Rafael "Feijao" Cavalcante Tests Positive for Banned Substance
The list of fighters that have tested positive for a banned substance in 2012 grew by one on Friday when it was revealed that Strikeforce light heavyweight competitor Rafael "Feijao" Cavalcante tested positive following his May 19 bout against Mike Kyle.
News of the positive test first came to light via the Twitter feed of Gabriel Montoya who tweeted:
@KevinI My source says #Strikeforce light heavy/heavyweight Rafael Cavalcante has tested positive for a banned substance. #MMA #DeadHorse
The positive test was then confirmed by MMAFighting.com who spoke to California State Athletic Commission executive officer George Dodd. During the conversation Dodd did not reveal what the banned substance was, only that Cavalcante had been contacted regarding the positive test.
Cavalcante was victorious over Kyle, using a guillotine choke to force Kyle to tap out at the 33-second mark of the first round.
The victory over Kyle gave Cavalcante two wins in a row in the Strikeforce light heavyweight division and an overall Strikeforce record of 5-2. Of the two losses that he suffered in his Strikeforce career, one came at the hands of Kyle in Cavalcante’s 2009 debut with the promotion.
The second loss was a third-round knockout defeat at the hands of Dan Henderson, who wrested the promotion’s light heavyweight championship from Cavalcante with that victory.
Henderson’s reign did not last long as he abandoned the belt without defending it to move to the UFC. With the title vacant, there had been talk about a possible bout between Cavalcante and another former Strikeforce champion, Gegard Mousasi, to determine the 205-pound champion.
It’s very unlikely that the Mousasi versus Cavalcante bout will take place without a successful appeal by Cavalcante.
Cavalcante joins Muhammed Lawal, Cristiane “Cyborg” Santos and Nick Diaz as fighters who have tested positive for banned substances since the beginning of 2012.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?