« Embroiled in one anti-trust case, UFC finds itself lobbying California anti-trust defense bill | Home | How do you lose $430 million in a year? Al Haymon’s PBC could become boxing’s MySpace »
Every new report surrounding Brock Lesnar, UFC, and USADA is confirming many suspicions
By Zach Arnold | August 7, 2016
Confirming the suspicion of many fans, Marc Raimondi at MMA Fighting is reporting that UFC’s drug testing agent USADA did not request an expedited drug testing result for Brock Lesnar’s pre-UFC 200 fight tests. Combined with the previous news of UFC giving Lesnar a waiver from USADA’s four-month drug testing window before fighting in the UFC and Lesnar reportedly not being drug tested by WWE in his contract because he’s not a full-time performer… you have the perfect storm that permanently tainted UFC 200.
Jeff Novitzky is quoted in the MMA Fighting as stating that the cost of UFC’s yearly drug testing program would double if every fighter had their drug testing samples expedited for analysis. While this logic may be grounded in mathematical fact, it doesn’t address the elephant in the room — we’re talking about Brock Lesnar.
Brock Lesnar was the rainmaker that made UFC 200 palatable on a mainstream scale. He was the guy. To not expedite his drug testing results in particular and reportedly give him a USADA four-month waiver from drug testing immediately created the kind of “us vs. them” ill will that we have seen on display from fighters like Mark Hunt since Lesnar failed two USADA test for estrogen blockers.
As more questions are answered surrounding what happened with Brock Lesnar at UFC 200, it becomes that much more difficult for ownership to scapegoat Lesnar and put 100% of the blame on him for this mess.
What can fighters do to attack other fighters from drug usage? This question creates constant fear and frustration. Michael Bisping is a UFC champion now. Could he have become a champion much sooner in a UFC environment with more aggressive drug testing? As for Mark Hunt, what can the guy do other than publicly protest? It was allegedly the only way he could even get a phone call to try to ease his fears and dampen his raw anger. Hunt could theoretically turn around and sue Lesnar for negligent misrepresentation in Federal court but does he have the appetite for such a fight?
The worst part of this story involving UFC, Lesnar, and Hunt is that Hunt has to sit around and wait to see what the administrative punishment and/or remedy is going to be long after the fight took place. Since UFC 200, the company has been sold, Lesnar is back in WWE land, and Hunt can’t wipe away the image of his loss no matter what an athletic commission says regarding an L on his record.
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 4 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Completely negligent on the UFC’s part. They put Mark Hunt’s life in danger by being willfully negligent. Brock was already allowed to bend the rules. Expediting his samples was the only thing that made sense.
Plus, what the f#ck is the point of testing a fighter a week before the fight if they can’t get the results back in time?
Novitsky’s excuse is bs..
“It’s not as simple as it sounds. You would have to expedite every one of those tests. If you want to expedite one or two tests, the costs with the laboratory are relatively minor.”
Since Brock was able to avoid year round testing like everyone else, his tests obviously should have been expedited. Novitsky dropped the ball, admitting 2 expedited tests is no big deal. They, ufc and usada, didn’t listen to Hunts concern prior to the fight, and chose the slowest path to discovery. I recall other instances of fighters demanding AND GETTING extra testing for their opponents…JJ vs Texiera, Bisping vs Lee
There was no ball for Jeff to drop as the UFC were in the Lesnar game no matter what.
This is what our sport has become.
It is as dirty as can be, and just as bad as boxing.
The only thing it has going for it is excitement.
But make no mistake, this is a dirty sport. Go in with your eyes wide open.