The UFC-USADA Split: Who Should Run a Promoter's Drug Testing?

Timeline

1. 2015USADA begins running the UFC's anti-doping program.
2. Jul 2021Conor McGregor breaks his leg in a fight and later leaves the testing pool.
3. May 2023USADA and the UFC hold what USADA calls a positive meeting about renewal.
4. Oct 8–9, 2023McGregor re-enters the testing pool; the next day the UFC tells USADA it is going in a different direction.
5. Oct 11–12, 2023USADA announces the split; the UFC disputes its statement and threatens legal action.
6. Dec 28, 2023The UFC announces its new anti-doping program, effective December 31.
7. Oct 7, 2025CSAD announces that McGregor has accepted an 18-month ban for three whereabouts failures in 2024.
8. Jul 11, 2026McGregor returns at UFC 329 in Las Vegas and knocks out Max Holloway in the first round.

The ethical issues

• Independence of anti-doping programs funded by commercial promoters.
• Equal application of rules to stars and other athletes.
• Fighter health and safety in a combat sport.
• Transparency and public disputes between regulators and promoters.
• Fighters as independent contractors without union representation.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
UFC fighters	Safe, fair competition and protection from doped opponents.
The UFC	Its events, stars, brand and control over its program.
USADA	Its independence and reputation.
The new program's administrators	Credibility as independent decision-makers.
Star fighters	Returning to compete on fair terms.
Fans and broadcasters	Credible, safe events.

The case

For eight years, the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), the national anti-doping organization for Olympic sport in the United States, ran the UFC’s anti-doping program.^[1] In October 2023, the partnership collapsed in a public dispute centered on the return of the UFC’s biggest star, Conor McGregor.^[1][2] (For other UFC governance issues, see Le v. Zuffa and fighter pay.)

Background

McGregor removed himself from the testing pool after breaking his leg in a July 2021 fight.^[2] The UFC’s policy said that a fighter re-entering the program must spend six months in the pool and pass two tests before competing, but the UFC could grant an exception if it believed the rule would be unfair to the athlete.^[2] In a July 2023 interview, UFC president Dana White said “who cares what USADA says?” about McGregor’s status.^[2]

USADA confirmed that McGregor re-entered the pool on October 8, 2023. Its CEO said USADA had been “clear and firm with the UFC that there should be no exception given by the UFC for McGregor to fight until he has returned two negative tests and been in the pool for at least six months.”^[1]

The split

According to USADA, despite a “positive and productive meeting” about renewal in May 2023, the UFC “did an about-face” on October 9 and said it was going in a different direction. USADA’s contract would end on December 31, 2023.^[1] USADA’s CEO wrote that the relationship had become “untenable” because of statements by UFC leaders questioning its stance on McGregor, and said: “Fighters’ long-term health and safety — in addition to a fair and level playing field — are more important to USADA than short-term profits at the expense of clean athletes.”^[1] He also said USADA did not allow fighters to use performance-enhancing drugs such as “experimental, unapproved peptides or testosterone” for healing without an approved medical basis.^[1] He told ESPN that there was “never a negotiation on the finances,” and that USADA had asked for $7 million for the next year, not much more than the UFC had been paying.^[2]

The UFC disputed this account. Its chief business officer called USADA’s statement a “complete misrepresentation” that “couldn’t be farther from the truth.” He said he had told USADA for months that McGregor would spend six months in the pool, and called USADA’s treatment of McGregor “disgusting.” The UFC’s outside counsel sent USADA a letter claiming defamation and demanding a retraction and apology.^[2] USADA responded: “We stand by our statement and our credibility.”^[2]

The rules and governance

The UFC is a private promoter, and its fighters are independent contractors, as USADA noted.^[1] Its anti-doping program is a private policy, not a government regulation.

