Subriel Matias has become the latest fighter to have tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug. As revealed by the The Ring, Matias only recently failed a VADA test for the banned substance of Ostarine.
With the deadline for testing the B-sample set for December 1, Matias’ (23-2, 22 KO’s) upcoming fight against British challenger Dalton Smith (18-0, 13 KO’s) on January 10 appears to be in jeopardy. Matias was poised to defend his WBC super lightweight (140 lbs) title which he won in a tight-knit bout against the belt’s then-incumbent holder, Alberto Puello (24-1, 10 KO’s) from the Dominican Republic.
The positive drug test is unrelated to Matias’ previous bout against Puello and suggests the fighter had been taking Ostarine in preparation for his upcoming fight against Smith.
If the B-sample is tested and confirms the use of Ostarine, Matias will lose his WBC title but the jury remains on how long of a ban he will serve from the sport. As the PED was discovered outside of competition, governing bodies will be unable to prosecute him and the WBC has no authority to suspend the fighter other from their rankings ― giving Subriel Matias a potential loophole to avoid a suspension altogether.
With boxing having no actual global anti-doping institution that enforces and regulates bans for fighters worldwide, the only viable solution for imposing a suspension on Matias depends on the New York State Athlethic Commission (NYSAC) under whose jurisdiction the Matias vs. Smith fight falls.
However, NYSAC has been inconsistent when it comes to anti-doping violations, with Ryan Garcia only receiving a one-year suspension ― sharply contrasting the two-year sentence that was imposed on Amir Khan for the same substance, and Jarrell Miller having served no ban whatsoever after failing three separate drug tests in preparation for a fight against Anthony Joshua in 2019.
The case slightly mirrors that of Joseph Parker’s recent positive test for Cocaine but differs in the sense that Puello is not expected to serve a two-year suspension if found guilty ― unlike Parker who has no luxury of serving a one-year ban. Ironically, Ostarine is certainly considered a performance-enhancing drug whereas Parker’s alleged use of Cocaine is only considered as such when used shortly before actual competition.
As a well-known party drug, there is a viable explanation for Cocaine to have contaminated Parker by accident though this would be a difficult procedure to prove as there can be discrepancies between how strictly PEDs are tested versus non-PEDs.
Often held to the same standard as PEDs, a positive result for Cocaine, for instance, would be treated in the same vein as Ostarine despite Cocaine being the sort of substance that does not directly or sufficiently enhance the body for greater athletic performances. The same amount of Cocaine and Ostarine would not cause the same effect, and there are arguments to be made that a small amount of Ostarine is much more potent ― when taking into account fighters cycle off those substances for training purposes ― than a large amount of Cocaine ingested for recreational use or by accident.
As such, the viability of drug tests are not yet consistent and reliable enough to warrant an outright two-year sentence for Cocaine users, even if ingested knowingly. For PEDs the drug tests are arguably more specific as positive tests need to reach a certain threshold to indicate malignant use.
A miniscule amount of a PED, for example, would suggest the user has entered a cycling off period rather than contamination.
These discrepancies between PEDs and non-PEDs became all the more clear in Claressa Shields’ case earlier this year where she was accused of using Cannabis due to trace amounts being found in her system. Though this case was eventually dismissed, Shields had been genuinely been close to facing a ban from the sport for merely having physical contact with Cannabis users.
