Friend of our site

MMA Headlines


Bleacher Report

MMA Fighting

MMA Torch

MMA Weekly

Sherdog (News)

Sherdog (Articles)

Liver Kick

MMA Junkie

MMA Mania

MMA Ratings

Rating Fights

Yahoo MMA Blog

MMA Betting

Search this site

Latest Articles

News Corner

MMA Rising

Audio Corner


Sherdog Radio

Video Corner

Fight Hub

Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index

To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site

Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback

Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Judge in Mark Hunt’s lawsuit against UFC says doping is part of assuming the risk

By Zach Arnold | February 15, 2019

Print Friendly and PDF

When Mark Hunt’s attorney was squawking in late 2016 about filing a racketeering lawsuit against UFC and Brock Lesnar in Nevada over Lesnar’s failed doping test, I warned that this was not necessarily a serious legal tactic. Racketeering was a marketing tactic and that’s about it. The threats over concealment and unjust enrichment along with breach of contract carried more substance.

Racketeering got the case in Federal court. If it lost out, it would likely move the case to state court.

The judge in the lawsuit telegraphed her skepticism in June of 2017. This week, the judge carried through on her remarks and dismissed every cause of action except breach of contract.

This was not a surprise. The surprise was in the legal logic to dismiss the case and what a bad, no-good, terrible ruling it is for those looking to employ legal strategies in the future against fighters caught doping.

Opening his own can of worms

Remember the circumstances of what went down. Mark Hunt fought Brock Lesnar while negotiations were going down to sell UFC. Hunt has his attorney go public with legal threats. Hunt follows through with legal threats.

Then, inexplicably, Hunt goes public in an interview supposedly claiming slurred speech and sleeping problems due to damage suffered as a fighter.

UFC promptly pulled Hunt from fighting in Australia. He loudly protested. How much did Mark Hunt hurt his legal case in America?

In dismissing a majority of the causes of actions, judge Jennifer Dorsey claimed that Brock Lesnar’s doping did not negate Mark Hunt’s consent to fight. In other words, he assumed the risk.

The judge cited a precedent involving a case regarding a player intentionally hit with a baseball. Yes, the baseball can be a deadly weapon, but it didn’t exceed “ordinary range” of activity.

You can argue that doping makes athletes bigger, faster, and stronger but somehow you can’t legally prove that it actually impacts “ordinary range” of physical activity during an MMA fight?

The whole point of doping is to impact your “ordinary range” of activity in a sport. You wouldn’t use drugs to not enhance your performance.

If this is the temperature in the legal system for tolerance of doping, attorneys looking to clean up the sport face an impossible task.

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 3 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

3 Responses to “Judge in Mark Hunt’s lawsuit against UFC says doping is part of assuming the risk”

  1. Diaz's packed bowl says:

    What if it was Barry Bonds who threw the baseball at you?
    I think you would have a case against him and the league for allowing bonds to continue playing when there were claims of doping. When a league ignores claims like the ufc did, and then letting Brock off the industry standard testing(at the time), then the league is liable for any damages caused by that cheating players actions.

    I remember when the accusations came to light, Barry Bonds addressed them when asked if he was doing peds during a post or pre game presser. He answered the reporter saying he never did steroids the accusations are absurd. Then without missing a beat, he said that this year he would run at and physically attack any pitcher who hits him with a pitch.

    Now if he had rushed and beaten a pitcher while in a roid rage that pitcher would have a pretty good case.

    I dont see how any Judge could compare baseball and combat sports unless they were kinda paid off.

  2. Diaz's packed bowl says:

    As far as GSP vs Khabib goes… this is where you need somebody other than Dana calling the shots.
    Imagine a promoter actually working with the fighters?
    #1 Khabib wants to stay out for 1 year, even though he can come back in 6 months if he wanted to.
    #2 Dana wants Khabib to fight sooner than later, otherwise an interim title.
    #3 GSP wants to fight Khabib maybe at 160 sooner than later.
    #4 bizarro dana decides to make fight happen!? Bizarro dana calls gsp says “me love you short time, we make bank together” “you tell Khabib you want fight sooner than later like real soon in July even. Tell Khabib he no champ unless fight now”
    #5 bizarro dana tell Khabib “me pay you brothers fines and give special discount on ufc product.
    #6 Fight at 155 for title gsp wants, chance for triple champ.

    Would dana smartly use gsp as bait to get Khabib back asap for the biggest ppv of the year?

  3. Diaz's packed bowl says:

    Yep this site is done. BYE!

Comments to Diaz's packed bowl

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image