The promoter for Australian heavyweight contender Lucas Browne, who this week tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug for the second time in eight months, came out in support of the fighter on Tuesday.
Browne (24-0, 21 KOs), 37, was slated to face former two-time heavyweight world titleholder Shannon Briggs (60-6-1, 53 KOs), 44, by Dec. 31 for the WBA's vacant "regular" title.
However, the fight and perhaps Browne's career are in jeopardy after ESPN reported on Monday that Browne failed a Voluntary Anti-Doping Association drug test. He tested positive for the banned substance ostarine (also called enobosarm) in a test conducted under the auspices of the WBC's Clean Boxing Program, the WBC confirmed.
Hatton Promotions, the promotional company owned by former two-division world titleholder Ricky Hatton, said in a statement, "Hatton Promotions has been made of aware press reports regarding Lucas Browne and issues relating to the VADA drug test, which took place as part of the WBC Clean Boxing Program. Firstly, we wish to make it absolutely clear that we support fully the WBC program and its efforts to rid the sport of performance-enhancing drugs. Clearly, the test results are hugely disappointing for the company and for Lucas himself."
Ostarine, which is supposed to increase stamina and recovery ability, has been on the World Anti-Doping Agency banned list since 2008.
Browne enrolled in the WBC Clean Boxing Program in July, in part to rehabilitate his image after he tested positive for the banned substance clenbuterol in a VADA-conducted test. The failed test came following a March 5 fight in which Browne rallied for a 10th-round knockout of Ruslan Chagaev in Grozny, Russia, to win the WBA's "regular" world title, making him the first Australian to win a heavyweight crown.
Browne's A and B samples both tested positive for clenbuterol, and he was suspended for six months by the WBA and stripped of the belt, which was returned to Chagaev. The title became vacant in July, when Chagaev was stripped for his failure to pay delinquent sanctioning fees to the WBA.
Browne maintained that he did not take clenbuterol. Instead, he and his team said they believed his food or water was spiked while he was in hostile territory for the fight against Chagaev. Browne appealed the positive test result to the WBA, which eventually ruled that he had not knowingly taken the banned substance and gave him the opportunity to fight for its secondary title again.
"For a man and a team who fought so hard to clear his name following what is now universally accepted to have been a deliberate contamination of products he ingested prior to his March fight with Ruslan Chagaev, this is a bitter blow," the Hatton Promotions statement said. "Lucas was cleared of any deliberate wrongdoing a few months ago, and we feel it would be somewhat unfair and incorrect for anyone to suggest that the results of his latest test bring the outcome of his previous exoneration into question. With a man's livelihood and reputation at stake, we feel it is only right and proper to make thorough investigations before commenting on the circumstances of this latest test result."
Hatton Promotions pointed out that Browne enrolled in the WBC program even though he is not in line to fight for that organization's title because of his mandatory status in the WBA.
"Even though he has no WBC ranking to protect and is in a position for a mandatory WBA world title fight, Lucas entered the WBC Clean Boxing Program voluntarily. We do not feel that is the action of a man who wishes to intentionally take performance-enhancing drugs," Hatton Promotions said. "As such, we will be working closely with Lucas' team and his lawyer, Leon Margules, to conduct a thorough investigation into the supplements Lucas has been advised to take on a day-to-day basis. We will also look into any prescribed medication he has been given in order to seek out the source of the alleged banned substance.
"Once that investigation has taken place and the circumstances of the test results have been understood, will we comment further. Given what is at stake, we feel it would be inappropriate to speculate and comment further at this stage."