United States Anti-Doping Agency

The USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing outlines the organization's testing program[15] and is consistent with the WADA Code and International Standard for Testing.[11] USADA collects both blood and urine samples during in-competition and out-of-competition tests, which can occur at any time, at any location, and without advance notice. Comprehensive, no-notice testing programs like USADA's that are consistent with the WADA Code have often been referred to as Olympic style drug testing.

The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), USOPC-recognized National Governing Bodies for sport (NGBs), and the World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) Code have authorized USADA to test and adjudicate anti-doping rule violations for any athlete who:[15]^: 3

• Is a member or license holder of a sport National Governing Body (NGB)
• Is participating at an Event or Competition sanctioned by the USOPC or an NGB or participating at an Event or Competition in the United States sanctioned by an International Federation (IF)
• Is a foreign athlete who is present in the United States
• Has given his/her consent to testing by USADA or who has submitted a Whereabouts Filing to USADA or an IF within the previous 12 months and has not given his or her NGB and USADA written notice of retirement
• Has been named by the USOPC or an NGB to an international team or who is included in the USADA Registered Testing Pool ("USADA RTP") or is competing in a qualifying event to represent the USOPC or NGB in international competition
• Is a United States athlete or foreign athlete present in the United States who is serving a period of Ineligibility on account of an anti-doping rule violation and who has not given prior written notice of retirement from all sanctioned competition to the applicable NGB and USADA, or the applicable foreign anti-doping agency or foreign sport association
• Is being tested by USADA under authorization from the USOPC, an NGB, IF, any NADO, WADA, the International Olympic Committee ("IOC"), the International Paralympic Committee ("IPC") or the organizing committee of any Event or Competition.

USADA does testing for International Federations (IFs), other National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs), and the World Anti-Doping Agency. USADA does not test at the Olympic Games. The Local Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games and WADA oversee testing at the Games.

USADA maintains a group of elite athletes as part of its registered testing pool (RTP).[16] Consistent with the WADA Code, athletes in this pool are subject to strict whereabouts requirements in which they must inform the organization of their whereabouts (specific locations) at all times so they can be located for no-notice testing.[17] Critics of WADA Code whereabouts requirements have criticized the requirement as overly strict, while proponents claim the requirement ensure athletes cannot evade tests and take advantage of testing gaps.[18]

USADA determines its test distribution plan (TDP) or the determination of who, when, and where the organization tests through a combination of many factors that are consistent with the WADA IST.[11] Factors for determining tests may include:

• Physical demands of the sport and possible performance-enhancing effect that doping may elicit
• Available doping analysis statistics
• Available research on doping trends
• The history of doping in the sport and/or discipline
• Training periods and the competition calendar, season
• Information received on possible doping practices
• Resources aimed at the detection of doping may be specifically targeted.[16]

Even though testing may be described as random, the term "random" is inaccurate, as USADA uses various factors to strategically plan when and where they test athletes.[16] High-profile or elite athletes are tested significantly more frequently than others.

USADA's sample collection process is also consistent with the WADA IST and tests are conducted by doping control officers (DCOs), who are employed and extensively trained by USADA. For tests in which blood is collected, USADA contracts trained phlebotomists who work in conjunction with a USADA DCO.[19]

In accordance with the WADA International Standard for Laboratories, all samples are analyzed at laboratories that have been accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency. In the United States there are only two WADA-accredited labs: the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory in Los Angeles, CA., and the Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory (SMRTL) in Salt Lake City, Utah.[20] WADA accredited labs comply with the WADA International Standard for Laboratories.[12]

In compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and relevant international standards, USADA is charged with handling the results management and adjudication process for U.S. athletes in Olympic, Paralympic, Pan American and ParaPan American Sport. This independent results management process removes the inherent conflict of interest associated with sport organizations trying to both promote and police their sports.

Results management involves processing and communicating the results of drug tests, as well as the adjudication of potential anti-doping rule violations (ADRVs), which can be the result of a positive drug test or an investigation. According to the Code, an ADRV consists of the following:

• Presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete's sample
• Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method
• Evading, refusing, or failing to submit to sample collection
• Violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing, including failure to file required whereabouts information and missed tests
• Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, within a 12-month period by an athlete in a Registered Testing Pool * Tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control
• Possession of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method
• Trafficking or attempted trafficking of any prohibited substance or prohibited method
• Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited substance or prohibited method, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited substance or any prohibited method that is prohibited out-of-competition
• Complicity: Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, conspiring, covering up, or any other type of intentional complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation, or attempted anti-doping rule violation
• Association by an athlete or other person subject to the authority of an Anti-Doping Organization in a professional or sport-related capacity with any athlete support person who is serving a period of ineligibility related to one of the above ADRVs; and/or has been convicted outside of sport to have engaged in conduct that would be considered an ADRV.

