Povetkin asks court for rebuttal expert in Meldonium testing dispute
February 2, 2017
As trial in the Deontay Wilder-Alexander Povetkin is ready to go next week, the attorneys for each side are fighting over expert data.
The sole issue to be determined at trial is whether Povetkin ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016. Povetkin took Meldonium as recommended by his physician in August and September 2015 prior to its ban by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Meldonium remains in the system for many months after its use. WADA provided a notice on June 30, 2016 regarding Meldonium’s inclusion on the Prohibited List and excretion studies related to when the substance would leave the system.
The law firm of Arnold & Porter, the attorneys for Povetkin and his promoter World of Boxing are requesting the court to submit a rebuttal expert in light of a supplemental report provided by Wilder. Arnold & Porter claim that Wilder’s attorneys, Judd & Burstein, provided additional biological data from the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory concerning Povetkin’s test results. The supplemental expert report included information from the data. The discovery deadline was in December so the parties are at an impasse regarding the inclusion of the information in evidence. Of course, Wilder’s attorneys would object to the inclusion of the new expert from Povetkin at this time since they did not have time to depose the expert on their opinion.
In all likelihood, the court will grant the new expert and a report, if any, but grant Wilder’s attorneys to depose him prior to his in court testimony.
From Povetkin attorney’s standpoint, they claim that Wilder’s side will present evidence that Povetkin took Meldonium after the April 11th VADA test (urine collection) but before the April 27 VADA test. The evidence, Arnold & Porter suggests, are negative tests for Meldonium on April 7, 8 and 11 but an April 27 test that yielded a positive result. But, Povetkin’s attorneys argue that the newly provided data and supplemental expert report show that “Meldonium had washed out by April 11.” Essentially, the argument is that the “raw data” may show trace amounts of Meldonium in the previous tests thought to be negative.
To break this argument down, Povetkin’s attorney want to explain the reasons for the “raw data” and supplemental expert report. Thus, they want to have their own expert to render an opinion on the results and Wilder’s expert report. One would assume that they would claim that the data suggests that one cannot conclude that Povetkin took Meldonium after January 1, 2016 despite the “negative tests.”
MMA Payout will continue to follow.