23-3113. Hunt vs Zuffa LLC, et al. happened yesterday and raised some interesting points
Mark Hunt has taken his case to the ninth circuit court of appeals regarding UFC and Brock Lesnar. He is appealing the decision and claims the UFC defrauded him, and Brock Lesnar legally battered him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCGdqqztKBg The judges were interested in why Lesnar was given the only testing exemption in the history of the UFC. The UFC lawyer explained Lesnar's unique situation as he last fought in the UFC before the introduction of USADA, and so was treated as a new athlete. They said the fight was officially signed in June, with the fight taking place in July, and so June was the date Lesnar entered the testing pool. Hunt argued the UFC offered Lesnar fights as early as March that year, and had an obligation to have him tested as soon as then. The UFC failed to enforce its anti-doping policy appropriately and therefore defrauded him by giving him an opponent that was juiced. The UFC's lawyers argued there were no damages to Mark Hunt resulting from the events that took place. He willingly chose to fight Brock Lesnar, and he was under no obligation to take the fight. He was at fight 1 of his 6 fight contract newly signed. Mark Hunt argued that there was damages, specifically his career halting due to a NC, he was stalked and harassed, and he lost his will to fight due to negligence of the UFC in ensuring fighters were fighting clean opponents. Lesnar's lawyer argued the battery is interwined with the fraud. If there was no fraud, then there is no battery. They argued Mark Hunt only stipulated that the UFC vigorously test Lesnar, and that there was no obligation for the UFC to provide him a clean fighter, only to ensure that tests are done. Thus Mark Hunt consented to fight a doped Lesnar, as he consented to fight on the grounds of him being tested, not on the grounds of him being drug-free. The UFC upheld their end of the bargian via USADA by ensuring Brock Lesnar was tested. Both lawyers made claims the substance found in Brock did not "supercharge" him and it was miniscule amounts found. Hunt argued that the substance is used to clear steroids out of the body, and is a banned substance. The judges seemed especially interested in two areas through the question. The first was why Lesnar was given an exemption, the only exemption given in the history of the UFC. The second was whether Hunt only consented to an MMA if it was dope-free, and if a fighter was doping does that withdraw the consent. Overall I think Mark Hunt has a decent chance at getting a decision his way. If ruled in his favour this could be a landmark case that could seriously change a few things in the combat sports world. For instance this could be used in Haney v Garcia, if the element of doping is brought up. I think Hunt could've definitely argued his points around damages better. He could've also hammered the steroid use more, and the effects the fight had on him physically as well as financially because I don't think the judges really understand the level of physical beating Hunt took from both Lesnar and Silva back to back. submitted by /u/SmileBender [link] [comments]
Mark Hunt has taken his case to the ninth circuit court of appeals regarding UFC and Brock Lesnar. He is appealing the decision and claims the UFC defrauded him, and Brock Lesnar legally battered him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCGdqqztKBg
The judges were interested in why Lesnar was given the only testing exemption in the history of the UFC. The UFC lawyer explained Lesnar's unique situation as he last fought in the UFC before the introduction of USADA, and so was treated as a new athlete. They said the fight was officially signed in June, with the fight taking place in July, and so June was the date Lesnar entered the testing pool. Hunt argued the UFC offered Lesnar fights as early as March that year, and had an obligation to have him tested as soon as then. The UFC failed to enforce its anti-doping policy appropriately and therefore defrauded him by giving him an opponent that was juiced.
The UFC's lawyers argued there were no damages to Mark Hunt resulting from the events that took place. He willingly chose to fight Brock Lesnar, and he was under no obligation to take the fight. He was at fight 1 of his 6 fight contract newly signed. Mark Hunt argued that there was damages, specifically his career halting due to a NC, he was stalked and harassed, and he lost his will to fight due to negligence of the UFC in ensuring fighters were fighting clean opponents.
Lesnar's lawyer argued the battery is interwined with the fraud. If there was no fraud, then there is no battery. They argued Mark Hunt only stipulated that the UFC vigorously test Lesnar, and that there was no obligation for the UFC to provide him a clean fighter, only to ensure that tests are done. Thus Mark Hunt consented to fight a doped Lesnar, as he consented to fight on the grounds of him being tested, not on the grounds of him being drug-free. The UFC upheld their end of the bargian via USADA by ensuring Brock Lesnar was tested. Both lawyers made claims the substance found in Brock did not "supercharge" him and it was miniscule amounts found. Hunt argued that the substance is used to clear steroids out of the body, and is a banned substance.
The judges seemed especially interested in two areas through the question. The first was why Lesnar was given an exemption, the only exemption given in the history of the UFC. The second was whether Hunt only consented to an MMA if it was dope-free, and if a fighter was doping does that withdraw the consent.
Overall I think Mark Hunt has a decent chance at getting a decision his way. If ruled in his favour this could be a landmark case that could seriously change a few things in the combat sports world. For instance this could be used in Haney v Garcia, if the element of doping is brought up. I think Hunt could've definitely argued his points around damages better. He could've also hammered the steroid use more, and the effects the fight had on him physically as well as financially because I don't think the judges really understand the level of physical beating Hunt took from both Lesnar and Silva back to back.
[link] [comments]