MPO Year in Review – Good sues vitamin maker after failed USADA test

December 22, 2017

UFC Fighter Lyman Good sued vitamin maker and the store that sold it as a result of having a USADA test being flagged.  Good was suspended by USADA and pulled from UFC 205 in his native New York.

Via our post in October:

The target supplement is Anavite according to the lawsuit which was filed in New York by his attorney, David Fish.

Good was suspended for violating the UFC Anti-Doping Policy after he failed a random test.  As part of the process, he learned that the drug that may have caused the failed test was Anavite.

Good is requesting restitution, damages, injunctive and other equitable relief.  Good believes that Gaspari Nutrition misbranded the products as “dietary supplements” to defraud consumers into the believing it had superior “dietary supplements.”

Vitamin Shoppe was sued for (among other things) breach of warranty for selling the products “despite assurances of product quality and control.”  The store claims to have safety measures to ensure that the products its sells are of quality.  Good claims that it has failed to provide such safeguards based on the product he purchased from the store.

Upon learning of the flagged USADA test, Good had provided USADA with unopened packages of Anavite to examine at a lab regarding the contents.  The results confirmed Andro in the product.  Andro is a banned substance per the UFC Anti-Doping Policy and considered a steroid.  Thus, Good has sued the supplement maker, its owners and the store that sold the product.  The lawsuit indicates the harmful effects of steroids and the fact that Andro is such a substance

This is a first of its kind lawsuit under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy and perhaps MMA.  Good can show he was damaged due to the fact that he relied on the representation of the label that Anavite did not contain Andro as it was not on its label as a content and was listed as a “Dietary Supplement.”  He is making a claim against Vitamin Shoppe since it claims to have superior knowledge of these products and should have investigated this product.  The defendants will likely claim a tainted product and that overall, its products do not contain the banned substance.  Moreover, it will claim that there are no damages incurred by Good despite serving a six month sentence.

In products liability cases (lawsuits where the claim is that a product is defective), there is a higher standard on the manufacturer or seller to ensure that the user is not harmed.  In this instance, one could argue Good was not harmed in the sense of physical injury.  He was harmed since he had to ensure he did not ingest a banned substance per the UFC Anti-Doping Policy.  This will make a very interesting case as it continues.  MMA Payout will continue to follow.

The lawsuit remains in its infancy stages although we might expect a motion to dismiss the case by the defendants and/or a denial of the allegations.  One would think that this lawsuit will be watched by other fighters that may have flagged tests due to using an over the counter supplement that was “misbranded.”

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.