NFL Player Wins Supplement Adulteration Suit

The saga of sports nutrition/supplements and steroids continues...

A U.S. District Judge in Missouri ruled in favor of St. Louis Rams linebacker David Vobora in his lawsuit against the maker of a sports supplement called Ultimate Sports Spray, which was alleged to contain the NFL-banned substance methyltestosterone and triggered the positive doping test that resulted in Vobora’s four-game suspension in 2009. Vobora won $5.4 million in the judgment, reflecting lost marketing opportunities and lost wages (during suspension), as well as damage to his reputation.

Vobora, who called the judgment “vindication,” said he had followed all the NFL’s advice before taking the sports supplement, including using the NFL’s hotline for players with questions about supplements and consulting supplement experts.

In issuing the judgment, the judge said the company—ironically named Anti-Steroid Program LLC (aka S.W.A.T.S.), a Key Largo, FL-based company—intentionally misrepresented the supplement. Vobora reportedly had the product tested, revealing it contained methyltestosterone but did not list the ingredient on the label.

While Vobora cleared the two supplements via the NFL Hotline, the league has stated its policy holds strict liability on each player for what they put in their bodies.

This wasn’t the last incident between S.W.A.T.S. and the NFL.The league sent letters to some NFL players in early 2011, ordering them to sever relationships with S.W.A.T.S., because the company and its owner Mitch Ross claimed its Ultimate Sports Spray contained deer antler velvet and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which is banned by the NFL, the Olympics and several professional sports leagues.

S.W.A.T.S. had utilized numerous NFLer endorsements in its marketing, including players Ray Lewis and Roy Williams, as well as Oakland Raiders coach Hue Jackson, who also received an NFL warning letter. Steve Mister, president and CEO of the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), said his group contact FDA in 2010 about the suspicious activities of S.W.A.T.S, but FDA failed to act quickly. FDA then said it has to obtain and test products, proving they are contaminated before it can take action. Testing for IGF-1 in such products has been called challenging by independent labs, with some not even having a test method yet for this contaminant.

What I’d like to know is: if an NFL player had tied a positive doping test to this product and company in 2009-2010, why were several top NFLers endorsing this product still in 2011? It just goes to show you that despite all the zero-tolerance and strict liability touted by the league, players are still making risky decisions in the area of steroids and other performance-enhancing substances.