• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Villante receives retroactive TUE exemption

February 25, 2017 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

UFC light heavyweight Gian Villante was issued a retroactive therapeutic use exemption by USADA which clears him of a potential anti-doping violation.

Via USADA release:

Villante, 31, declared the use of a Breo Ellipta (fluticasone furoate/vilanterol) inhaler during an out-of-competition urine test conducted on January 18, 2017, and subsequently tested positive for vilanterol. Vilanterol is a prohibited substance in the category of Beta-2 Agonists and is prohibited at all times under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy, which has adopted the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

Following his disclosure, USADA advised Villante that absent a valid TUE, the use of the inhaler was prohibited under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy. Thereafter, Villante submitted a TUE application documenting that his physician prescribed a 14-day course of the inhaler to treat conditions associated with airflow restriction and asthma.

Notably, the same day that Villante was granted the TUE exemption, Tom Lawlor, who beat Villante, agreed to a two-year suspension.

Payout Perspective:

Villante’s reasons for the retroactive TUE is the purpose of the retroactive exemption.  From the story, it sounds as though he did what he was supposed to do in declaring the use of the prohibited substance and followed up with the physician prescription and application for the retroactive TUE.  Obviously, the best practice may have been to contact USADA ahead of time for the exemption rather than apply retroactively.

Filed Under: Drug Testing, UFC, USADA

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Court denies request to halt UFC White House event

Plaintiffs file Reply Brief in White House lawsuit

Government response to citizen lawsuit attempting to stop UFC White House

Lawsuit seeks to shutdown UFC White House event

Johnson plaintiffs take a renewed aim at Dominance in antitrust lawsuit

Scott Coker returns to MMA

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

From the Judge's Order today denying the injunction. The Court states that plaintiffs did not have a specific harm to satisfy the threshold for an injunction #UFCWhiteHouse #TKO #UFC

Judge Amit Mehta, the judge that denied the #UFC White House injunction, was a Obama appointee. Just another reason to Blame Obama

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Only 16% of Americans approve of Trump holding UFC event at White House.

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

ALERT: Judge Amit Metha rules UFC event can proceed at White House, ruling harm to plaintiffs would only be "temporary" & that the challenge came too late

"Considerable time, labor & funding.. has gone into organizing the UFC fight and lead-up events"

Full contact 5 days a week 😂

MMA Mania @mmamania

Mania Mailbag: Do we trane UFC? https://www.mmamania.com/mma-mailbag-questions-answers-ufc/449583/mania-mailbag-do-we-trane-ufc?utm_campaign=dhtwitter&utm_content=%3Cmedia_url%3E&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports