The reason for Brock Lesnar’s failed UFC 200 drug test is still a point of contention according to an anti-doping attorney who represents the former UFC heavyweight champion.
After initially suggesting that asthma medication could have caused the positive drug test, Lesnar has now requested that eye medication and foot cream he used prior to his fight with Mark Hunt be tested for clomiphene and clomiphene metabolites.
MMA Junkie reports that Lesnar’s attorney, Howard Jacobs, requested to postpone the WWE superstar’s disciplinary hearing with the Nevada Athletic Commission while it is determined what was the source of the positive test. However, the NAC has not approved the request.
“We are still investigating this matter [which investigation includes the ongoing testing of products used by Mr. Lesnar prior to the date of the positive test],” Jacobs wrote in a letter obtained by MMA Junkie dated Sept. 19. “To provide further detail, I am advised that the testing laboratory (Korva Labs) initially tested an eye medication, which was negative for either clomiphene or clomiphene metabolites. Subsequent testing has been conducted on a foot cream; that testing has included three separate extraction attempts, all of which have failed. A fourth extraction attempt is being made by Korva Labs this week.”
Paul Scott, who testified on Anderson Silva’s behalf during the Brazilian’s failed drug tests from UFC 183, heads Korva Labs. Lesnar has vehemently denied that he knowingly used any banned substance leading up to his fight with Hunt. He won his first fight back in the UFC after a four-and-a-half-year absence. But any potential future fights are now on hold considering that Lesnar is facing a possible two-year suspension by USADA and additional penalties from the NAC.
“I assure you that we have been diligent in our investigation and testing, and that the requested delay is not being sought for any improper purpose,” wrote Jacobs while suggesting the foot cream Lesnar used needs to be tested. “If the hearing can be rescheduled to a mutually agreeable date in November, I am confident that we can be prepared so that the case can be heard on the merits at that time.”