It seems similar to the nick Diaz thing, and like the burden of proof should be on the commission.
It shouldn't be enough to strongly infer that an athlete has been smoking weed or taking a banned testosterone booster.
In both cases, there needs to be a specific list of banned substances, and the commission ought to have to show proof.
The burden of "hey, this guy has elevated testosterone levels beyond whats typically in the range" or "Hey, this guy this guy has metabolites in his system related to a banned substance"
That's an extremely low burden of proof IMO. That may be a bit legalistic, but these are legal matters. I think we know that no matter where we set the bar, in professional athletics, the bar will always be pushed.