Deontay Wilder files appeal brief in Povetkin Meldonium case

October 22, 2018

Deontay Wilder filed its appeal brief in requesting that the court overturn the trial court’s ruling in favor of World of Boxing and Alexander Povetkin.  The appeal highlights an incongruent ruling by the court which appeared to defer to the World Boxing Council in its determination of Povetkin’s drug test failure.

The match between the two heavyweights was set by the World Boxing Council to take place in May 2016 in Moscow, Russia.  Wilder was training in England when he learned that Povetkin and tested positive for a banned substance.  Wilder decided to return to the United States instead of going to Russia believing that the fight was cancelled due to the failed drug test.  Povetkin and his promotion, World of Boxing claims that Wilder breached the contract when he failed to go to Russia for the match which prompted the WBC to cancel the fight.

In limbo is a purse of $7.15 million still in escrow.  The trial court granted World of Boxing’s request for the escrow money to be return.  Of course, Wilder believed that he should be granted his share of the money since Povetkin failed the drug test.  A lawsuit filed by the heavyweight champion ensued in which WOB and Povetkin filed counterclaims against Wilder.

From our post this past April:

In February 2017, a jury just took 32 minutes to determine that Povetkin took the banned substance Meldonium post-January 1, 2016, however that did not mean much in the outcome of this Summary Judgment motion.

One of the overarching issues in the lawsuit as to who is to blame for the failed fight in Russian in May 2016.  You might infer from the news of a failed drug test from Povetkin that it was the Russian.  However, Povetkin claimed that Wilder’s failure to appear in Russia forced the hand of the regulating body, the WBC, to call off the fight.

The WBC Bout Agreement takes precedent here as the Court examines the contract in applying basic contract principles.  But in its application, there seem to be things that don’t make sense.

“We begin by noting that the Bout Agreement contains no language mandating that each fighter refrain from ingesting banned substances.”

The inference one might yield from this sentence of the Court opinion is that tis ok to used banned substances.  Based on this, the Court held that Povetkin did not breach the Bout Agreement because it cannot conclude when/if he ingested the banned substance Meldonium. Obviously, this is opposite the jury finding.

The good news for Wilder is that there was no finding of a breach of the Bout Agreement when Wilder did not go to Russia for the fight with Povetkin.  The Court notes, “[t]here is simply no evidence that the WBC’s postponement decision was a “normal or foreseeable consequence” of Wilder’s actions, or that Wilder’s acts otherwise caused the WBC’s decision.”  Povetkin and World of Boxing sought $2.5 million in liquidated damages that was part of the Escrow Agreement.  “While the WOB Parties argue that it was Wilder’s failure to appear in Moscow, rather than Povetkin’s positive test result, that caused the WBC to postpone the Bout…no reasonable jury could indulge in the speculation that would be required to conclude that this was so,” stated the Court opinion.  It went on to state, “[B]ecause a reasonable jury could not find that any breach by the Wilder Parties proximately caused the WOB Parties’ damages, the Wilder Parties’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the WOB Parties’ claim for breach of the Bout Agreement is granted.”

As for the escrow funds, World of Boxing is entitled to its release held in escrow but no interest because no judgment was entered against Wilder.

The claims for defamation filed by Povetkin remain although they may be dismissed pending further movement in this case.

The Court opinion seems to fly in the face of the original jury finding that Povetkin took Meldonium post-January 2016.  The opinion seems to lean entirely on the WBC Agreement for its determination on its procedure in determining the status of Povetkin based upon his drug tests.  The Court quotes WBC Rules and Regulations when it notes, “the WBC may in its discretion consider all factors in making a determination regarding responsibility, relative fault, and penalties, if any.”

The WBC did not issue a ruling on Povetkin’s positive drug test until August 17, 2016.  It noted that it called the bout off and reserved any further ruling.  It then determined that it was not “possible to ascertain that Mr. Povetkin ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2016.  After two additional rulings by the WBC which opposed the August 17, 2016 ruling, it overturned the decision and stuck with its August ruling.  It based this on a study showing Meldonium having the ability to stay in one’s system for more than five months.  It also noted Povetkin had negative drug tests six other times.

