Update on Mark Hunt's lawsuit against UFC

[SouthernThrown]

Lesnar was boring asf in that fight.

Man if mark wasn't a fucking idiot he really could have gotten money. Dana really fucked him on that fight.

 

[Sausage_Carius]

Interesting, thanks for posting. That battery claim is going to be issuesome for Mark to establish. There's a video out there where he acknowledges the steroid use and he's willing to step in there anyway. Hope that doesn't bite him in the ass.

The fraud claim seems plausible.

He can claim that outright refusing to fight would have resulted in his censure by the UFC with direct negative consequences due to a established precedent of similar behaviour by the UFC that they themselves admitted was their standard operating procedure. Therefore he had no choice, professionally, but to accept the fight regardless of the circumstances. He can point directly to the other case where the UFC's internal documents were released basicly backing up this claim.

I'm not saying it would succeed but it's there.

 

[Sausage_Carius]

There is a lot of nuance in how the legal system works, but in short this is a substantial win for Hunt. The Ninth Circuit ruling the fraud claim should be heard is a huge deal.

I remember thinking it was somewhat outrageous they secured a summary judgement and got fraud tossed.

Dana is an officer officially representing the UFC when he negotiates a bout agreement with Hunt, and he's on record making claims about Lesnar fighting clean because of the testing in place. We know that was complete bullshit and it was setup in such a way he was enabled to fight on PEDS.

I don't know how you talk your way around it - the UFC cheated Hunt.

You know what wouldn't surprise me? That the UFC lawyers claimed, successfully, that Dana's statements, outside of officially signed bout agreements, cannot be used against him because he lies so much, as part of his role, he cannot differentiate between a statement he makes that is true and one that is false.

That's how a case against Bill O'Reilly went when someone tried to use his public statements in court. Pretty sure the Judge even used this in his decision. Can't remember the other details but that part stuck out to me so I remember it.

EDIT: I should also point out two other similar recent cases that were dismissed. One against Rachel Maddow and the other against Tucker Carlson. In both instances they were sued for false made up statements they made on air. In both instances the lawyers successfully argued that their public statements are in part performance and exaggerations made by them in such statements therefore cannot be used against them because no reasonable person would believe that their public statements were true. In both instances the Judge agreed.

 

[kflo]

There's probably something in my earlier posts, from years ago. I'm relying on memory here because I can't be bothered revisiting everything again & I'm sleep deprived from getting up early to watch this morning's event

Bork was negotiating with Dana for a long time but it was kept on the lowdown because of his wwe contract. That should give you a clue as to the timing of the announcements, Lesnar's cycle & how things panned out. What you're saying is true but there was definitely a backstory to this so I'm gonna say that Lesnar WAS planned for UFC 200

I used to follow Hunt on Facebook untill i got fed up with his drunk raves, anyway he posted a video update of the initial fight announcement & it kinda went downhill from there

Hunt's opponents all had a tendency to pop for PED's. He hated the testing protocol & whined about being watched while he pooped which is fair enough I guess

I don’t think there’s any chance they were planning on brock to be on the same card as conor. It’s not necessary and too much $$$ to pay out.

Again, it wasn’t planned for brock to be on 200 until after conor fell through. That made it impossible for brock to fight at 200 without the exemption.

 

[rjmbrd]

You know what wouldn't surprise me? That the UFC lawyers claimed, successfully, that Dana's statements, outside of officially signed bout agreements, cannot be used against him because he lies so much, as part of his role, he cannot differentiate between a statement he makes that is true and one that is false.

That's how a case against Bill O'Reilly went when someone tried to use his public statements in court. Pretty sure the Judge even used this in his decision. Can't remember the other details but that part stuck out to me so I remember it.

EDIT: I should also point out two other similar recent cases that were dismissed. One against Rachel Maddow and the other against Tucker Carlson. In both instances they were sued for false made up statements they made on air. In both instances the lawyers successfully argued that their public statements are in part performance and exaggerations made by them in such statements therefore cannot be used against them because no reasonable person would believe that their public statements were true. In both instances the Judge agreed.

I can see it being argued but he's the president of the business and in an official capacity, as opposed to an on air talent / entertainer.

That type of argument shouldn't hold water upon scrutiny, and thankfully appeals set it back.

 

[Sausage_Carius]

I can see it being argued but he's the president of the business and in an official capacity, as opposed to an on air talent / entertainer.

That type of argument shouldn't hold water upon scrutiny, and thankfully appeals set it back.

I agree with you 100%. Just pointing out the stupid bullshit decisions that already exist and may be argued as precedent.

 

[kflo]

Iirc, there was a tiny fee payable to get the results before the fight, like $100 or something.

UFC said they would ensure he was clean but wasn't willing to spend a tiny sum to get results pre fight.

That’s the one fair point although it’s not part of their procedure nor did it guarantee they’d get the results in time. But that’s a fair point.

 

[modulus]

Freaking Dana getting sued for fraud and falsely representing facts. If Dana was ever held accountable for all of his myriad of BS he'd be sued to the 9th circle of freaking hell and they still wouldn't be done with his lying ass - it's no wonder he's a big Trump suck up.

 

[Dionysian]

The battery part is a lost cause but he's got good footing for the rest of them IMO

 

[avenue94]

Do you have a quote of white saying lesnar was clean?

What was the setup btw?

It's one of the exhibits in the lawsuit, Hunt texted Dana asking if Lesnad was going to be clean and Dana was like totes bro or something along those lines. Been a while since I've read it but that's the gist.