When evidence meeting one or more of the above violations is found, an independent anti-doping review board will make the recommendation whether USADA should move forward with a sanction. Athletes can either accept or challenge the sanction through an established legal process. In the United States, athletes can take a case before an arbitration panel (American Arbitration Association / North American Court of Arbitration for Sport) and make a final appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Sanctions normally include one or more of the following:

• Disqualification of results in a particular competition or event
• Forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes
• Team disqualification and forfeiture
• An ineligibility period that may vary according to circumstances
• Public announcement
• Name and offense listed on USADA's website indefinitely[21]

Sanctions have ranged from public warnings or time served for completing education (often the case for marijuana offenses), to life-time bans for repeated or particularly egregious cases.[22] USADA maintains a sanctions list of all sanctioned athletes on its website.[22]

Athletes subject to testing by USADA have access to a number of resources designed to help athletes understand prohibited substances and if specific medications are prohibited according to the WADA prohibited List. In addition to a drug reference phone line,[23] where athletes can speak to an expert, USADA has partnered with Antidoping Switzerland (ADCH), UK Anti-Doping (UKAD), and the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES) to provide the Global Drug Reference Online (GlobalDRO) tool.[24] The tool allows athletes to search for the prohibited or not-prohibited status of a medication, by brand or generic drug name, as well as ingredients.

USADA also allows athletes to apply for and obtain therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) when a legitimate medical need for a prohibited substance exists. USADA's TUE process is compliant with both the World Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions. TUE applications are reviewed by a TUE Committee consisting of independent doctors and medical experts. USADA's TUE application process is designed to be as simple as possible for athletes, but a thorough evaluation is conducted in accordance with international rules to ensure that athletes with TUEs don't experience performance-enhancing benefits. An athlete's medical documentation and diagnosis is evaluated during the TUE application process. USADA's TUE policy, along with WADA's International Standard for Therapeutic Use Exemptions, balances the necessity for athletes to have access to important medication with the need to protect a level playing field.

In the years 2001-2009, USADA budgeted $2 million per year to support research that advanced the deterrence and detection of performance-enhancing drugs in sport.[25] USADA supported research in a variety of areas, including anabolic steroids, growth hormone, oxygen transport-enhancing substances, genetic doping, ethics, and Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry.

Since 2009, the majority of anti-doping research activities previously undertaken by USADA has been assumed by the Partnership for Clean Competition.[26] The Partnership for Clean Competition (PCC) was founded in 2008 by the U.S. Olympic Committee, the National Football League, Major League Baseball, and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as a Washington D.C. non-profit corporation.

By combining the resources and expertise of America's leading sports entities, the PCC supports non-partisan and independent scientific research by making targeted grants to various universities and other world-class research institutions. The PCC encourages independent research focusing on the development of more effective tests for performance-enhancing substances, the societal causes of doping, and non-test based methods to decrease doping and performance-enhancing drug use across all levels of athletic participation and competition, from the casual youth sports participant to the elite amateur and professional athlete.

USADA focuses on deterring the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport through education efforts that are targeted at elite-level athletes, as well as other levels of sport, youth athletes, and the general public. In addition to topics surrounding performance-enhancing drug use in sport, USADA claims to be an important promoter of other positive values associated with sport (sportsmanship, respect, teamwork.) In March 2011, USADA released a research report titled "What Sport Means in America: A Study of Sports Role In Society". The report aimed to measure the value of sport in American society and attitudes about the importance of protecting sport's integrity.[27]

USADA created an online resource designed to provide athletes with the best possible information to evaluate the risks associated with the use of supplements. On Supplement411.org[28] there is information to help athletes realize that risk exists, recognize risk when they see it, and reduce their risk of testing positive or experiencing harmful health effects from the use of dietary supplements.

USADA manages the High Risk List, which is a list of dietary supplements and other black market products that have been known to contain prohibited substances, or claim to deliver the same performance-enhancing effects as prohibited substances. The list also includes products that USADA has previously tested to confirm the presence of a prohibited substance. Similarly, USADA adds supplements to the High Risk List when the Court of Arbitration for Sport has determined that a supplement likely caused a positive test for an athlete. When referring to the High Risk List, it's important to realize that the list is not exhaustive and that the absence of a product on the list doesn't mean the supplement is safe. With more loosely regulated supplements added to the market every day, it's difficult to develop a truly comprehensive list of supplements that could cause an athlete to test positive for a prohibited substance.

When it was launched in June 2015, the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) Anti-Doping Program became the first independent anti-doping program in major fighting sports.

To familiarize athletes to the program, the UFC and USADA launched a joint education campaign, meeting athletes for in-person education sessions at gyms and events around the world. By the end of 2016, the Program had hosted at least 25 in-person education seminars in countries around the globe, including Japan, Ireland, Australia, and Brazil - often working with translators to ensure that athletes received the education in their own language. In order to further help ease the transition, athletes have been provided access to numerous anti-doping resources in a multitude of languages – both print and online.

Along with its education initiatives, the UFC Anti-Doping Program started testing athletes both in and out-of-competition at gradually increasing rates. In the first year-and-a-half of the Program, more than 2,000 tests were completed. The Program's testing pool has also grown to include around 550 athletes worldwide, with tests collected in nearly 20 countries.