The WBC seemed to be dragging its feet in this case as it put off the ruling on Povetkin despite the litigation moving ahead.  There’s also the issue of Povetkin’s positive test for ostarine which happened after the lawsuit began.  Yet, the WBC did not penalize him for this and even stressed negative drug tests notwithstanding the two positive tests for Meldonium and ostarine.

The appeal brief, which was filed in August 31, 2018, brought up the glaring disparity in issues regarding the WBC ruling and that of the jury trial.

Wilder notes that the WBC confirmed in its August 2016 ruling that the bout was called off due to Povetkin’s positive test.  In December 2016, Povetkin tested positive for another banned substance.  It issued a March 2017 ruling which doled out an indefinite suspension and a $250,000 fine.  But, in November 2017, it issued another ruling which amended the indefinite suspension to a fixed one-year fine and reaffirmed its ruling that it could not be found whether Povetkin ingested meldonium post-January 1, 2017.

Wilder points out that WOB’s attorney argued to the Court that “only the WBC, and not a jury, was competent to decide the issue, and that a jury verdict would merely be an advisory opinion.” Despite the trial judge’s disagreement, WOB attorney believed that the contractual agreement of the WBC would be the controlling factor in determining whether Povetkin took Meldonium.

However, Wilder believes that the District Court’s interpretation of the Bout Agreement was wrong.  Wilder argues that the “WBC does not have the discretion to resolve private disputes between parties to a contract.”  The Bout Agreement includes a clause which states that the parties “irrevocably accept and consent to the jurisdiction of” the District Court to “resolve any disputes arising out of” the Bout Agreement.” Wilder claims that whether or not Povetkin ingested Meldonium constituting a breach of the Bout Agreement is clearly a dispute arising out of the agreement, over which the District Court has exclusive jurisdiction.  Essentially, while the Bout Agreement gives discretion to the WBC, it does not supersede the authority of the courts to interpret the contract.  And Wilder argues, “[b]y cedeing the decision regarding whether Povetkin breached the Bout Agreement to the WBC,” it committed reversible error.  Additionally, the counterclaims filed by WOB and Povetkin reflect the authority of the courts over the WBC Bout Agreement.

Wilder also argued that even if the appellate court holds that the trial court was correct in holding that the WBC and not the trial court could determine whether the Bout Agreement was breached, it caused error in its application of the facts of the case.

Wilder cites the following press release from the WBC:

They also argue that the date of the bout is a material term in the contract.  Thus, whether or not the date of the bout was postponed is not relevant.  WOB asserts that Wilder breached the agreement due to his failure to fly to Russia for the intended fight.  Wilder cites several cases in which the exact date of the events is deemed essential to the terms of the contracts.

Following along the line of logic that the WBC had some authority in its contract, Wilder argues that the WBC delegated its duty to the trial court:

As a result, Wilder argues that the WBC applied a “strict liability” standard wherein if a jury found that Povetkin ingested Meldonium after January 1, 2017, he would be stripped of his mandatory challenger status which meant that his fight with Wilder would be off the table.

Wilder also indicates something amiss with what may be infers as a “quid pro quo” with Povetkin and the WBC. Pointing out the press release by the WBC, it seems as though if Povetkin paid his fine, he would be reinstated.

In a footnote of its brief, Wilder states that the trial court denied a request to reopen discovery on this limited issue but Wilder request this court again.

Finally, Wilder argues that he is entitled to the escrow property in the amount of $4,369,365 as a result of WOB’s breach of the Bout Agreement.

Payout Perspective:

This is a fascinating legal case premised on the basic tenets of a contract. The trial court’s decision to side with Povetkin and WOB in determining that the WBC would be the only entity capable of deciding whether Povetkin ingested Meldonium seems out of line with the job of the court to interpret the contract when a dispute comes before it. We have seen with the Austin Trout case that the Court has deferred to the drafter of the private contract despite the aggrieved party bringing a lawsuit. MMA Payout will continue to follow once WOB files its appellate brief.

Boxer Austin Trout case moved to arbitration, casts concern on future of Ali Act

October 16, 2018

A Federal Court in Puerto Rico has dismissed boxer Austin Trout’s lawsuit against the World Boxing Organization for claims of violating the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.  The court determined that due to the signed contact, Trout must submit to arbitration.

