UFC fighter Thiago Silva won’t be seeing the inside of the Octagon for until at least 2012. That was part of the decision rendered on Thursday by the Nevada State Athletic Commission for Silva submitting a urine sample “inconsistent with human urine.”
The drug test in reference was for Silva’s fight against Brandon Vera at UFC 125 on Jan. 1 in Las Vegas. Silva won the fight, but the result of that fight was also part of the NSAC ruling and punishment doled out on Thursday.
When all was said and done, the NSAC ruling stated that Silva’s license was revoked for one year with a start date of Jan. 1, he was fined 25 percent of his $55,000 purse, fined $20,000 of his $55,000 win bonus, would have to submit a clean drug test before reapplying on or after Jan. 2, 2012, and the result of the fight was changed to a “no contest.”
The total of the fines comes to $33,750, when both the percentage of his fight purse and win bonus are combined.
NSAC executive director Keith Kizer lobbied the commission for a start date of April 7 for the license revocation, which basically would have added three months to the penalty, due to Silva not “coming clean” on the test result until after the second sample was tested. Kizer felt that Silva should have come forth following his original notification of the failed test result on Feb. 7, but instead waited out the B sample testing in hopes of getting off “scott free.”
The commission weighed the merits of Kizer’s request, but seemed to feel that over the last “three or four years” the precedent, regardless of the motives of the accused parties, was to begin the revocation on the date of the contest in question.
Silva detailed how he was able to provide the fake sample. He said he purchased it off the Internet, hid a vial of the sample in his shorts, and then poured it into the collection cup, while the Nevada inspector stood behind him.
Aside from assigning blame and punishment to Silva for his actions, the commission also accepted some responsibility for the situation. The commission indicated that had the inspector fulfilled his duties to the “letter of the law” laid out by Nevada’s regulations, Silva would not have gotten away with submitting a fake sample, and called for a stern review of its own procedures.
Got something to say? Weigh in with a thought of your own in the comments section below.