_________________________
At this week’s Canadian Bar association combat sports legal conference I asked the UFC’s lawyer, Michael Mersch, whether Zuffa has any plans to conduct regular, random, out of competition PED testing for their contracted fighters. In short his answer was no however the details of his reply give good insight that, must a claim ever develop following injury at the hands of a PED using opponent, Zuffa’s method will be to deflect liability to government regulators. It is a method that just may work and for this reason athletic Commissions need to take great care in updating PED testing practices to affordable standards.
Mersch replied as follows:
“The UFC has a policy of performance drug enhancement testing for all of its fighters when they come into the UFC. We undoubtedly want to start the process where we know whoever we are bringing into the organization is clean. From that point on, of course, we are always working, consistently working, with athletic Commissions who are in charge of drug testing above and beyond that. There are different athletic commissions that test at different levels. Some will just test a few fighters some will test more. There are certain jurisdictions that the UFC self regulates in because there are not athletic commissions or federations anywhere in the world, and when that happens we test every single fighter. So literally every single fighter on the card, when we’re in charge of it, gets tested. So there is no question that we as a company are 100% in favor of drug testing. We support it.
Again we have some other worries outside of that though with respect to the fact that our fighters are independent contractors. When they’re signed up to fight in a certain jurisdiction we have to abide by the laws of that jurisdiction. We don’t necessarily take it upon ourselves to assume that we must be doing more. We defer to those individual commissions. “
Lawyer David Goldstein then adds
“one thing that comes up, and I think someone blogged about it recently, the question of going to the PED point, if you consent to a fight between two clean athletes and Camiseta Borussia Monchengladbach one you find out after the fact has been all kinds of juiced up and all kinds of PED’s, does that vitiate the consent to that fight? Did I think I was battling the strongest that person can be and now I’m actually battling that person on substances XYZ, would that be a ideal to claim, to file suit? It’s an interesting question“
It is a question that likely will be judicially attended to at some point in time.
When that time comes recent comments from the UFC’s Lorenzo Fertitta create an even stronger case for commission liability. Fertitta has been vocal that the UFC would finance athletic commission efforts to conduct random, Camiseta Chelsea FC out of competition testing. Appreciating that this will strip an athletic Commissions ability to hide behind budgetary restrictions, this creates an even greater need for commissions to seriously consider random out of Camiseta Selección de fútbol de Irán competition tests of all licence holders.
The ability of commissions to conduct out of competition testing depends on jurisdiction. two issues that come into play are duration of combatant licences and statutory PED testing powers.
Some combatant licences are only good for a single bout. other jurisdictions issue them for a set time frame, typically one year. Different jurisdictions also have different policies about when PED tests can take place with some only calling for post bout testing while others can test any time during a license term.
If regulators are severe about cleaning up the sport a jurisdiction with year long licencing and out of competition testing abilities must take Fertitta up on his offer and conduct random, detailed tests on all licence holders. Nevada is one jurisdiction that can accomplish this if they have the will to do so.
Under Rule NAC 467.012(7) Nevada licences are valid for the entire calendar year in which they are granted. NAC 467.850(5) allows for testing out of competition reading as follows “An unarmed combatant shall submit to a urinalysis or chemical test if the commission or a representative of the commission directs him or her to do so.“. This language is broad an allows detailed PED testing.
Nevada, or another jurisdiction with similar powers, would be wise to be a leader, take the UFC up on their financing offer, and conduct detailed PED tests to all currently licensed combatants. This will not only weed out abuse but bring integrity to athletic Commissions in their role as safe keepers of the sport.
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
Related
Illegal PED’s and science Based Suspensions In MMAJanuary 27, 2014In “Doping”
Maryland athletic commission Takes advantage of Zuffa PED test funding OfferApril 4, 2014In “Doping”
A best opportunity for PED Reform in MMAOctober 9, 2013In “Doping”