LAS VEGAS -- On Dec. 4, UFC light heavyweight champion Jon Jones submitted to a random urine test, ordered by the Nevada State Athletic Commission.

On Dec. 23, the results of that test were delivered to the NSAC from a lab in Salt Lake City. Under a subhead titled "Analysis Details," there was one note: Benzoylecgonine detected.

Cocaine.

Eleven days later, Jones, 27, stepped into the UFC Octagon and defended his 205-pound title against Daniel Cormier, which likely earned him well in excess of $1 million. No mention of the traces of cocaine found in his system the previous month was made by either the NSAC, Jones or the UFC.

How in the world does this happen? Here's how.

The major issue is that cocaine, while illegal, is not listed on the World Anti-Doping Agency's banned substance list during periods referred to as "out-of-competition." The NSAC utilizes the WADA list because the organization is universally considered the gold standard in drug testing procedures.

This means that under the current rules of Nevada's commission, evidence of cocaine use during "out-of-competition" periods is not a punishable offense.

Of course, the next question becomes: What does "out-of-competition" refer to? If Jones (21-1) is scheduled to fight on Jan. 3, isn't he "in-competition" during a training camp on Dec. 4? According to the WADA code, as interpreted by the NSAC, the answer is no.

According to a source, the Nevada Attorney General's interpretation is that the "in-competition" window begins 12 hours prior to the start of a mixed martial arts contest. This failed test was taken one month in advance.

So, although the NSAC had a positive test result for the presence of cocaine in Jones' system on Dec. 4, its own statutes handcuffed its ability to do anything about it.

To pull the plug on the fight, the NSAC would have been accepting an inevitable legal response from Jones. To prevent an athlete from making a living (in this case, a very good one), one needs a strong legal foundation to stand on. The NSAC didn't exactly have one.

Jones was drug tested again on the night of the fight. Those results have not come back. In the event Jones fails that test, the entire situation would change dramatically. In the meantime, Jones said in a statement through his attorney that he has agreed to enter a drug treatment facility.

What the NSAC did do upon receiving those tests results on Dec. 23, presumably, was inform Jones, his representatives and the UFC of the positive test.

It should be noted here that despite what's been mentioned thus far, the NSAC is not without fault here. The obvious complaint is: Why would the commission order a lab test if it can't punish an athlete who produces a positive result?

The only answer is the test was not solely for drugs of abuse. According to the lab report, the name of the test's program was "WADA Full Menu." That urinalysis tested for substances that are banned out-of-competition (such as anabolic steroids) -- it just also happened to test for substances that aren't (such as cocaine).

One could argue that testing for a substance that doesn't apply to the fighter's license is an invasion of privacy and unnecessary. Of course, you also could argue Jones shouldn't have been using cocaine during a fight camp -- end of story.

Unfortunately, these are growing pains associated with the NSAC's "enhanced testing program," which was put into relatively wide use last year and calls for random, unannounced drug testing.

It's not the first time the program has fallen under questionable execution.

In early 2014, the commission ordered UFC middleweight Vitor Belfort to submit to a urinalysis that produced an abnormal testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio. Sounds bad, right? The problem was, Belfort was on doctor-approved testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) at the time. And TRT patients are expected to produce an elevated T/E ratio. To catch abuse of TRT, the NSAC would have needed to order a blood test on Belfort. It didn't, which ultimately led to a very confusing licensing process.

But back to the case of Jones. The NSAC, presumably (as is protocol), informed all parties of the test results. At that point, the question becomes: Was it on the UFC to cancel the fight?

This is up to individual interpretation. If Jones has a significant drug problem the UFC is aware of, attempting to hide it and promote him in a cage fight is clearly irresponsible. If it was viewed more as a dumb, but infrequent, recreational use, canceling a multimillion dollar fight would have probably been overkill.

Jones' positive test has clearly violated the UFC's code of conduct. The promotion would be well within its right to punish Jones in some way. There is really no precedent for this situation, due mostly to the fact athletes are so rarely tested during a training camp and the very short detection window of cocaine.

Should the NSAC or the UFC have informed everyone of all this prior to the fight? Personally, I say no. If the decision was made to go on with the fight, why subject Jones to the media firestorm of that kind of news? Sure, he brought it on himself, but making it public during fight week wouldn't have been to anyone's benefit.

The bottom line is the NSAC clearly needs to review its policies to avoid a similar situation.

If the commission decides to continue to adhere to the WADA list verbatim, fine -- then don't test athletes for drugs of abuse out of competition, which becomes public information.

If it is decided athletes shouldn't be on cocaine while training for a professional MMA bout, that's acceptable as well. Rewrite the statutes to outline the consequences one faces if it happens.

Because the way in which all this unfolded, quite frankly, was a mess.