On December 28, 2023, the UFC announced its new program, effective December 31.^[3] Its key features were:

• Collection: no-notice sample collection, 365 days a year, by Drug Free Sport International, which “will not have any authority to adjudicate violations.”^[3]
• Analysis: testing at a WADA-accredited laboratory in Salt Lake City, whose director would be the program’s science advisor.^[3]
• Administration and sanctions: handled “exclusively and independently” by Combat Sports Anti-Doping (CSAD), led by a former senior FBI official, with “no results management or sanctioning decisions” made by the UFC.^[3]
• Prohibited list: modeled on WADA’s list with modifications, including removal of marijuana, and new concentration thresholds to distinguish intentional use from low-level contamination.^[3]

The UFC’s chief business officer said the UFC would “maintain an independently administered drug-testing program.”^[3]

The written policy, dated November 29, 2023, kept the provision at the heart of the McGregor dispute. Under Article 5.7.3, a fighter who has retired or stepped away may not return until he has given written notice and been available for testing for 180 days. However, “UFC may grant an exemption” to that rule “in exceptional circumstances or where the strict application of that rule would be manifestly unfair to an Athlete.” The general return rule does not mention a minimum number of negative tests. A separate article lets the administrator require two negative samples from fighters with a history of using prohibited substances outside any anti-doping program.^[9] The power USADA had urged the UFC not to use for McGregor therefore remained with the promoter, not with the independent administrator.^[1][9]

The policy also sets the range for whereabouts cases. Three whereabouts failures within 12 months are a violation, and the ban runs “between two years and a reprimand, depending on the Athlete’s degree of Fault.” That flexibility is not available where “a pattern of last-minute Whereabouts changes or other conduct raises a serious suspicion” that a fighter was trying to avoid testing.^[9]

Aftermath

The new program took effect at the start of 2024.^[3] USADA said that, as of January 1, it did not know whether the UFC would honor the six-month requirement for McGregor.^[1]

McGregor’s planned return, against Michael Chandler at UFC 303 in June 2024, was cancelled after he withdrew injured.^[5] The new program then produced its first test of the fighter at the center of the split. On October 7, 2025, CSAD announced that McGregor had accepted an 18-month ban for missing three attempted sample collections within 12 months, on June 13, September 19 and September 20, 2024, each classified as a whereabouts failure.^[4] CSAD noted that he was recovering from an injury and not preparing for a fight, that he “fully cooperated,” accepted responsibility and provided information explaining the missed tests, and so it reduced the standard 24-month sanction by six months. “Despite these mitigating factors, CSAD emphasizes that accurate whereabouts filings and the ability to conduct unannounced testing are essential,” it said.^[4] The ban was backdated to September 20, 2024, and ran to March 20, 2026. By then he had re-entered the testing pool and given four samples in 2025.^[4][5]

The UFC booked McGregor’s return for UFC 329 during International Fight Week in Las Vegas: a welterweight rematch with former featherweight champion Max Holloway, “13 years in the making.”^[7] On July 11, 2026, at T-Mobile Arena, McGregor won by knockout 1 minute 9 seconds into the first round.^[8] It was his first fight since the 2021 leg break that had taken him out of the testing pool, nearly five years earlier.^[2][8] His whereabouts ban had expired on March 20, 2026, almost four months before the bout.^[4][8]

The new program’s record

CSAD publishes its decisions on a public page. By 2026 it listed sanctions ranging from two months, for a fighter who self-reported using a supplement containing DHEA, to 30 months, for a fighter who admitted using testosterone and the peptide BPC-157 before a fight.^[6] Several decisions turned on contamination, the problem the new concentration thresholds were meant to address: one fighter received 180 days after a low-level positive was traced to a contaminated supplement, and another received six months after analysis linked a diuretic positive to an uncertified dietary supplement.^[6] Others concerned erythropoietin (EPO), meldonium and trimetazidine, and in one 2026 case a fighter received 12 months for using a diuretic during fight week to make weight, with the Texas commission keeping jurisdiction over the fight result.^[6] CSAD has also reduced sanctions for cooperation, as it did for McGregor.^[4][6]

The core dilemma

The UFC funds and designs its anti-doping program, and its stars drive its revenue. USADA argued that independence requires a body that can say no to the promoter. The UFC argued that its new program is independently administered. What does independence require when a commercial promoter is both the regulator’s client and the owner of the sport?

