UFC Threatens Legal Action Against USADA Over Partnership Announcement

President and CEO Dana White recently expressed his dissatisfaction with the way the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) announced the termination of its partnership with the UFC. The UFC has since retaliated by threatening legal action against USADA, accusing them of defamation and demanding a retraction and apology.

At a news conference held by UFC chief business officer Hunter Campbell, it was revealed that a legal letter had been sent to USADA. This letter accused USADA of defamation and demanded that the agency issue a retraction and apology by 5 p.m. on a specified Thursday.

In response to the separation from USADA, the UFC has decided to switch to Drug Free Sport for collecting drug-test samples, beginning in the next year. Additionally, the UFC’s anti-doping program will now be led by former FBI agent George Piro as an independent administrator.

USADA’s statement, released on a Wednesday, revealed that their partnership with the UFC would officially end on January 1, 2024. CEO Travis Tygart noted that the decision was influenced by the UFC’s stance on the status of Conor McGregor. USADA maintained that McGregor should spend six months in the drug-testing pool before being eligible to compete in the UFC again. However, McGregor had removed himself from the pool after breaking his leg in a July 2021 fight. The UFC’s anti-doping policy stipulates a six-month period in the pool and passing two drug tests before competing, with an exception clause for fairness.

Dana White, UFC president, had previously expressed his indifference to USADA’s stance on McGregor’s status, stating, “Who cares what USADA says?” USADA’s priority, as expressed in their statement, was the long-term health and safety of fighters, ensuring a fair and level playing field, rather than short-term profits at the expense of clean athletes.

During the news conference at the UFC Apex, UFC executive Jeff Novitzky criticized Tygart’s statement and USADA’s narrative, describing them as “bulls—.” Hunter Campbell went even further, stating that what USADA did to McGregor was “disgusting” and could result in legal liability.

In response to the situation, the UFC claimed defamation in a letter sent to USADA from their outside counsel. They argued that the damaging comments negatively impacted the UFC’s reputation, integrity, and honesty.

Despite the controversy, Campbell affirmed that McGregor had adhered to the rules and conducted himself with integrity and honesty. He insisted that McGregor had done everything right and was 100% in compliance with the drug-testing pool.

In a statement following the news conference, Travis Tygart, CEO of USADA, maintained their position and credibility, emphasizing the importance of applying the six-month rule to all athletes, regardless of their status or potential financial gains.

While financial aspects were discussed in the negotiations, the UFC decided to terminate the partnership with USADA due to their belief that they could develop a more effective anti-doping program. This decision had been under consideration for a year, according to Campbell.

USADA, known for its role in drug-testing Olympic athletes in the United States, also recently signed a contract to run the anti-doping program for the Professional Fighters League (PFL).

In conclusion, this recent controversy highlights the challenges and disagreements between the UFC and USADA regarding the enforcement of anti-doping regulations, particularly in the context of high-profile athletes like Conor McGregor. The UFC’s decision to part ways with USADA reflects their commitment to maintaining the integrity of the sport and the safety of its athletes.