 

[crodor3]

so nothing? because that's literally happened countless of times, not just in the UFC but in every single professional sport known to man.

Yes. This is a combat sport where the use of peds by one party and not the other give as dangerous advantage. Dangerous meaning he could be hurt or killed because some idiot was allowed to take peds unimpeded. Are you fucking numb or just pretending to be?

 

[Sweater of AV]

Good for Mark. Hope something positive comes out of this mess.

 

[Shaddows]

In 2016, former UFC fighter Mark Hunt sued the UFC, Dana White, and Brock Lesnar on the heels of UFC 200, pictured above. Hunt claimed that the UFC and White, specifically, knew that Brock Lesnar had taken performance-enhancing drugs and let him fight anyway. Lesnar won the fight, but the decision was overturned when it was revealed that Lesnar failed a drug test. With that, Hunt alleged a slew of wrongdoings, including fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, battery, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.



In 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed the majority of Hunt's claims. All claims against White and Lesnar were dismissed. The only claim that remained was the alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, that claim was later thrown out after the UFC secured a summary judgment. Now, on September 24, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit brought the case back to life.



The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of two of his claims: fraud and battery. The 2019 dismissal of Hunt's claims of unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was affirmed. Still, this serves as a massive breakthrough for Hunt, as the district court will have to again hear his claims for fraud and battery.



As for the fraud claim, the Ninth Circuit held that Dana White's statement promising that Lesnar "will be the most tested athlete on this card" could form a basis for fraud as it was a false representation of material fact.

While the district court felt that any damages arising out of fraud were too speculative (projecting Hunt's purse had he won and Lesnar not taken PEDs), the Ninth Circuit took a different route. The court envisioned damages through a different lens than wins and losses: withdrawal. Had Hunt known of the doping scheme, he claims he would have dropped out of UFC 200. With that, damages become a bit easier to discern, according to the court. This theory of damages is "far more susceptible to proof."

As for Hunt's other revived claim, battery, the court hashed out the doctrine of assumption of the risk in sport. A battery is an intentional and offensive touching of a person who has not consented to the touching. Did Brock Lesnar commit a battery by fighting Mark Hunt in the octagon? Would the UFC be vicariously liable? The Restatement identifies assumption of risk as "[c]onsent to conduct that is merely negligent, creating an unreasonable risk of harm." In the NFL, for example, a running back cannot claim that a linebacker committed a battery after a routine tackle caused an injury. Athletes assume the inherent risks of the game. But did Mark Hunt assume the risk that he would have to fight someone taking performance-enhancing drugs? It's a question I look forward to the U.S. District Court in Nevada answering.



We will keep tabs on this lawsuit as it makes its way back to the district court on remand. It has been a busy year for the UFC and litigation.



https://www.conductdetrimental.com/...ores-big-court-win-against-ufc-and-dana-white

While I support Hunt 100%, the biggest beef I have with Hunt's allegations are the fact that I recall clearly that a reporter asked him about suspicion of Lesnar's PED abuse, Hunt dismissed it and noted he would beat Lesnar either way.
Then he lost and started crying.

Had he said he trusted the UFC to not allow a fighter under PED to enter the octagon, I would agree with him.
But once he said he would still fight (and win), I think this is the clear case of sour grapes.

 

[Shaddows]

Lesnar was tested 8 times by usada for that fight. Who was tested more?

what is the point of getting tested if you fail a test and are allowed to fight anyway???

 

[kflo]

It's one of the exhibits in the lawsuit, Hunt texted Dana asking if Lesnad was going to be clean and Dana was like totes bro or something along those lines. Been a while since I've read it but that's the gist.

That is not in the complaint. Dana said they were testing the shit outta him. Can’t find any “totes” or anything resembling an assurance.

 

[kflo]

what is the point of getting tested if you fail a test and are allowed to fight anyway???

His test result came back after the fight. His tests before the fight were negative.

 

[The Big Babou]

It's one of the exhibits in the lawsuit, Hunt texted Dana asking if Lesnad was going to be clean and Dana was like totes bro or something along those lines. Been a while since I've read it but that's the gist.

Yeah I remember this too, maybe saw it on Hunt's Facebook page

 

[HockeyBjj]

What does Hunt have for court admissible proof the UFC knew Lesnar was using PEDS?

His pre-fight tests were negative, so what’s Hunts evidence the UfC either knew or helped make sure those tests were negative when, to the legal view, the UFC never saw any positive test until after the fight?

 

[kflo]

Yeah I remember this too, maybe saw it on Hunt's Facebook page

The complaint is embedded in here:
https://www.mmafighting.com/2017/6/...-dismiss-moves-forward-with-amended-complaint

And in full here:
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/vi...s/chorus_asset/file/8621395/huntamended.0.pdf

I can’t find any reference to a “totes”.

 

[The Big Babou]

His test result came back after the fight. His tests before the fight were negative.

Mate are you sure they came back negative?

I don’t think there’s any chance they were planning on brock to be on the same card as conor. It’s not necessary and too much $$$ to pay out.

Again, it wasn’t planned for brock to be on 200 until after conor fell through. That made it impossible for brock to fight at 200 without the exemption.

I don't think it was actually that simple.

I'm a bit hazy on the details as its been a while but I do remember there was a backstory relating to Brock coming to UFC200 & getting that exemption. Some of the old dogs here might be able to corroborate

What makes you so certain that the UFC didn't have something going on with Lesnar beforehand?