Hunt appeal calls basis of dismissal of Brock

‘just wrong,’ UFC complicit in wrongdoing

Mark Hunt’s legal team is going another round with the the UFC and Brock Lesnar.

At a session of The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday, the case of Hunt vs. Zuffa was brought forth for appeal by Hunt’s attorney Brian W. Boschee. The lawsuit, filed in 2016 and amended in June 2017, alleges the UFC, UFC President Dana White, and former UFC fighter Brock Lesnar conspired to allow Lesnar to compete against Hunt at UFC 200 with the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Hunt’s team accuses the defendants of racketeering, fraud, battery and civil conspiracy, in addition to other claims, with Hunt seeking compensatory damages, declaratory relief, punitive damages, statutory treble damages and attorney’s fees.

At UFC 200, Hunt lost a unanimous decision to Lesnar, who was later announced as having failed a pair of drug tests taken in the lead-up and on the day of their fight. The bout was later overturned to a no-contest, and while Lesnar was fined $250,000 by the Nevada Athletic Commission, Hunt argued Lesnar should have forfeited his entire purse for UFC 200, which was a reported $2.5 million.

In February 2019, the majority of Hunt’s claims were dismissed by U.S. District Court (Nevada) judge Jennifer A. Dorsey; the following November, the last remaining charge, which accused the UFC of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, was also dismissed.

One of the main points that Boschee brought up during Monday’s appeal court session was that he believed Judge Dorsey, for the purposes of dismissing the battery claims, was mistaken in comparing Hunt signing on for a fight as having the same assumption of risk as a baseball player who might get struck in the head by a high-velocity throw from a pitcher.

“That analysis is just wrong,” Boschee said. He went on to argue that there were guarantees made on White’s part and that UFC contracts are meant to explicitly protect a fighter from facing an opponent who is benefiting from PEDs.

Representing UFC’s parent company Zuffa, LLC was attorney Jon Colby Williams, with Lesnar’s attorney David Olsen serving as co-counsel. Williams counter-argued Hunt’s claims “morphed” over time and that the fighter is just expanding on arguments that have already been dismissed by Judge Dorsey. This includes Boschee’s justifications for Lesnar being liable for battery and the UFC liable for aiding and abetting battery.

Williams stated it’s impossible for the UFC or White to guarantee that a fighter hasn’t ingested a prohibited substance, intentional or otherwise, and that based on Hunt’s signing of the contract, public statements made by Hunt in regards to the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs in MMA, and conversations between White and Hunt, he “absolutely” consented to the conditions.

According to Williams, Hunt is basing an argument on assurances that were never included in the original bout agreement and that Hunt’s lawsuit does not include allegations of non-disclosure on the part of White.

Questioned by Judge Dean Pregerson on whether a fighter concealing PED-usage should fall under a reasonable assumption of risk, Williams said in no sport is any recipient of in-game damages going to be able to go back and seek liability from an organization.

Olsen added “all risks means all risks” in regards to Hunt’s bout agreement acknowledging the possibility of numerous negative outcomes – including death – to his health. Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson questioned whether doping added a new dimension to the discussion, particularly since Hunt did not explicitly agree to fight someone on PEDs. However, Olsen countered that Hunt admitted in his previous complaint that he had already fought cheaters, that doping was a reality of MMA, and that he was suspicious of Lesnar doping ahead of their fight.

Boschee closed his argument by saying that it was inaccurate to compare Lesnar being caught for taking PEDs to an athlete accidentally having a banned substance in their system. He accused Lesnar of doping on purpose and placing Hunt in “a life-threatening situation,” just as a pitcher on steroids is at greater risk of severely injuring an opposing batter with an errant throw.

“One of the reasons that baseball tests so diligently for performance-enhancing drugs is because that situation creates a life-threatening possibility if you’ve got someone on performance-enhancing drugs that can kill someone,” Boschee said. “That’s what happened here.

“Mr. Lesnar took performance-enhancing drugs against the policies of the UFC and the Nevada Athletic Commission for the sole purpose of getting bigger, stronger, faster and hurting—essentially irreparably hurting my client. And that’s battery. And that UFC knew he was gonna do it, and they turned the other way, and that’s aiding and abetting battery.”

Monday’s appeal also included Hunt seeking reliance damages due to a canceled November 2017 booking opposite Marcin Tybura. Hunt was pulled from the booking by the UFC in relation to medical issues raised by Hunt himself in a revealing article he wrote for The Players’ Tribune months before the Tybura fight, but his team believes the change was motivated by Hunt’s ongoing legal battle with the UFC. They believe Hunt is entitled to compensation for training camp and travel expenditures.

The appeal now awaits a final decision on a date to be determined.

The only thing worse than Hunt is his record.

4 Likes

1t

Seriously, this shit still going on? 4 years ago the fight was…

Siciliano di Brooklyn - Seriously, this shit still going on? 4 years ago the fight was...

I was there. Mark got beat. Then he got bitter. 

1 Like

the only person winning in this is hunts lawyer.

7 Likes
Siciliano di Brooklyn - Seriously, this shit still going on? 4 years ago the fight was...

That’s how they do it.

They drag it out to see who can afford to go the longest.

