Frank Mir Talks Mark Hunt Suing The UFC and Brock Lesnar

[ChopToTheButt]

Hunt did get paid. Hut got paid more money than he's ever made for a fight in his whole career so Hunt benefitted from that exemption too. Hunt wouldn't have gotten paid that much if it hadn't been UFC 200 and if he wasn't facing one of the 3 biggest draws in the history of the sport. Mir also ignores the fact that Hunt voluntarily took that fight. he could have said he didn't feel that it would be fair with the 4 month testing exemption but he didn't.

This is what I'd expect from Mir though considering he's got an axe to grind.. He never got over how badly Brock beat him at UFC 100.

It has everything to do with it. By accepting to take the fight knowing that Lesnar wouldn't be tested for 4 months prior to the fight, he gave up the right to complain it wasn't fair. If he honestly didn't believe it was fair he would have rejected the offer. He chose to fight the one fighter in his division who was eligible for that exemption and he took the fight knowing that because he wanted to fight Brock and get the biggest payday of his career.

Agree completely. Not much else to say about it. He saw dollar signs and now wants to cry foul after the fact. Your loss man. Should have asked for more money or not taken the fight if he really took issue with it beforehand. It clearly didn't bother him when he saw the payday in front of him.

 

[thechoice2]

That's simply not the case. The language isn't limited to retirements.



They're applying it to Angela Hill, who was cut.

It is retarded that it applies to returning athletes but not new hires though.

Edit: they also applied it to Ben Saunders, who simply didn't re-sign right away due to family issues taking priority at the time.

No, the difference is those two signed that policy before being cut or leaving the UFC....Brock never signed that agreement prior to his retirement, that's why the policy shouldn't to him. It's unfair to apply a policy to a fighter that never agreed to that policy at any point in time.

 

[Blackjack]

Agree completely. Not much else to say about it. He saw dollar signs and now wants to cry foul after the fact. Your loss man. Should have asked for more money or not taken the fight if he really took issue with it beforehand. It clearly didn't bother him when he saw the payday in front of him.

Exactly, Hunt took that fight voluntarily because he wanted to make a lot of money. In fact, money was the only reason he took the fight - not the promise of moving up in the rankings should he defeat Lesnar and get closer to a title shot. He publicly said that since Lesnar was unranked because of his 5 year absence, a win over Lesnar wouldn't do anything to get him closer to a title shot.

 

[SlomiGa]

It has everything to do with it. By accepting to take the fight knowing that Lesnar wouldn't be tested for 4 months prior to the fight, he gave up the right to complain it wasn't fair. If he honestly didn't believe it was fair he would have rejected the offer. He chose to fight the one fighter in his division who was eligible for that exemption and he took the fight knowing that because he wanted to fight Brock and get the biggest payday of his career.

The exemption wasn't a problem as it doesn't necesarilly mean the opponent is roiding - which he was. Hunt couldn't have known.

 

[Blackjack]

The exemption wasn't a problem as it doesn't necesarilly mean the opponent is roiding - which he was. Hunt couldn't have known.

Yet he publicly stated he did know that Brock was using steroids, His exact words stated that Brock's body was full of steroids "up to the gills." Hunt made that statement before the fight and he said it didn't matter to him because he was confident he'd knock Lesnar out anyway.

 

[AP_RESURRECTION]

Hunt should get paid.
The UFC knew exactly what they were doing.
They took a freak show that they knew was dirty and gave him a pass so that they wouldn't lose a bunch of money with a crappie card.

They did this with no concern for the safety of Borks opponent.

thats prob all true - but they are prob covered legally as well - they're smart - if they were that careless, id be surprised - they do what they want, but usually win when the law is involved

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

No, the difference is those two signed that policy before being cut or leaving the UFC....Brock never signed that agreement prior to his retirement, that's why the policy shouldn't to him. It's unfair to apply a policy to a fighter that never agreed to that policy at any point in time.

It's unfair to say that someone has to agree to drug testing as a condition of employment? OK. Better let half the blue collar workers in the US know.

 

[P4p Islam]

It's funny how a well known steroid cheat defends Hunt. Then again, he got fed strawberries by Brock.

Death penalty to cheaters, that'll teach em

You're an idiot. No offense m8.

 

[thechoice2]

It's unfair to say that someone has to agree to drug testing as a condition of employment? OK. Better let half the blue collar workers in the US know.

Was that what I said?

I clearly said that's a clause in the new UFC USADA contracts that lets fighters know if they retire or their contractual relationship with the UFC ends that they must be in the testing pool for 4 months before they can fight.....Fighters sign and agree to this....Brock didnt sign and agree to that before he returned to the UFC, so to treat him like he did would be unfair to him. The fair thing would be to treat him as if he was a new contractee.

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

Was that what I said?

I clearly said that's a clause in the new UFC USADA contracts that lets fighters know if they retire or their contractual relationship with the UFC ends that they must be in the testing pool for 4 months before they can fight.....Fighters sign and agree to this....Brock didnt sign and agree to that before he returned to the UFC, so to treat him like he did would be unfair to him. The fair thing would be to treat him as if he was a new contractee.

He wasn't under contract. He signed a new one. How is it unfair to treat him under it? He's not a new contractee. There's no language in there saying that "returning athletes who had previously agreed to this".

 

[thechoice2]

He wasn't under contract. He signed a new one. How is it unfair to treat him under it? He's not a new contractee. There's no language in there saying that "returning athletes who had previously agreed to this".

If he signed a new contract and wasn't under contract then he is a new contractee.

 

[2GunTommy]

thats prob all true - but they are prob covered legally as well - they're smart - if they were that careless, id be surprised - they do what they want, but usually win when the law is involved

Yeah I agree they are not going to be held liable.
It's just crappie what they did.

 

[Pacemaker Joe]

If he signed a new contract and wasn't under contract then he is a new contractee.

Who had a previous contract with them, which fits with the language of that clause. He was a returning athlete, plain and simple.

If anything, it's far more fair to apply the USADA deal to Brock than it is to apply it to anyone who was on the roster at the time: they were all compelled to sign it, with the UFC holding their contract over their heads. Brock was free to sign elsewhere if he wanted.

 

[giantveggie]

Irrevs

Mostly, except it gives Frank motivation to argue this point a certain way. If Brock is forced to pay his opponents, Mir may be forced to pay Nog as well.