Last year the UFC controversially granted Brock Lesnar an exemption to the usual rule that returning athletes be in the US Anti Doping Agency’s testing pool for at least 4 months prior to competing.  Lesnar subsequently failed both an in and out of competition test surrounding UFC 200 and this created a host of legal consequences including allegations of racketeering against the UFC.

Despite this rocky history the UFC is again exercising their discretion to waive the 4 month period for a returning athlete.  Today the UFC published the following

On December 13, 2016, UFC strawweight Angela Hill was re-enrolled by USADA into the UFC Anti-Doping Policy Registered Testing Pool (RTP). Hill had previously been part of the RTP as a contracted athlete in 2015, before she was released at the discretion of UFC and subsequently removed from the program. UFC is granting Hill an exemption to the four-month RTP requirement, which will allow her to compete against Jessica Andrade on February 4, 2017, in Houston, Texas.

Under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy section 5.7.1, in exceptional circumstances or where the strict application of that rule would be manifestly unfair to an athlete, UFC can grant a waiver to the four-month requirement. UFC determined that Hill met that criteria for the following reasons:

– Hill underwent a thorough education process on the UFC Anti-Doping Policy upon her first inclusion in the RTP in 2015.

– Upon her re-enrollment into the RTP on December 13, 2017, Hill received additional education and became immediately subject to no advance notice, out-of-competition testing by USADA, making her subject to such testing for more than 7 weeks before her competition.  Since Hill has returned to the RTP, she has undergone unannounced testing by USADA,and will continue to be subject to such testing while she remains in the RTP.

– It was not at Hill’s discretion that she was removed from the RTP in 2015. The intent of the 4-month rule is to prevent athletes from unfairly manipulating their inclusion in the RTP.

– UFC and USADA are in the final stages of refining the UFC Anti-Doping Policy. Included in that refinement, will be a change to the 4-month rule, whereby only athletes who chose at their discretion to be removed from the RTP will be required to have an extended presence in the RTP before returning to competition.



Tonight Celine Haga choked her opponent unconscious at Invicta 21 as her bout came to an end but instead of being declared the winner the matter went to the judges who handed her opponent a victory.

The bout took place in Kansas City and was regulated by Missouri’s Office of Athletics.

This is an unusual event and does not appear to be clearly defined in the applicable regulations.  In other words the Regulations don’t expressly say “when a figther is unconscious before the bell due to a legal submission they will be declared the loser of the bout“.  It is a result which should be self evident.

As was learned from the Tonya Evinger controversy, Missouri does have appellate rights for fighters but these are limited in scope.

Chapter 7 of Missouri’s MMA Rules sets out the following appellate rights:

Any party may contest the outcome of any bout within ten (10) days of the decision by writing all the facts and the basis for the complaint. The complaint must be forwarded to the office. If there appears to be a violation of these rules, the director or his/her designate shall investigate, and, if the claims seem to be substantial, hold a hearing and issue its findings and decision.

The next question is when can the commission overturn the result of a bout on appeal?  This is where things become a little murkier.

Clearly they can change the ‘outcome of a bout‘ but are silent on the circumstances  when they can do so. All the appellate rules reference is needing a “violation of these rules“.

There is no universal appellate standard in MMA but the most common circumstances for changing the outcome of a bout across other jurisdictions are when the following occur:

1.  The Commission determines that there was collusion affecting the result of the contest or exhibition;

2.  The compilation of the scorecards of the judges discloses an error which shows that the decision was given to the wrong unarmed combatant; or

3.  As the result of an error in interpreting a provision of this chapter, the referee has rendered an incorrect decision.

The only one of these that can be of value to Haga is #3 but without pointing to a Rule that the referee should have declared a different result a conventional appeal may lack the needed framework.

Haga may not be out of luck, however, as Chapter 8 20 CSR 2040-8.180 section 11 provides that

… Any questions or interpretations shall be referred to the office. If an immediate decision is required, it shall be referred to the inspector present. In the event a situation occurs at the contest and there are no regulations in place to cover the situation, the inspector of the event shall make a decision on the matter. The inspector’s ruling shall be final...

Haga should consider citing this rule, asking the Inspector to overturn the bout result to a win in her favor and in support cite what co-founder of the Unified Rules, Referee John McCarthey says should occur in this circumstance if the rules are silent, namely that “if the fight finishes with an athlete unconscious in a submission, the result is a submission victory for the athlete applying the submission.

