Yoel Romero sues supplement maker that caused USADA suspension

January 16, 2018

Forbes reports that Yoel Romero has filed a lawsuit for negligence against Goldstar Performance Products in New Jersey Superior Court.  Romero is blaming the supplement maker for his USADA positive drug test for Ibutamoren which the middleweight served a 6-month suspension.

Romero used the product Shred Rx.  It appears that the supplement was used to help in the weigh-cutting process.

According to a description on the company web site:

‘Shed RX is an extremely powerful herbal diuretic designed to help the body dramatically eliminate excess water retention from beneath the skin. This maximum strength botanical formula also supplies the proper balance of vital electrolytes, which can help maintain muscle performance and muscle fullness. So if you are looking to get ready for that big show or just need to lose a few pounds of water weight for the beach or special event, then Shed RX is the product for you!

The supplement contained “approximately 5 micrograms per capsule” of Ibutamoren according to his complaint.

When his suspension was announced, it was noted that Romero took a contaminated supplement.  Based upon the Forbes retelling of Romero’s complaint, it appears that he had informed USADA of the drug believed to have caused the flagged test and an independent purchase of the product revealed that the capsules contained “approximately 12 micrograms [of Ibutamoren] per capsule.”  The supplement did not list this ingredient on the supplement which is the reason for the lawsuit.

Romero has a fight set with Luke Rockhold for the UFC middleweight interim title on February 10 at UFC 221.

Payout Perspective:

This is the second such lawsuit involving a supplement as Lyman Good sued a vitamin makerhe took and the store that sold the product due to a failed USADA test.  It will be an interesting case considering the lawsuit is based on negligence rather than strict liability.  Under a theory of negligence, Romero must prove that he was owed a duty as a customer to rely on the supplement’s list of ingredients and that the company failed to provide its customer with this information causing injury.  In products liability involving strict liability cases, there need not be a finding of fault, only that the defendant was responsible.  It appears that Romero is claiming that the company was careless in allowing the inclusion of the banned substance.  There are several defenses here.  But, look for the supplement maker to defend this case claiming the lack of foreseeability in that Romero would have taken such product and causing his claimed damages.

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.