Victor Conte On Garcia’s Failed Tests – ‘Why Didn’t Ryan Attend A Hearing?’

Victor Conte, who works with VADA as an anti-doping consultant, has reacted to Ryan Garcia’s response to his failed VADA tests for Ostarine.

After Garcia tested positive for Ostarine twice following his April 2024 win over Devin Haney, he provided two unsealed supplements, claiming they were contaminated. Both tested positive for Ostarine. However, Conte revealed that when the manufacturers of the supplements provided sealed containers from the same production lot numbers, they both tested negative. Conte suggests that the products Garcia handed over were possibly spiked after they were opened.

“Ryan Garcia tested positive for Ostarine two days in a row. He sent in two UNSEALED products that both contained Ostarine and claimed these were his source of exposure. Both companies sent in SEALED containers with the same lot numbers. Both tested negative. Seems that tampering was involved, and someone spiked both products with Ostarine. Ryan chose not to attend a NYSAC hearing and simply accepted a one-year suspension and a million-dollar fine. Why did Ryan choose not to attend a hearing where facts in the case would be made publicly available?,” Conte said 

The Problem

Conte himself is a controversial figure. He was the founder of the Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO), a company at the center of a major sports doping scandal. After serving time in prison, Conte has repositioned himself as an anti-doping advocate and consultant. His past makes his claims both more impactful and subject to scrutiny. 

The core of the issue also revolves around the chain of custody. In this case, the unsealed nature of the supplements provided by Garcia’s team means the integrity of the samples cannot be guaranteed. By contrast, the sealed supplements from the manufacturers, with their clear chain of custody, provide the most reliable evidence. The controversy highlights the ongoing challenges boxing faces with doping and the difficulties in proving intentional use versus contamination.