If the Inspector is unwilling to do so Haga can scour the rules pointing to anything supporting her argument in a formal appeal.  One rule Haga can point to is 20 CSR 2040-8.110 which states a referee may “stop or terminate a bout” where “The referee determines that one (1) of the contestants is at substantial risk of serious harm or injury and despite such harm or injury cannot or will not submit“.  This language would clearly apply to a situation where a fighter is choked unconscious.

Missouri’s MMA regulations contain a hodge-podge of obscure rules such as requiring timekeepers to keep a “knockdown count” which applies when a fighter is “unable to defend herself” and further that a fighter cannot be saved by the bell in such a situation.  Instead if a fighter is unable to defend herself “within ten seconds of the end of the round,, the timekeeper shall not ring the bell until the referee indicates the contestant is ready“.

Overturning bout results is notoriously difficult but whatever route it takes to get there, hopefully this result will be overturned.

In the latest UFC piracy prosecution, a default judgement request of $60,000 was rejected and the Court assessed damages at $8,242.

In the recent case (Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Meunier) the Defendant displayed UFC 173 at a commercial establishment without paying the commercial sub-licencing fee to the Plaintiff.  The fee would have been $1,600.

Some 50 patrons were present at the time.  The Plaintiff sued asking for $60,000 in statutory and enhanced damages.   The US District Court, N.D. New York rejected this request as disproportionate.  Instead the court awarded statutory damages of $2,747.50.  The Court arrived at this figure by taking the number of patrons and multiplying that number by the cost each of them would have paid to individually order the program on a residential basis.  The Court then took this figure and doubled it as enhanced damages.  In finding this was a fair disposition District Judge Lawrence Kahn provided the following reasons:

…courts in this circuit rarely grant the maximum allowable damages…Instead, several courts have used the following formula for calculating damages: they multiply the number of patrons who viewed the event by $54.95, which has been used as the estimated residential fee for a pay-per-view broadcast… As Plaintiff alleges that at least fifty patrons were present for UFC 173… the Court multiplies that number by $54.95 to calculate statutory damages, which amount to $2,747.50. This amount is sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for its lost revenue—Plaintiff would have charged Defendant $1,600 to purchase and display UFC 173 for its patrons…and it is in line with the statutory damages that other courts have awarded under similar circumstances…

In order to determine the proper amount of enhanced damages in such cases, courts generally consider the following factors: “allegations of: (1) repeated violations over an extended period of time; (2) substantial unlawful monetary gains; (3) significant actual damages to plaintiff; (4) defendant’s advertising for the intended broadcast of the event; and (5) defendant’s charging a cover charge or charging premiums for food and drinks.”… Here, Defendants benefitted from a ten dollar cover charge…they advertised for the event… and they received substantial monetary gains by not paying the required licensing fee and presumably by selling drinks to patrons watching the event.

Under similar circumstances, other courts in this circuit have assessed enhanced damages equal to two times the amount of statutory damages, which effectively amounts to an award of treble damages….In this case, the Court finds that an enhanced damages award of twice the statutory damages is sufficient to compensate Plaintiff and to deter Defendants from future violations.


Late last year Mark Hunt threatened to sue the UFC and Brock Lesnar after the high profile fighter tested positive for banned substances following UFC 200.  He even suggested racketeering allegations.  Today Hunt made good on his promise suing Zuffa, Lesnar, and Dana White in Federal Court.

The full court filing can be found here – mark-hunt-vs-ufc-doping-lawsuit (H/T to ESPN’s Brett Okamoto who broke this story and was kind enough to provide me with a copy of the filing)

In the 27 page filing, Hunt alleges a conspiracy between the UFC, White and Lesnar to allow Lesnar to compete at UFC 200 while on performance enhancing drugs without facing repercussions until after the fact.

In a soundbite the lawsuit suggests profit over safety.

Hunt highlights the UFC’s anti doping policy’s central goal of protecting fighters


then goes on to note that, by granting Lesnar an exemption of the usual 4 month USADA testing period for returning UFC athletes, the UFC conspired to allow Lesnar to dope violating the foundation of the anti doping policy.

