MMA Junkie reports that an attorney for Jon Jones threatened to sue the Nevada State Athletic Commission for releasing results of Jones’ drug test which revealed his positive test for using cocaine.
Ross Goodman wrote on behalf of Jones claiming that the fighter’s privacy was invaded due to the release of the drug test results to the media. Per Junkie, Goodman wrote the commission on behalf of Jones stating that they were considering a civil lawsuit against the NSAC and its board members for invasion of privacy. The NSAC stated that the test for street drugs was an “administrative oversight.”
Junkie obtained the commission letter of February 13, 2015 in response to Goodman’s letter of January 29, 2015. Notably, the commission indicated that it did not disclose the December 4, 2014 Jon Jones test results to the media, but the UFC did. In the letter written by the Nevada State Attorney General (which represents the NSAC in these matters), it claimed to have broad authority over unarmed combatants within the state as well as permitting out of competition testing of any unarmed combat.
In its letter the commission indicated that it had adopted the WADA Prohibited List but not the WADA Code.
Notably, Goodman represents Wanderlei Silva in his lawsuit against the commission related to the NSAC’s fine and suspension after Silva allegedly evaded a drug test. He also represented Nick Diaz in a lawsuit against the commission in April 2012.
Payout Perspective:
This information is probably not news as Jones was mum (Jones doesn’t comment at 7:27 in the FS1 exclusive on January 19th) when it came whether he would seek action against the commission. With Jones’ latest troubles, a lawsuit against the commission is likely the last thing on his mind. In general, to prove a civil claim for Invasion of Privacy, there must be an intrusion upon reasonable expectations to be left alone. Jones’ claim would likely fall under a claim of “Public Disclosure of Private Facts.” Here, legal action may be taken if an individual publicly reveals truthful information that is not of public concern and which a reasonable person would find offensive if made public. Clearly, the commission argues that 1) it did not disclose the drug test and 2) these are not private facts.
With all of the legal issues facing Jones, this one might be on the backburner until Jones’ criminal issues are clarified.
Leave a Reply