Mark Hunt, representing himself, argued his own appeal in a remote appearance before the United States Ninth Court of Appeals on Wednesday, in the matter of Hunt vs. Zuffa — stemming from Hunt’s infamous loss to Brock Lesnar at UFC 200, which was later overturned to a No Contest after Lesnar failed a pre-fight drug test.
Hunt, who has been vocal about calling out Lesnar, Dana White, and even his own former lawyers over a litany of alleged misconducts, did not speak often, and clearly isn’t a lawyer. One argument in particular appeared to resonate with the court, however: the suggestion that Hunt was a victim of battery as he did not consent to competing against a “dirty” fighter.
To recap, Lesnar’s pre-fight drug test, administered by USADA (the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency), was not returned in time to cancel the fight. Lesnar had passed six previous tests in the month before the fight, but had the standard testing window for fighters returning from retirement waived by the UFC ahead of the event (while there was some confusion about this in court, USADA previously confirmed to Cageside Press that the UFC, and UFC alone, could choose to put such an exemption in place).
The fight went forward at UFC 200 on July 9, 2016; Lesnar’s failed tests (for clomiphene) eventually came back, and the bout was overturned. Hunt later sued, alleging fraud, conspiracy, and battery among other complaints, but had his arguments struck down between 2021 and 2023. That was revived when Hunt, ditching his lawyers, decided to act as a pro se litigant and represent himself in filing an appeal.
Wednesday’s hearing before United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judges Richard Paez, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Harry Pregerson spent a whole lot of time on the consent matter, especially during an appearance by Attorney David Olsen, representing Lesnar.
“Doping is not within the normal scope of MMA activity, so he could not have consented to fighting someone who had banned substances in their system,” the court underscored. In fact, the court had previously decided that doping was not considered as part of the scope of normal MMA activity. “How could he consent to fighting someone with banned substances in their system?” Judge Rawlinson questioned, before answering herself.
“He did not consent to fight someone who had been using a banned substance.” Further, she would add that “the fact that he signed an agreement to fight in MMA does not incorporate consent to fight someone who was using a banned substance.”
Judge Paez suggested that, if a fighter cannot consent to compete against an opponent who is doping, “doesn’t that mean that Hunt’s battery claim should survive?” Paez added that he would need some time to review the matter, but made clear that he didn’t necessarily believe the fraud and battery issues were intertwined.
“If the consent indeed is that the opponent will have no banned substance in their body on the day of the fight, construing it narrowly, how can the consent be valid period?” questioned Pez.
All parties had limited time to address the court. Zuffa’s representatives fared better, explaining that the results of Lesnar’s failed drug test simply were not returned in time to call off the fight. They also pointed to Hunt’s claim that he’d fight anyone, regardless of what they were on drug-wise, in suggesting he had consented to the fight and accepted the risks associated. The court countered that, whether those statements were made publicly or in private, Hunt was simply portraying the sort of “bravado” usually found in professional fighters.
The appeals court did question just how Hunt was damaged from fighting Lesnar, both financially and physically. This is an angle Zuffa’s attorney Jon Colby Williams attacked, claiming the promotion had fulfilled his contract despite the loss. Hunt countered by saying he had been pulled from a fight in Sydney, Australia and was unable to move up the rankings as a result of the No Contest being a blemish of his record.
As noted by CombatSportsLaw’s Erik Magraken, Hunt’s argument about rankings is a good theory, but whether the court understood it in the limited time available is unclear. The bottom line is, had Lesnar not been using a banned substance, Hunt might have (though there’s no guarantee) won, and therefore climbed the heavyweight ladder, earning bigger fights, bigger paydays, maybe even a title fight. Since he lost (initially), that didn’t happen, and overturning the fight to a No Contest doesn’t change that ranking.
The court will make its ruling in the appeal at a later date.