Austin Trout Case Order on … by on Scribd

Trout claimed that the WBO had dropped him from the promotion’s ranking arbitrarily which affected his ability to receive a title shot.

The lawsuit landed in Federal Court in Puerto Rico after the boxing promotion moved the case to Puerto Rico where its offices are located.  Originally Trout filed the lawsuit in state court in New Mexico.  The WBO moved the case to Federal Court in New Mexico and then requested the venue change to Puerto Rico which the Court granted.

The WBO claimed that Trout was bound by the terms of his WBO contract which required that he arbitrate any disputes he had with the contract.  According to the contract, the WBO would handle the arbitration and any appeal would be heard by a grievance committee put together by the promotion.

Trout argued that the lawsuit should remain in court for two reasons.  First, Trout’s attorneys argued that the WBO waived its right to arbitration as it already appeared in the case and filed procedural motions for the case to be moved to federal court and then to Puerto Rico.  Secondly, Trout argued that his claims were based upon violations of the Ali Act which should be litigated instead of arbitrated.  Furthermore, it argued that the arbitration clause was invalid because the WBO would effectively “be both a party and a judge.”

The WBO moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the lawsuit.  In siding with the WBO, the Court indicated that the WBO’s contract which included the arbitration clause was valid and related to the dispute alleged by Trout and therefore it was a valid arbitration clause.  Trout unsuccessfully argued that there was ambiguity in the contract and with contracts of adhesion, they should be found in favor of the non-drafting party.  Here, Trout argued that the arbitration clause related to disputes with third parties whereas disputes directly with the promotion could be litigated.  Part of this argument was due to the WBO serving as the arbitrator in the matter.  However, the court found no ambiguity and that the contract availed the parties to arbitration on all matters.

As to the argument that the lawsuit was litigated by the WBO and as a result, it had waived its right to arbitration, the court argued that the sole responses made by the promotion in court were procedural and not substantive.  Hence, it had not participated in litigation of the case and did not waive its right to an arbitration.

There is no indication that Trout will appeal this decision at this point.

Payout Perspective:

The underlying issue in this decision is that claims under the Muhammad Ali Act could be arbitrated based on a contract signed by the parties.  This does not bode well for the possibility of the Ali Act Expansion to combat sports.  The reason being is that if the party drafting the contract (e.g., Zuffa) includes a provision that all disputes under the contract shall be resolved via arbitration, it might mute the effectiveness of the Ali Act.  While arbitration is a faster way to resolve disputes, in the Trout case, he was concerned with the ability for the WBO to be judge and a party.  One might foresee an MMA promotion including in its contract its ability to choose an arbitrator.  We have already seen that the UFC Anti-Doping Policy has chosen its own vendor and arbitrator.  It would likely do the same for any case claiming a violation of the Ali Act.  Unless there is an appeal, look for this decision to rear its head in the future.

Factual misstatements, omissions cited by Smith in dismissal letter as she appeals NLRB decision

October 8, 2018

MMA Junkie reports that Leslie Smith will file an appeal of her dismissal of her NLRB labor complaint.

In a two-page decision dated September 18, 2018, the NLRB cited that after an investigation Smith’s complaint lacks merit.  “[t]here is insufficient evidence to establish that the UFC’s failure to renew her contract in April 2018 was based on any protected activities.”

The letter from Region 4 regional director Dennis P. Walsh notes that the “UFC’s failure to renew a contract and continue to negotiate with Smith” was not clear as to if it was an adverse employment action.  Essentially, the decision did not see evidence that re-signing Smith to a new contract was an adverse employment action.  The UFC’s unwillingness to make a counteroffer to Smith’s contractual demands was not evidence of an adverse employment action.

The decision cites three times that the UFC’s conduct actually benefited Smith.  They cite the UFC allowing Smith to remain in the promotion in 2017 after refusing to accept two fights.  Despite her refusal, her contract was extended twice.  The UFC approved Smith’s request to wear a Project Spearhead mouth guard for her April 21st fight despite the ban on third-party logos due to the Reebok deal.  Finally, the NLRB cites the UFC granting Smith $500 for travel expenses related to her April 21st fight.

