All but one count of Mark Hunt’s lawsuit against the UFC, UFC President Dana White and Brock Lesnar was thrown out in U.S. District Court. The former UFC heavyweight argued he didn’t consent to Lesnar allegedly doping and therefore, was entitled to criminal battery relief. The judge in the case ruled while doping is wrong, a fighter in mixed martial arts (MMA) assumes the risk of this possibility whenever they compete. While some see this as a travesty, the judge is unfortunately quite correct.
First, the criminalization of doping is an entirely unjustifiable idea that stems from the failed war on drugs. Criminal prosecution of drug use, even for sport, causes more harm than good. Second, for the courts to get involved in doping in the way Hunt asked would open the door to all manner of oversight for sport that could set bad precedents. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the judge isn’t arguing doping is a good or that Hunt explicitly agreed to fight a doping competitor, but that one has to know this is a risk every time they enter the cage. Elimination of that risk is impossible. Moreover, when Hunt acknowledged Lesnar did not fight in any way unusual for the sport and that the injuries he sustained are in keeping with the kinds of injuries he typically suffers in an MMA bout, he ultimately lost the argument. If you’re making a claim about the increased harm PEDs cause and you can’t provide evidence for it, the argument falls apart.
Anti-doping zealots have fed the public a series of fictions to explain the need for harsh enforcement. One of them was that they are needed to keep MMA safer. Aside from the open question of how safe MMA can be before losing an audience, there’s literally zero evidence for this claim. The argument that MMA gets safer with harsher anti-doping protocol rests on talking points and not a shred of evidence about the aggregate changes in the UFC.
Lesson learned: ufc can get away with anything now $$$$$
I could be wrong, but didn't he say in interviews before the fight about Brock being juiced to the gills or something like that.
Dear Luke, I have listened to what you've said and you really are a silly man. Kind regards.
Nobody ever argued for less risk. It’s about physical /competitive advantages
You guys are sheep. Do some reseach before you say dumg shit, commentors. Luke is right and is picking the right hill to die on
I think things like Bisping and his eye might beg to differ. And possibly anyone that's ever fought Jon Jones.. since we almost don't know how good or bad he really is without them. Why do I get the feeling you had a response for either of the outcomes in this case? Are you trying to pick up a ESPN gig or something? Just desperate need to play devil's advocate? You and Ariel seem to be going against your typical selves more n more lately and feels quite forced. If they didn't enhance performance, they wouldn't be called PEDs.. if they weren't dangerous.. we wouldn't have the huge drop off for certain fighters post usada. Just because heads aren't literally flying off, doesn't mean it's not a serious danger. Why do we need to wait until it's too late to justify certain actions? Just because certain parties have made the whole system look like a joke, doesn't mean it's not working. It's also certainly not fair to guys like Hunt who have the balls to do it clean, regardless if they know the risks or not. Silly him to assume the companies should be doing their damn jobs. This is bullshit and I really think you know it is..
I mean..he did fight in PRIDE and knew everyone was on the sauce
Common sense should suffice: If an athlete can punch, kick harder with PEDs than without it's inevitable he will inflict more damage. More data will show this.
Several poorly thought out arguments here Luke…
TRT Vitor is the GOAT!