Hunt Conspiracy Allegation.PNG

Perhaps most troublesome for the UFC, Hunt goes on to allege that this is one incident in a history of doping coverups setting out a pattern going opening the door to the UFC’s TRT Era alleging as follows:

Hunt TRT Era Allegatiion.PNG

The lawsuit relies on 8 causes of actions (ie formal legal grounds for suing).  Hunt alleges the following

  1. Unlawful Racketeering in violation of Federal law
  2. Unlawful Racketeering in violation of Nevada state law
  3. Fraud
  4. Obtaining Hunt’s Services (to fight Lesnar) under false pretenses
  5. Breach of Contract
  6. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
  7. Negligence
  8. Unjust Enrichment

Hunt’s likely biggest barrier to this lawsuit will be his own previous out of court statements noting that he did not care if Lesnar was doping, he would fight him anyway telling MMAJunkie

I don’t care – everyone should be on a level playing field, to be honest, but it is what it is….I don’t care if you’re cheating or not. I’ll punch your face in. That’s all I’ve got.

Zuffa will certainly throw this evidence in Hunt’s face challenging his suggestion that he is opposed to fighting PED using opponents.  Also troubling for Hunt will be the fact that Zuffa’s exemption for Lesnar’s 4 month testing period was publicly revealed prior to the bout and Hunt fought anyways.  It is difficult to suggest fraudulent concealment when the “concealed” facts were expressly known pre-fight.

Zuffa will likely attempt to rely on the waiver contained in the UFC/USADA anti doping policy which Hunt contractually agreed to and reads as follows


Hunt’s allegations, however, go well beyond good faith mistakes and suggests a bad faith conspiracy so the above waiver likely will not be of value.

The UFC will also likely rely on the waiver in Hunt’s promotional contract which probably reads as follows:

Zuffa contract release 1.PNG

Zuffa contract release 2.PNG

If this lawsuit survives early attempts at dismissal based on the above waivers its game on.  The suggestions of a long running doping conspiracy going back to the TRT Era will open the door to a broad and ugly discovery process.

I suspect if this claim survives summary dismissal attempts Zuffa will be motivated to reach settlement before the sport’s TRT Era and in-house doping waivers are exposed under the bright spotlights of the judiciary.   The harm that such a process can cause their brand, even if the lawsuit is successfully defeated, can greatly outweigh the short term pain of a prompt and confidential settlement.


Update January 13, 2017 – The meeting has now taken place and the NAC unanimously voted in support of item 10


Arguably no substance has resulted in more controversial athletic commission disciplinary decisions than marijuana.  Sober fighters testing positive for marijuana metabolites which could have been consumed many days prior to competition have been handed stiff fines and penalties with much public backlash.

Interestingly, the Nevada Athletic Commission, who have been behind some of the most controversial decisions are considering outright removing marijuana as a banned substance.

In addition to voting on whether to adopt the ABC’s updates to MMA’s unified Rules, the NAC’s agenda for their January 13 meeting notes the following (item 10)

Discussion regarding whether to direct the Executive Director to initiate a regulation project under Nevada Revised Statutes(NRS) chapter 233B to possibly amend Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) chapter 467 to include the following potential changes: 1) the possible exclusion of cannabinoids from the list of Prohibited Substances and Methods pursuant to passage of Nevada Ballot Initiative Question 2 (2016); 2) incorporation by reference of the Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports’ Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts; and 3) any other changes to NAC 467 as deemed appropriate and necessary by the Commission, for possible action.

This suggestion, if followed, would be a welcome development. Marijuana, alcohol and other so called ‘drugs of abuse’ are not performance enhancing.  Intoxicating substances are only banned in competition in the combat sports world for the safety of the fighter consuming them.  No regulator will allow a fighting athlete to compete while impaired and little argument can be made against this objective.

As previously discussed commissions can fulfill this goal by relying on the integrity of pre bout medical screenings.  Physicians are present at regulated events.  It would take little time and effort for a once over to ensure no competitor is about to fight while showing signs of impairment.  If a fighter is not objectively impaired in any way and satisfies physicians present then the regulator’s legitimate safety concerns are meaningfully met.  Allowing a bout to take place, on the other hand, and finding traces of substances that could have been consumed days or weeks prior, misses this objective and is a practice which regulators should seriously consider re-evaluating.


Update January 10, 2017 Interstingly Hunt has now sued the Zuffa, Dana White and Brock Lesnar.  He did not plead assault/battery as those causes of action are legally problematic as per below but did plead the following causes of action

  1. Unlawful Racketeering in violation of Federal law
  2. Unlawful Racketeering in violation of Nevada state law
  3. Fraud
  4. Obtaining Hunt’s Services (to fight Lesnar) under false pretenses
  5. Breach of Contract
  6. Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
  7. Negligence
  8. Unjust Enrichment


After learning that his UFC 200 opponent was caught using prohibited substances Mark Hunt threatened to sue the UFC and Brock Lesnar going so far as to suggest litigation based on rackateering charges.  The “Super Samoan”also stated he likely was done fighting in the UFC given the unsafe working environment‘.

