Talk about Jon Jones has ramped up again.
For a brief history recap, the UFC light heavyweight champion failed an in-competition drug test at UFC 214. Due to that failed drug test, Jones has been provisionally suspended by USADA pending a full investigation by the CAC (California Athletic Commission). Jones defeated Daniel Cormier by third-round TKO in the main event of UFC 214 on July 29 in Anaheim, California to regain the title. The event aired on PPV (pay-per-view).
It’s well known as well that the UFC’s plans called to have Jones challenge Stipe Miocic for the heavyweight title at UFC 218 on December 2, 2017, at Little Caesars Arena in Detroit, Michigan. Those plans are out of the question now.
A major update on Jones’ failed drug test hasn’t come about as of yet, but there is still hope for Jones and his fans. The UFC champion, who was provisionally suspended by USADA for the failure, apparently didn’t test positive for the steroid in his post-fight blood test. It should be noted that its because blood tests don’t screen for that particular drug.
As seen on social media, the general public and even those in the sports of MMA (mixed martial arts) has already made their judgment against the fighter that has previously served a one-year USADA suspension from a drug test that scuttled a UFC 200 fight.
Novitsky appeared on a recent edition of Bruce Buffer’s podcast where he discussed Jones’ situation, and apparently, some have taken his comments out of the contest. Speaking with MMAFighting.com, however, Novitsky set the record straight:
“The headline and corresponding article took excerpts from an interview I did last week, where I was asked about the status of Jon Jones’ pending case,” Novitzky wrote in the statement. “I indicated that Jon’s camp, the UFC and USADA were all working hard and together to determine the source of the prohibited substance in Jon’s system. That is still the case.
“I stated that this is often a lengthy process that can take up to several months to complete, but that possible sanctions based on the findings of a completed case ranged from a multi-year suspension, to a minimal, or no-fault sanction, if an unavoidable ingestion of the prohibited substance was determined.”
“While all parties are hoping to find evidence of the unintentional or unavoidable use of the prohibited substance, at no time during the interview did I indicate that there were developments leading in that direction, as was the inference of the headline,” Novitzky said.