Lucas Middlebrook, the attorney for Smith, has filed an appeal to the decision and requested two NLRB officials to be recused from the appeal as well as requesting that the same investigator that originally found merit in Smith case review the appeal. He accuses the UFC of using political ties to have the complaint sent to D.C. for additional review.

Smith argues that there were several factual misstatements in the dismissal letter including the allegation that she would not fight unless the UFC gave her additional money and added two fights to her expiring contract.  She also argues that the Bout Agreement obliges the UFC to reschedule the bout or terminate the existing Bout Agreement.  Since the fight was not rescheduled and the bout agreement was terminated, Smith argues that she should have had one more fight left on her contract. Based on this interpretation, the dismissal letter claims that her contract had ended but that would not be the case.

She also noted omissions in the dismissal letter decision including her No. 9 ranking in the UFC and having won 3 of her past 4 fights with the only loss coming outside of her weight division.  She also indicated that the $500 provided to her for travel was related to per diems unpaid by the UFC which included costs for checked luggage.

Payout Perspective:

This will be an appeal to watch considering the allegations and the belief that politics are involved in this.  Dana White and the UFC are friendly with the current administration.  In fact, UFC Fight Pass will be airing a special about Trump and his ties to MMA.  But, will the NLRB listen to the merits of this appeal and overturn the dismissal?  The most compelling argument for Smith is the bout agreement which requires either a reschedule of the bout or cancellation of the bout.  With a cancellation Smith would have been allowed one more fight on the contract.  If not, there is a possible claim for breach.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Court in UFC Antitrust Lawsuit denies Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Experts

October 3, 2018

Late last week, the Court in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit denied Zuffa’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Guy Davis, Dr. Andrew Zimbalist and Dr. Hal Singer.

The Motions to Exclude were filed back in February.

The Court issued a minute order without further explanation:

Upon review of the record, the Court denies without prejudice the [517] Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Guy Davis, the [522] Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Andrew Zimbalist and the [524] Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Hal Singer, as premature. The Court will consider the arguments in the Motions and Responses in its review of the [518] Motion to Certify Class, however, the Court is not required to determine the admissibility of evidence in ruling on the [518] Motion to Certify Class nor does such evidence have to be admissible for consideration by the Court. See Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 889 F.3d 623, 631-32 (9th Cir. 2018).

Payout Perspective:

It would appear that the Court is pushing back its ultimate decision on the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert when it decides the Motion for Class Cert.  If it had excluded the testimony, it would have crippled the case for Plaintiffs as they would be left without expert testimony.   Or, there would have been an appeal.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Details of Lorenzo Fertitta deposition in Zuffa Antitrust Lawsuit

September 28, 2018

The deposition of Lorenzo Fertitta was included in Plaintiffs’ Opposition Brief to Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit.  In contrast to the deposition of Dana White, Fertitta’s disclosed testimony offers a sobering recount of his old business.

Fertitta discussed the acquisition of the WEC:

Fertitta explains that he didn’t believe that the WEC was a competitor but a regional promotion that featured lighter weight divisions.  The testimony infers that Fertitta did not believe that the UFC was obtaining a rival but adding on to its offering by accessing lighter weight divisions.

Fertitta was asked about the Ali Act and the reasons why boxing adopted the legislation.  When asked about the glut of titles, he indicated that he was not concerned with the commissions regulating the sport but the consumer confusion with so many titles.  This infers the mindset Fertitta had with the business.  Rather than be concerned with any administrative issues, he was more concerned about the business side of the titles.

The attorney deposing Fertitta walked him through a text he received from Dana White regarding the negotiations they had with Gilbert Melendez.  You may recall these were contentious as Melendez was a contender in the lightweight division and the UFC had to match the rights offered by Bellator.

The pertinent section which is intriguing is a part of the text from White:

“….cut throat nasty business like you see in movies.  Good s—t homie.  Congrats.”

We are offered a bit of the text but the response from Fertitta is redacted.  After it was read, there was a break.