He has apparently backed down from this position now agreeing to fight Alistair Overeem at UFC 209.  

Hunt demanded stronger language added to his contracts in case a future opponent is found guilty of doping but his wishes have gone unanswered.  Hunt told New Zealand publication Stuff that he will outright sue any opponent who tests positive for steroids noting “Every fighter I fight, if he gets caught through the process then I’ll sue him personally…If I don’t get help from the company I’ll do it myself.

There is already a paper-trail of PED use for Lesnar so why not sue him?  The short answer is consent.  Hunt likely received legal advice that he shot his own chances of success in a Lesnar based lawsuit by some of his own statements.

In June 2016, prior to his bout with Lesnar who was under scrutiny for receiving a UFC hall pass from the normal 4 month mandatory testing period for returning athletes, Hunt stated he outright did not care if Lesnar was using performance enhancing drugs telling MMAJunkieI don’t care – everyone should be on a level playing field, to be honest, but it is what it is….I don’t care if you’re cheating or not. I’ll punch your face in. That’s all I’ve got.

Why would these comments undermine a potential Lesnar lawsuit?  Because lack of consent would be the cornerstone of a lawsuit against a fighter who cheated through illicit PED use.

As previously discussed a successful lawsuit against a PED using opponent would likely be based on the torts of assault/battery with the argument being that consent to fight did not exist against a doping opponent who fraudulently concealed PED use.

Despite all the risks, the fight game is allowed based on one fundamental principle, informed consent.  Adults generally can consent to engage in risky activity, even if it poses a risk of harm to themselves and their competitor.  Here the issue of ‘informed’ consent becomes crucial.  Relevant facts which can vitiate consent cannot be swept under the rug otherwise the integrity of the consent is compromised.

There is precedent that doping can undermine consent in combative sports and that concealed cheating can amount to “reckless assault” even on the criminal standard of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

Hunt’s previous comments would seriously undermine a lawsuit against Lesnar.

His latest comments, on the other hand, help pave the road for a successful lawsuit should he face a future PED using opponent.  Hunt is building the framework of doping vitiating consent and will be on far stronger legal footing should he face yet another fighter testing positive for prohibited substances.

The California State Athletic Commission has taken a step which has received little publicity but is deserving of attention by the combative sports community.  They have produced a series of videos focusing on fighter health and safety issues, namely acute traumatic brain injury, cumulative concussions and dangers of dehydration.  With CTE being a potential reality in any contact sport these are important topics to understand.

If you are a combat sports fighter, trainer, manager or other stakeholder these videos are well worth your time to get up to speed on these important topics.  With fighter safety being the primary reason for an Athletic Commission’s existence  Andy Foster and the CSAC deserve a public thank you for a job well done in producing these insightful videos.

At UFC 207 Time Means landed illegal knees to the head of a grounded opponent resulting in a no-contest.  Following the bout Means gave an interview where he demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of being grounded.  Under the so called ‘unified’ rules of MMA these misunderstandings should not exist as the definition has been identical for over a decade.  With the new year, however, this is changing in a fragmented way.

Last year the vast majority of Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports members voted to overhaul the unified rules.  A time-frame of January 1, 2017 was agreed upon to bring the changes in. The changes include an overhaul of MMA’s judging criteria, allowing heel strikes to the kidney, prohibiting reaching towards an opponents face with an open hand and, most importantly, redefining grounded fighter.

Changing the meaning of a grounded fighter is important as it defines when it is legal to kick and knee an opponent’s head.  The new definition, however, has not been (and likely will not be) adopted in all jurisdictions.

As Marc Raimondi reports, “New Jersey, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, Virginia, Maryland and South Dakota are among the states that will not adopt the new rules in full, per data collected by the ABC obtained by MMA Fighting. Texas will not vote on the rules until March. Nevada will “possibly” vote on the rules changes in January, according to executive director Bob Bennett.

My own jurisdiction, British Columbia, is legislatively tied to New Jersey’s rules so BC is likely another jurisdiction that will not be adopting the new rules.

In short, with the new year fighters, coaches and managers must be aware of the jurisdiction they are in and understand the rules in place.  The rules for MMA were never truly ‘unified’ however they are now going to be more fragmented than they have been in many years.