Competing values

• Independence vs. control: an outside agency’s authority against a promoter’s right to run its business.
• Equal rules vs. discretion: applying rules to all against exceptions for fairness.
• Health vs. commerce: fighter safety against marquee events.
• Transparency vs. confidentiality.

Strongest arguments

For USADA’s position: stars must not be exempt, and an agency that insists on rules for everyone is what independence means. The timing of the split, a day after McGregor re-entered the pool, raises concerns.

For the UFC’s position: the UFC says it always intended McGregor to serve six months. The new program separates collection, analysis and sanctioning, and keeps decisions away from the UFC.

For a structural view: whatever the facts of the dispute, a promoter that can choose and replace its anti-doping provider holds leverage over it.

Applying the frameworks

Justice

A justice lens asks whether rules are applied equally to all fighters, including stars, and whether fighters have a voice in the program.

Utilitarianism

A utilitarian lens weighs fighter safety and fair competition against the commercial benefits of marquee fights, and asks which governance structure best protects fighters.

Virtue ethics

A virtue lens examines the integrity of both organizations in a public dispute and asks what honesty and fairness require of each.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a UFC fighter representative evaluating the new program. Stakeholders include fighters, the UFC, administrators and fans. Less visible are lower-paid fighters who face doped opponents. The codes are the UFC policy and state athletic commission rules.
2. Gather facts. Who decides violations? How are exceptions granted? Is the program audited? Beware accepting either side’s public statements uncritically.
3. Test options. (a) Accept the program. (b) Push for an independent board with fighter seats. (c) Push for public reporting and outside audits.
4. Check codes and law. Check the policy’s terms, fighter contracts and commission rules.
5. Decide and document. Record the reforms you will press for.
6. Communicate and follow up. Share your evaluation with fighters and monitor the program’s outcomes.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the end of the USADA partnership on December 31, 2023; the new program’s structure.
• Contested: why the UFC ended the partnership; whether the new program is as independent as USADA’s.

Why this case matters

The UFC-USADA split shows how the independence of anti-doping depends on structure and leverage. It is a case study in conflicts of interest, equal application of rules and governance in privately owned sports.

See also: Treatment or Advantage? The 2014 Ban on Testosterone Exemptions in MMA.

Key terms

Conflict of interest

A situation where a person’s private interest could improperly influence a decision they make in an official role.

Principal–agent problem

When those acting on others’ behalf (agents such as executives, officials or agents) have interests that diverge from the people they serve.

Controls

Concrete safeguards that make ethics operational: training, disclosure forms, testing, monitoring, hotlines. Ethics needs principles, process and controls.

Institutional accountability

Structures that make a sport organization explain its decisions and face consequences: clear authority, transparency, appeals, independent oversight and enforcement.

Trust

The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.

Integrity

A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. The UFC's policy allowed exceptions to the six-month return rule. Should any exceptions be allowed, and who should decide them?
2. Can a promoter-funded anti-doping program be independent if the promoter chooses and pays the administrator?
3. USADA said the UFC put profits ahead of clean athletes; the UFC said USADA misrepresented events. How should the public evaluate competing claims?
4. UFC fighters are independent contractors. How does that affect their voice in anti-doping policy?

Sources

1. McGregor re-enters the USADA testing pool and UFC and USADA end anti-doping program agreement — US Anti-Doping Agency
2. USADA stands by initial statement as UFC plans legal action — ABC News (ESPN)
3. UFC announces details of new anti-doping program — UFC
4. Conor McGregor accepts 18-month sanction for whereabouts failures under UFC Anti-Doping Policy (Oct. 7, 2025) — UFC (Combat Sports Anti-Doping announcement)
5. Conor McGregor given 18-month ban for breaking UFC's anti-doping rules (Oct. 7, 2025) — The Guardian
6. UFC Anti-Doping News — Combat Sports Anti-Doping (CSAD)
7. Conor McGregor rematches Max Holloway in welterweight main event at UFC 329 live on Paramount+ — UFC
8. UFC 329: McGregor vs Holloway 2 (July 11, 2026), event results — UFC
9. UFC Anti-Doping Policy (Nov. 29, 2023) — UFC Anti-Doping (ufcantidoping.com)