It would have been interesting to see the response from Fertitta.  Based on White’s text, we can infer whatever maneuvering executed by Fertitta worked.

Depo of Lorenzo Fertitta by on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

In contrast to Dana White’s deposition where he indicated he was a “genius,” Fertitta’s deposition seems mundane.  There is not a whole lot we can gather from the testimony that is not redacted.  From the information available, it does not look like Fertitta lost his cool or went off script.  He would make a good witness on behalf of Zuffa.  Fertitta’s dealings don’t address much of the detailed day-to-day work as White but it offers some information on behind the scenes of the company.

NLRB dismisses Leslie Smith’s claims against Zuffa

September 26, 2018

MMA Junkie’s Steven Marrocco first reported that former UFC fighter Leslie Smith had her NLRB complaint against Zuffa dismissed last week per Smith’s attorney Lucas Middlebrook.

Per a report from ESPN’s Brett Okamoto, Middelbrook plans to appeal.

Smith filed the charging letter in May of this year based on unfair labor practices against the UFC.

Leslie Smith Charging Letter by on Scribd

In June, the NLRB Investigation on Zuffa determine that the charging letter had merit and would file a complaint against Zuffa in Federal District Court.  The NLRB could have filed an injunction against Zuffa which would have prohibited the company from designating its contracted athletes as independent contractors and make them statutory employees.

Post-decision, NLRB Region 4 where the charging letter was filed, was instructed to send the case to D.C. for review.  Smith’s attorney believed that this was politically motivated.

Payout Perspective:

This is a stunning turn of events for the NLRB to dismiss the matter after there appeared to be merit to Smith’s claims.  MMA Payout has made a FOIA request on the charging to determine if there is any explanation for the dismissal.  The case had been dormant since being sent to D.C. and one can only wonder what went on during this process.

Dana White says he is a genius in deposition testimony

September 24, 2018

On Friday, Plaintiffs in the Zuffa Antitrust Lawsuit filed their Opposition Brief to the company’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Of the multitude of exhibits filed in support of the brief are three exhibits with excerpts from the deposition of Dana White.

White’s deposition took place in August 2017 in Las Vegas.

Deposition of Dana White – V 1 by on Scribd

Deposition of Dana White – V 2 by on Scribd

Deposition of Dana White – V 3 by on Scribd

Some of the deposition excerpts came highlighted which correlates with some of the points made in the brief.

As one might imagine, a lot of ground was covered during White’s deposition.  In the excerpts of the deposition that the public can view, the questions look at acquisitions of other organizations, his role as a fight promoter, contracts and other issues.  The fighter attorneys played videos during White’s videotaped deposition in which they played excerpts of interviews where is being interviewed.  The attorneys asked about the answers in the videos.

The deposition took place just a couple weeks prior to The Money Fight between Conor McGregor and Floyd Mayweather there was some discussion about him being a boxing promoter in light of the matchup.

Some interesting tidbits:

There was some interesting testimony for White where he agrees with a 2013 interview where he said that other promotions were AAA (i.e., minor leagues) to the UFC.  He affirmed this interview testimony as of 2017 (and likely today).

He gave a round-about answer to whether he was being truthful as a promoter.  The inference was that there is puffery when promoting fights although he did not want to make it sound that he was outright lying.  In this excerpt, he throws some shade at Bellator.

Dana White stated that he believed OneFC to be a grassroots promotion but has grown into a big-time organization.  He testified that he gets question when in Asia whether the UFC is like OneFC.  Perhaps with the news that Eddie Alvarez may be heading to OneFC, he might be correct.

 

Dana White is not a fan of Bloody Elbow.  When asked about the web site, he asked if it was the web site that doesn’t interview people.  He does not believe them to be credible.

When asked about distributions at the end of 2009, he did not really know the owners’ payout, of which he would receive a piece.  He thought it was $305,000 but he was corrected by the attorney as he was informed it was $305 million.  When he realized this, he stated, “Oh Awesome.”

When asked about how the company was paying for the contributions for which he was receiving millions, he stated he is the “fight genius” and the “promotion genius” but he did not know about the distributions.