1 Like

Mark Hunt ain't no bitch

When you hear the term, "walk off ko", Hunt is the first name you think of. 

I have to agree with Hunt on this.  I know it might seem petty, but why should it be fair a fighter gets special treatment in the form of multiple failed steroid test, still gets to fight and make money?  Even though the fight was later ruled a no contest, this still affected Hunt's fighting legacy.  People will remember he lost and they won't take into consideration the ped use of Brock. 

UFC has done an outstanding job of staying afloat during the pandemic, and I give Dana White and company all the credit in that regard, but knowingly allowing fighters to fight after failed test, they are wrong for that. 

5 Likes

Sounds like Mark is on the losing team.

Good on Hunt calling out the UFC for that bullshit. I am rooting for him 

12 Likes

If Mark Hunt violently KOed Brock in the greatest walk-off of his career and then everything else went exactly the same, would he still be suing over the failed test?

It is a shitty situation for him but I’d be interested to know how it would have gone.

4 Likes

^^Good question^^

1 Like
Steven McTowelie -

If Mark Hunt violently KOed Brock in the greatest walk-off of his career and then everything else went exactly the same, would he still be suing over the failed test?

It is a shitty situation for him but I’d be interested to know how it would have gone.

Probably not,  imo. I know he's fighting a losing battle but I can respect the tenacity. And I think he's right. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the ufc knew about the test results and said let's go with it. There was definitely some behind the scenes shit going on there. 

3 Likes
Floppy Divac - 
Steven McTowelie -

If Mark Hunt violently KOed Brock in the greatest walk-off of his career and then everything else went exactly the same, would he still be suing over the failed test?

It is a shitty situation for him but I’d be interested to know how it would have gone.

Probably not,  imo. I know he's fighting a losing battle but I can respect the tenacity. And I think he's right. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the ufc knew about the test results and said let's go with it. There was definitely some behind the scenes shit going on there. 

That's already been proven to have happened in the past with Vitor Belfort and a leaked email. 

1 Like
Floppy Divac - 
Steven McTowelie -

If Mark Hunt violently KOed Brock in the greatest walk-off of his career and then everything else went exactly the same, would he still be suing over the failed test?

It is a shitty situation for him but I’d be interested to know how it would have gone.

Probably not,  imo. I know he's fighting a losing battle but I can respect the tenacity. And I think he's right. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the ufc knew about the test results and said let's go with it. There was definitely some behind the scenes shit going on there. 

Brock was tested on June 28th & the fight occured on July 9th so the UFC probably knew.He also tested positive on July 9th.

*He tested positive from a test givin on July 9th.

1 Like

While fucked up, this is really only an issue if Dana gave Mark some assurance that he wouldn't be facing a roided Brock. 

I again don’t disagree with Hunt, someone needs to die on that hill.

But legally speaking, can some lawyer argue (with examples) that Hunt fought roided monsters his whole career in kickboxing and Pride and that he had no reasonable expectation to have a clean opponent in Brock?

Brock's a white boy and he's jacked, deal with it.

3 Likes

Honestly, its goddamn embarrassing. Hunt got beat up by a WWE wrestler who was away from MMA for 5 years. He walked right in therr and beat the shit out of a lifelong professional fighter. And it absolutely broke Mark. The dude clearly has trouble even facing bimself in the mirror after that. Sad.

3 Likes
BringBackHeadbutts -

Mark Hunt ain't no bitch

When you hear the term, "walk off ko", Hunt is the first name you think of. 

I have to agree with Hunt on this.  I know it might seem petty, but why should it be fair a fighter gets special treatment in the form of multiple failed steroid test, still gets to fight and make money?  Even though the fight was later ruled a no contest, this still affected Hunt's fighting legacy.  People will remember he lost and they won't take into consideration the ped use of Brock. 

UFC has done an outstanding job of staying afloat during the pandemic, and I give Dana White and company all the credit in that regard, but knowingly allowing fighters to fight after failed test, they are wrong for that. 

Here’s the problem..

Mark Hunt continuously accused Brock of being a PED user leading up to their fight. I knew Brock was a lifelong PED user, you knew he was, everyone here knew he was. No one thought he was coming back juice free, not even his biggest fans.

So Hunt had these options in my opinion

1. Turn down the fight due to knowing Brock is a PED abusing cheat. Leave with morals intact

2. Take the fight and show him that even being a PED abusing cheat, he’ll get that walk off KO

What you can’t do, is take the fight, whilst KNOWING AND TELLING everyone your opponent is a cheat, and then bitch and moan afterwards.

Hunt took the fight for the biggest payday of his career, a payday none of us will say he didn’t earn with what he’d given the sport. To then file mulitple lawsuits because the guy you took that payday for, was the guy you KNEW he was, is a bitch move.

Unfortunatley for Mark, his lawyers are taking every bit of the money he ever earned on a non case. He’ll be broke and have a very difficult time in life in future due to all this, and it’s a fucking shame for one of the guys who defined what the term “fighter” means to a lot of us 

Every fighter who ever took a fight with Brock & Cyborg did so for exposure and/or money. Every man and woman these two faced knew the amount of PEDs they were on, it isn’t fucking difficult to see is it. Don’t fucking moan after you leave your morals at the door and fight these lifelong drugs cheats 

6 Likes