Mark Hunt & Attorney on UFC Lawsuit (FULL PHONECALL)

That attorney doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence
 
"I want to sue all of these bitch boi's!!"
 
The Best JG said:
They can prove intent if they can prove fight was in the works longer than UFC admits,which means UFC was holding back annoucing Brock's return from USADA so they wouldnt start testing him 4 months prior to fight
Click to expand...

Which is unlikely, given they intended Conor to be the star of that card.
 
Mr. Danger Waffles said:
With a lift on the testing period. That was bad judgement on their part, especially coming from an organization, the WWE, that has rampant steroid use.
Click to expand...
Except that lift is standard practice and was used over and over, and Hunt knew and never objected.
 
Mr. Danger Waffles said:
He would need to prove:
A. Intent- That the UFC somehow intended for this to happen, which they didn't.
B. Gross Negligence- That the UFC didn't use reasonable care, which caused a foreseeable harm to Mark Hunt, and his reputation.

The Negligence could more than likely be provable, but whether or not he would benefit from the games the UFC lawyers could pull, is probably not very likely. This case could drag on for years, and I highly doubt that it would ever go to court.
Click to expand...

Is he alleging gross negligence? I thought he was alleging fraud and racketeering?

I did not listen to the video.
 
People say he shouldn't complain because he fought in pride. Pride had their rules UFC has theirs and peds isn't allowed in UFC and clearly guys are beating the system like brawk . That's why he's pissed
 
UJustGotChaeld said:
Except that lift is standard practice and was used over and over, and Hunt knew and never objected.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Both parties would have had a reasonable suspicion of steroid abuse. In a civil lawsuit, the court can issue a percentage of damages based on negligence.

Comparative Negligence:
The principle that reduces a plaintiff’s recovery proportionally to the plaintiff’s degree of fault in causing the damage.

This would be my guess on the case. It's really all that, Just a guess. until we learn more about the details we really don't know what could happen.
 
Last edited:
SocraticMethod said:
Is he alleging gross negligence? I thought he was alleging fraud and racketeering?

I did not listen to the video.
Click to expand...
Well, I just glazed over the case. What I could tell, the fraud and racketeering would be used more for how to attack the case than anything. Using Rico and the Interstate commerce clause.

Rico is used a lot, because it allows people to go after an organization based on the actions of an individual in the organization. If you can prove that individuals are acting in a criminal conduct, it may allow you to receive damages from the organization, because of collusion. I haven't gotten to the Interstate Commerce part of the case. It's probably needed to establish a Rico case. Just a guess.

Disclaimer: I'm working towards my CPA license, & I'm not an Attorney. We do work in law, albeit Tax Law, and not Civil/Criminal Law. I have however studied Rico, and Interstate Commerce enough to give a Sherbro opinion. Looking forward to how it all unfolds.

https://canadianmmalawblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/mark-hunt-vs-ufc-doping-lawsuit.pdf
 
A year ban isn't enough? What about Machida's 18 months? No real sports league bans athletes that fuckin long, especially over a first offense. Fuck off Hunt. He is the reason guys like Machida get 18 months. The punishments are heavy handed already.
 
cheesus said:
That attorney doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence
Click to expand...

This....the fact that she's letting him go out and speak publicly about the case so much is mind blowing.

Contrast that to GSP who made it very clear there were certain things he wasn't willing to speak on.
 
Mr. Danger Waffles said:
Well, I just glazed over the case. What I could tell, the fraud and racketeering would be used more for how to attack the case than anything. Using Rico and the Interstate commerce clause.

Rico is used a lot, because it allows people to go after an organization based on the actions of an individual in the organization. If you can prove that individuals are acting in a criminal conduct, it may allow you to receive damages from the organization, because of collusion. I haven't gotten to the Interstate Commerce part of the case. It's probably needed to establish a Rico case. Just a guess.

Disclaimer: I'm working towards my CPA license, & I'm not an Attorney. We do work in law, albeit Tax Law, and not Civil/Criminal Law. I have however studied Rico, and Interstate Commerce enough to give a Sherbro opinion. Looking forward to how it all unfolds.

https://canadianmmalawblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/mark-hunt-vs-ufc-doping-lawsuit.pdf
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm reading over the complaint now. I'm an attorney, but I don't do too much of this type of thing. I've actually only had one case that involved a RICO claim, and it was total bullshit. A wacky case that should have been a negligence action (construction defect claim against a roofing contractor (my client)) but they through in a ton of bullshit. We got the RICO claims dismissed via a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, so I didn't have to learn too much about it. Heh.
 
MONEYLINE said:
How anyone can criticize mark for this in a negative fashion is beyond me Not that hard to recognize.

A blatant CAUGHT Cheater suffered not one single bit of relevant punishment in the most dangerous division of combat sports. Opinions are not facts, and I haven't seen any facts to show that he blatantly cheated. Just because we all know OJ did it, doesn't mean he is automatically guilty in the legal sense.

He robbed gamblers and fans of their honor. /facepalm

0 concessions were given to mark after the fact and regardless of it seems like he's being a sore loser their should be 0 issues with someone pursuing to increase the fairness of the sport. A noble cause... if that was his intention. Which it is not, he wants the money, it isn't about the fairness in the sport.

Cuz that's what it is

It should be considered unfair to cheat and when you do you should pay a price. If proven to be intentionally cheating you should lose all pay, and then have to also pay certain fines. The key is proven...

Where are all the people that were outraged over Brock turners lenient sentence?
Click to expand...

Also Mark Hunt fought in pride.... so hard to feel sympathy for him when he is talking about roids.
 
Mike hunt has turned into a fucking cartoon. As such I sooooo hope that he loses his UFC gig and this case.

Lost all respect for this tit.

Mark before the fight:

"Brocks gonna be on roids but it won't matter cause I'm gonna knock his ass out!"

Mark after the fight:

"Fuck that cheat bastard! And fuck the UFC I want more money then my contract because my life was in danger!"

If you wanna go through life like a little bitch who doesn't take responsibility for failures and blames others by all means cheer on Mike hunt and you too could grow up to become a little whiney bitch.
 
War Hunto.

Don't get the hate people have. Dude got screwed over and looks to me that was exactly the UFCs plan.
 
Undisclosed settlement or dismissal. UFC will not want to drag this case, bad PR and other fighters will be encouraged to sue if Hunt wins.
 
JonesBones said:
A year ban isn't enough? What about Machida's 18 months? No real sports league bans athletes that fuckin long, especially over a first offense.
Click to expand...

LOL

No "real sports league" averages 6 months between appearances for an athlete, either.
You want the UFC to suspend someone for 4 weeks, like the NFL?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,914
Messages
55,454,648
Members
174,787
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top