On September 28, 2018, it was reported that UFC and USADA grant the UFC's fighters time to go through adjudication process before an announcement is made with the results of the potential doping violation after several cases of fighters such Junior dos Santos, Josh Barnett and Cris Cyborg were flagged for potential doping violations but clear from punishment after they were proved of unintentional use of performance enhancing drug (usually in the form of contaminated supplement).[29]

In January 2021, USADA announced that UFC fighters would no longer be punished for cannabis use except in extreme cases where clear signs of intoxication were present at the time of a fight.[30]

In October 2023, USADA announced that they would no longer be over seeing the UFC's anti-doping program once their contract with the company ends in December 2023.[31][32] The split was announced the same day UFC star Conor McGregor was confirmed to be back in the USADA testing pool after withdrawing from testing in 2022.[33] In the statement released by USADA, CEO Travis Tygart said "We have been clear and firm with the UFC that there should be no exception given by the UFC for McGregor to fight until he has returned two negative tests and been in the pool for at least six months."[31]

In June 2012, USADA charged retired cyclist Lance Armstrong with an anti-doping rule violation.[34] The charges followed a dropped federal investigation involving charges relating to Armstrong's time on the US Postal Service professional cycling team (1998–2004).[35] Armstrong sued USADA claiming that USADA did not have jurisdiction to bring a case forward, and that if forced to arbitrate his case, he would not receive due process.[36] In Armstrong v. United States Anti-Doping Agency and Travis Tygart, Armstrong lost his battle with USADA, as the District Court found sufficiency within USA Cycling's agreement with the USOC to adhere to the USADA Protocol.[37]^: 572

The District Court found, that as a member of USA Cycling, Armstrong was thereby beholden to the USADA Protocol, which required that all contested charges of doping be tried through NAS and CAS arbitration.[37]^{: 576–577} In its decision, the District Court noted that other federal courts have held similar, limited views on the role that federal courts should play regarding eligibility and arbitration issues within Olympic sports.[37]^{: 585–586} Echoing the holdings of Slaney v. The International Amateur Athletic Federation and Harding v. U.S. Figure Skating Association, the District Court held that "federal courts should not interfere with an amateur sports organization's disciplinary procedures unless the organization shows wanton disregard for its rules, to the immediate and irreparable harm of a plaintiff, where the plaintiff has no other available remedy."[37]^: 586 The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed.[37] On August 23, 2012; Armstrong announced he would not take part in arbitration. While he maintained his innocence, he contended that he could not take part in a "one-sided and unfair" process. In response, Armstong was given a life ban by USADA from competing in any sport that uses the World Anti-Doping Code, effectively ending his competitive career.[38][39] He was also stripped of his seven Tour de France titles from 1999 to 2005.

A month later, USADA released a 200-page "reasoned decision" in accordance with WADA protocol. It named Armstrong as the ringleader of "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen." In response to Armstrong's argument that the eight-year statute of limitations for doping offenses had long since expired, USADA replied that the statute of limitations for doping offenses did not apply because of Armstrong's "fraudulent concealment" of his doping. Longstanding precedent in U.S. law holds that the statute of limitations does not apply in cases of fraudulent conduct by a defendant.[40]

Based on evidence received during the Armstrong investigation and its prosecutions, USADA forwarded its "reasoned decision" document and supporting information to the Union Cycliste International, the World Anti-Doping Agency, and the World Triathlon Corporation. USADA claimed that:[41]

... the evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team (USPS Team) ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen. The evidence of the USPS Team-run scheme is overwhelming and is in excess of 1000 pages, and includes sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the USPS Team and its participants' doping activities. The evidence also includes direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and confirm the disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in funding.

— Travis Tygart, CEO, USADA, October 2012.

The Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO) was a San Francisco Bay Area business that supplied anabolic steroids to professional athletes. BALCO was founded by Victor Conte, who sourced the drugs from Illinois chemist Patrick Arnold and distributed them with the help of personal trainer Greg Anderson. Together, they sold substances like erythropoietin and human growth hormone undetected from 1988 until 2002, when the official federal investigation of BALCO began.

In the summer of 2003, USADA investigators received a syringe with trace amounts of a mysterious substance and launched their own investigation. The syringe went to Don Catlin, MD, the founder and then-director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, who had developed a testing process for the substance, tetrahydrogestrinone (THG). He tested 550 existing samples from athletes, of which 20 proved to be positive for THG.

A number of athletes, including Marion Jones,[42] Kelli White, British sprinter Dwain Chambers, shot putter Kevin Toth, middle distance runner Regina Jacobs, and hammer throwers John McEwen and Melissa Price were subsequently incriminated in the investigation.

In April 2019, UFC bantamweight champion TJ Dillashaw voluntarily relinquished his title, after adverse findings in a USADA test before his fight with Henry Cejudo. The test showed that Dillashaw tested positive for EPO, which he admitted to using. Blood doping was not commonly tested for in the UFC by that point, making this a milestone case.