Archive for March, 2013

Earlier today Nick Diaz’s camp made headlines arguing that the Quebec Commission relaxed their rules regarding weigh-ins by allowing a weight as high as 170.9 pounds to be rounded down to 170.  This was apparently announced shortly before the scheduled weigh in arguably prejudicing a fighter who unnecessarily cut an extra pound.  The second issue raised related to GSP’s post fight drug test arguing it was not properly supervised.  While these allegations, if true, paint the Quebec Commission in a poor light, they likely will do little more than that.

There are two points that initially spring to mind.  First, with the weigh in controversy,Quebec’s Regulation Regarding Combat Sports are silent on how decimals are to be treated.  Perhaps legislative amendment is required but absent legislative clarity this appears to be a matter of discretion and it is difficult to see how the Commission’s exercise of discretion with respect to decimals is appealable provided the discretion is being excersied equally and consistently for fighters in a bout.  Section 168(7) states that the fighter’s contract must specify “the maximum weight that the contestant must achieve at the official weigh-in“.  This strongly suggests the measurement of the binding weight agreed to by the fighters will be  deferred to the Commission’s exercise of powers.   That said, if there is evidence of inconsistency in application of this discretion from event to event then that is poor judgement on the part of the commission.  Worse yet, however, it appears the use of decimals was an ‘off the record’ decision which frankly may delegitimize this use of discretion.

Second, with respect to allegations that GSP’s post fight drug test was not properly supervised I fail to see how a legal remedy can arise from this this oversight alone.  If this allegation is true it certainly reflects poorly on the Commission, however, the drug test procedures are there to bind the athletes, not the Commission.  The Regulations addressing the purpose and ability to subject fighters to drug tests reads as follows:

71.1.  A person authorized by the president of the board under section 46.2.2 of the Act respecting safety in sports (chapter S-3.1) and designated to take urine samples may take urine samples from a contestant up to 3 hours before and 6 hours after a bout.

The taking of samples is intended to establish whether a contestant having taken part in a combat sports event has taken a substance, in excess of the permitted quantity, appearing on the list of Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods contained in the Olympic Movement Anti-Doping Code published by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) whose headquarters are located at Château de Vidy, 1007 Lausanne, Switzerland, accessible via the electronic address (http://www.olympic.org/), as it reads on the date of the sampling.

These standards are set to ensure the integrity of the testing process to avoid abuse by fighters.  This is expressly spelled out is s. 71.1.  This, coupled with the fact that the authority to test is clearly discretionary (“may take urine samples“) will likely leave Nick Diaz’s complaint without remedy on this issue.

This recent controversy reminds me of the murmurings made the Chael Sonnen camp following his second defeat to Anderson Silva alleging an ‘intended foul’.   A complaint that may generate headlines but likely not a legal remedy.   That being said, this controversy has certainly shined a much needed spotlight on the antics of the Quebec Commission and it appears they need to clean up their act.  Hopefully all of the light the Diaz camp is shining on the Quebec Commission’s antics will lead to apparently much needed disinfecting.

syringe image

In case there aren’t enough reasons to avoid illegal Performance Enhancing Drugs, their use may also open the door to civil or criminal repercussions following otherwise lawful MMA bouts.

You need look no further than the aftermath of the McSorley/Brashear altercation or the Bertuzzi/Moore incident to recognize that the law sets limits to consent of harm in sports.

With Bill S-209 giving combat sports a legal framework in Canada, a question that will arise is when will consent be exceeded in MMA?   This is a live issue because while the Bill S-209 Criminal Code amendments protect sanctioned bouts from illegal ‘prize-fight’ status,  they do not over-ride the assault provisions of the Criminal Code.

Enter PED abuse.  What separates PED abuse in MMA from other sports is the risk of harm to fellow competitors.  Lance Armstrong’s PED fueled cycling feats did not expose his opponents to risk of physical harm.  The same cannot be said when a fighter gains physical advantage over another involved in a striking or grappling contest.  When athletes consent to an MMA bout there is an agreement that the rules of engagement will be abided by.  If a competitor uses illegal PED’s and fails to disclose this prior to the match that will arguably trigger the Assault provisions of the Criminal Code.

Consent is a recognized defence to criminal charges of assault.  One limit to this defence is that consent cannot be obtained by fraud.  If an athlete uses and fails to disclose the use of illegal PED’s consent is arguably stripped away opening the door to not only criminal assault charges but also to civil suits for damages.

So what factors would a Court look at in deciding whether consent is obtained by fraud?  The leading decision in this field of law (R v. Mabior) was recently released by the Supreme Court of Canada.  While Mabior dealt with consent to sexual contact where an HIV positive status was not disclosed, its analysis can equally be applied to consent to MMA.  The Court held that consent to contact which would otherwise be valid can be taken away if a participant

  1. Fails to disclose a key fact
  2. The other participant would not have participated had that fact been known
  3. The activity consented to poses ‘a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm’ by virtue of the non-disclosed fact.

Where an athlete gains physical advantage over an opponent in MMA through the use of illegal PED’s all of the above factors are arguably met.

Want a combat sports based example of rule breaking leading to criminal and civil consequences?  Look no further than the Collins v. Resto affair (read footnote #2 to see the criminal repercussions).

Fraud can delay the operation of limitation periods exposing cheaters to legal repercussions years after the fact.   A quick look at Lance Armstrong gives a striking example of how serious the legal consequences can be after one achieves all they desire through cheating in sport.  If you are an MMA athlete stay clear of illegal PED’s.  Don’t gamble with your and your opponent’s livelihood.  You won’t want to be on the wrong end of the test case on this issue.

_______________________

Update October 6, 2014 – For an example of a combat athlete withdrawing consent following a scheduled opponent testing positive for a PED you can look to page 4-5 of World of Boxing v. Don King.

_________________________

Update February 10, 2015This month both GSP and Ronda Rousey suggested that fighting a PED using opponent is akin to fighting an opponent armed with a weapon.  Strong evidence, coming from UFC champions, that consent is exceeded with fraudulent PED use.

__________________________

Update February 18, 2015 – Today, during the UFC’s press conference addressing the need to clean up doping in the sport, company President Dana White expressly acknowledged that a fight with one opponent cheating through doping is “incredibly dangerous” with the following noteworthy comment –

We’re going to move a lot faster than baseball did. They’re hitting a ball with a stick. Who cares?.  You have two human beings, who go in and compete in combat sports. And if one is using performance enhancing drugs, it’s incredibly dangerous. I hate it. I hate everything about it. If you can’t compete, based on your natural abilities, you don’t belong here.

__________________________

Update July 10, 2015This week UFC welterweight Travis Brown spoke out against PED users adding weight to the argument that clean athletes do not consent to fight doping fighters.  Brown provided the following pointed comment ““People do die doing this sh-t – just not in the UFC yet, fortunately. The day is gonna come when it happens. We all know that. If it happens to someone that got beat by a known juicer, is that not going to be more of an issue? I don’t want to be the dead one because a motherf-cker was sticking needles in himself all day.”

___________________________

Update October 16, 2015this week the Supreme Court of Canada released reasons confirming that doping in sport is outright criminal fraud making the above argument far more than mere speculation.