
The UFC’s anti-doping policy appears to be doing what it set out to do, clean up the sport. The first step in this process is catching and punishing current dirty fighters. So far, it appears to be quite successful. First were a few fighters that didn’t pass the eye test, that is, just looking at the fighter’s physic raised suspicions of PED use: Hector Lombard, Yoel Romero, Gleison Tibau. Although Tibau and Romero still claim their innocence, few likely believe them.
The most recent fighter to test positive, however, doesn’t fail the eye test. I have serious doubts that anybody thought Tim "Dirty Bird" Means would get popped for PED use. He is neither a physical specimen that appears to defy human anatomy nor a former great who in the twilight of their career looks stronger than ever. Maybe this is why his claim of innocence carries more weight than those that came before him. But is there really any way for Means to avoid the potential career ending 2-4 year suspension?
Means has appealed to have his B sample tested, as he permitted under the anti-doping policy. If the B sample is clean, Means will be cleared of the violation and no suspension will occur. However, if the B sample matches the A sample, Means’s appeal becomes much more difficult.
Under the anti-doping policy each fighter has a duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance is in his or her body. Whether Means intended to use steroids is irrelevant. If it’s in Means’s body, he violated the policy. However, despite a violation his suspension might be reduced or even eliminated entirely.
If Means can demonstrate that he "bears no fault or negligence" in the positive test, he will not be suspended, although the violation will stand (which could affect a suspension duration in the future). Means will need to prove that he used a "contaminated product." Essentially, Means’s best shot will be proving that he used a product that did not list a contained ingredient that resulted in a positive test. Following past USADA appeals this is an objective standard, meaning that a reasonable person in Means position would not have discovered the substance after a reasonable investigation into the product. Although on its face this appears easy enough, it is actually a fairly difficult standard to meet. Even if met, the amount of reduction of his suspension is still in the hands of individual hearing Means’s appeal.
The other possibility is to prove "no significant fault or negligence." If this is done the suspension can be cut in half, possibly reducing the suspension to a year. This argument would follow the same form as the "no fault" standard, but simply finding that Means was to some degree at fault for the result. Basically, this is a middle ground between no suspension and a full suspension for someone who may not have intended to use and made some efforts to adhere to the drug testing policy but screwed up somewhere along the line.
Means last chance to reduce the suspension would be to roll on other steroid users in the sport in a hope that his suspension will be reduced in exchange for his cooperation. However, considering the fact that he denies knowingly taking anything, it appears unlike that Means has a wealth of knowledge of the doping game that he can use as leverage for a lighter suspension.
Ultimately, to prove his innocence Means will need a lot to fall his way, not to mention a large checkbook to pay for a qualified scientist and investigator to prove a product he was taking contained steroids but made no mention of it. I personally want MMA to be clean, but not at the expense of a fighter’s livelihood. Unfortunately, you need to break a few eggs to make an omelet. I just never thought they would be "Dirty Bird" eggs.