UFC News: CSAC Says That Rafael Cavalcante Tested Positive for Steroids
The California State Athletic Commission has confirmed that former Strikeforce light heavyweight champion Rafael Cavalcante tested positive for an anabolic steroid, according to MMA Weekly.
Specifically, the athletic commission says that "Feijao" tested positive for stanozolol metabolites.
Said CSAC Executive Officer George Dodd:
Our primary concern is for the health and safety of fighters. Anabolic agents and other banned substances put not only the users of those agents at risk, but their opponents as well. The commission simply will not tolerate their use.
The Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu black belt was subsequently issued a one-year suspension for the failed drug test, and his May 18 bout with Mike Kyle, originally a 33-second submission win for Cavalcante, has been overturned to a no-contest.
The test that Cavalcante underwent was administered at the World Anti-Doping Agency facility at UCLA in Los Angeles.
Feijao also received a $2,500 fine for the infraction, and his camp has already said they will be issuing an appeal of the suspension.
"I believe in his innocence, and we're fighting it," Cavalcante's manager, Ed Soares, told MMA Fighting. "We stand behind him. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense."
This marks yet another setback for the Strikeforce brand, who have lost former champions in heavyweight Alistair Overeem, welterweight Nick Diaz and light heavyweight Dan Henderson in the past year.
Cavalcante was set to face Gegard Mousasi for the 205-pound title, which was vacated by Henderson in August, before the year's end, but that scenario is not longer a legitimate possibility.
UFC middleweight Chris Leben, former UFC heavyweight champion Tim Sylvia and former Strikeforce women’s champion Cris "Cyborg" Santos are just a few fighters who have tested positive for stanzolol in the past.
Strikeforce officials have yet to issue a statement about the suspension.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?