Earlier this month Jake Ellenberger lost a bout in a bizarre fashion.  While competing on the UFC TUF 24 finale Ellenberger slipped and his left foot wedged between the mat and the bottom fence..  His opponent proceeded to (legally) reign down strikes until referee Herb Dean called timeout.  He inquired if this could be considered an equipment failure, and when told the answer was no called a TKO ending to the bout.

Ellenberger appealed raising several compelling points including questioning the propriety of the referee retroactively calling the bout a TKO stoppage after initially calling a timeout.

Unfortunately for Ellenberger, and in another example of the very restrictive circumstances in which appeals can succeed, the Nevada Athletic Commission dismissed the appeal noting no error in interpreting the rules took place in the bizarre set of facts leading to the end of the bout.

In dismissing the appeal Executive Director Bob Bennett concluded “there is no provision in NAC 467 that prevents referees from calling a timeout to consult with other officials prior to rendering a decision.”  In justifying the outcome despite other occasions where equipment failure/interference led to a timeout and restarting the bout Bennett noted “NAC 467 does not include a provision that requires the continuation of contests in such circumstances.  Alleged precedent does not provide grounds for a change of a referee’s decision“.

I have obtained a copy of Bennett’s full reasons dismissing the appeal and these can be accessed here for anyone interested.



This week it was announced that UFC heavyweight Josh failed an out-of-competition drug test administered by USADA on December 9, 2016.

With this news Barnett may gain the unenviable distinction of earning the most doping failures in MMA history testing positive after UFC 34, then testing positive for Boldenone, Nandrolone and Fluoxymesterone after UFC 36 and lastly testing positive for Drostanolone in an Affliction bout in 2009.

So the question now is, if USADA proves this latest violation, can Barnett face steeper penalties due to his blemished past?  With the possibility of a lifetime ban for a third violation it is an important issue.

In short the answer is yes and no.  No to the fact that the past doping cannot be considered a past policy violation.  Yes to the fact that his past may be considered an ‘aggravating’ circumstance.

Section 10.7 of the UFC/USADA custom tailored anti doping policy deals with multiple doping infractions and calls for steeper penalties for subsequent “Anti-Doping Policy Violations”.  In other words, past violations have to be part of the UFC/USADA scheme to trigger steeper penalties.  Barnett’s do not.  The specific language is as follows:

10.7.1 For an Athlete or other Person’s second Anti-Doping Policy Violation, the period of Ineligibility shall be the greater of:

(a) six months;

(b) one-half of the period of Ineligibility imposed for the first Anti-Doping Policy Violation without taking into account any reduction under Article 10.6; or

(c) twice the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable to the second Anti-Doping Policy Violation treated as if it were a first violation, without taking into account any reduction under Article 10.6.

The period of Ineligibility established above may then be further reduced by the application of Article 10.6.

10.7.2 A third Anti-Doping Policy Violation will result in a period of Ineligibility of a minimum of double the period of Ineligibility which would apply if it were a second violation up to lifetime Ineligibility.

10.7.3 An Anti-Doping Policy Violation for which an Athlete or other Person has established No Fault or Negligence shall not be considered a prior violation for purposes of this Article

In case the above leaves any doubt section 10.7.4 dispels these expressly stating as follows

an Anti-Doping Policy Violation will only be considered a second violation if USADA can establish that the Athlete or other Person committed the second Anti-Doping Policy Violation after the Athlete or other Person received notice pursuant to Article 7, or after USADA made reasonable efforts to give notice of the first Anti-Doping Policy Violation

The only way Barnett’s past can come to haunt him is if USADA considers it to meet the definition of “aggravating circumstances” under the policy.  If these exist “The period of Ineligibility may be increased up to an additional two years“.

These are defined as follows:

Aggravating Circumstances exist where the Anti-Doping Policy Violation was intentional, the Anti-Doping Policy Violation had significant potential to enhance an Athlete’s Bout performance, and one of the following additional factors is present: the Athlete’s or other Person committed the Anti-Doping Policy Violation as part of a doping plan or scheme, either individually or involving a conspiracy or common enterprise to commit an Anti-Doping Policy Violation; the Athlete or other Person Used or Possessed multiple Prohibited Substances or Prohibited Methods or Used or Possessed a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method on multiple occasions; the Athlete or Person engaged in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an Anti-Doping Policy Violation.

Depending on the results of the test an argument can be made that aggravating circumstances exist for a repeat PED using athlete even if past use fell outside of the policy timeframe.

It is unlikely, however, that his can apply to an out-of-competition test as the substance has to have a “significant potential to enhance an Athlete’s Bout performance” and with no bout having taken place this section arguably is not triggered.