Payout Perspective:

Certainly some of the more interesting subjects was likely redacted.  White was prepared for the deposition and did not waver when pushed on some questions.  In the testimony that we can see, he was careful on what he said and how he said it.  Perhaps the “genius” comments may have been over the top but also may have related to something earlier in testimony.

Plaintiffs file Opposition to UFC’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Antitrust lawsuit

September 21, 2018

Plaintiffs in the Zuffa Antitrust Lawsuit have filed their Opposition to UFC’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  The 47-page long opposition brief includes over 100 exhibits, many of which are redacted, or include deposition transcripts with redactions.

The main argument in the Plaintiffs’ Opposition is that the UFC is the “major league” of MMA and it has done so through predatory means.  The theory asserted is that it has become the top of the food chain in MMA through its retention of top-level fighters.  It argues that “a critical mass” of elite fighters is necessary to compete with the UFC.  But, the UFC’s scheme has foreclosed this opportunity.

Despite the fact Zuffa argued in its motion that there was ample competition within the industry as evidenced through testimony of rival MMA promoters and fighters that left the organization, Plaintiffs argue that the “supposed evidence of Fighter mobility merely reflects that the UFC is the “major league” of MMA and cuts Fighters who do not meet its standard.”

Plaintiffs argue in their brief that Zuffa’s anticompetive scheme was “designed to lock in current and potential top fighters to exclusive contracts for the most valuable parts of their careers.”

Oppos to MSJ – Plaintiffs by on Scribd

It noted that Zuffa used its market leverage to extend exclusivity over its fighters. This was done through coercion, intimidation and other means of forcible persuasion.  This included four ways outlined by Plaintiffs and evidenced through deposition transcripts.  This included:

  • Move Fighters to unfavorable placement on the fight card for an event
  • Control the timing of a bout (refuse to off Fighters bouts)
  • Delay a Fighter from competing for another promoter through the Right to Match and Exclusive Negotiation clauses in its contract.
  • Deprive fighters of title opportunities

Plaintiffs argue that Zuffa’s scheme impaired competition through locking up the majority of top fighters, deprived rival promoters of the key input of top fighters and relegated other promoters to feeder or minor leagues.  It calls out other promoters cited in Zuffa’s motion that indicated that they could compete “are not credible and are disputed.”  In fact, Plaintiffs show why Bellator, OneFC and PFL’s statements indicating that they are on par with the UFC are false.  Also, noted in a footnote to the motion, Absolute Championship Berkut, also recognized as a direct competitor, noted the cancellation of three events due to “organizational and financial problems.”

The Plaintiffs cite Dr. Singer’s expert report regarding the input and output markets and its showing how Zuffa has suppressed fighters’ wages, restricted the output of fighter services and excluded rivals.  Plaintiffs also argue that the acquisitions of other organizations by the UFC stifled competition and restricted fighter mobility.

Payout Perspective:

There is a lot to digest here and MMA Payout will take a deeper dive into the opposition including the evidence used by Plaintiffs.  The crux of their opposition is that the UFC’s anticompetitive scheme is based upon the retention of top tier fighters through exclusive contracts.  It locked in top fighters during their “most valuable parts of their careers” and was to leverage its market power to extend exclusivity.  As a result, it impaired competition despite the views of rival promoters that indicated it had no problem signing fighters it wanted.  As a result of the scheme, the anticompetitive effects included suppression of fighters’ compensation, reduction of “quality” MMA events and it suppressed marketwide output of MMA Events and inflated prices.  Furthermore, Zuffa cannot show that the contractual exclusivity provided procompetitive benefits which may outweigh the anticompetitive effects.

Zuffa has a chance to offer a Reply to this Opposition which will be submitted on November 2nd.

CSAC handed Jon Jones 3 months of community service

September 21, 2018

The UFC 229 press conference took all the headlines on Thursday but what went under the radar was the California State Athletic Commission giving Jon Jones 3 months community service as a result of his drug test failure last July.  USADA doled out a 15-month suspension to Jones on Wednesday after his second arbitration under the UFC Anti-Doping Policy.

According to MMA Junkie, the California State Athletic Commission called the punishment “agreeable, in concept.” CSAC Executive Director Andy Foster expected an 18-month suspension from USADA and the 3 months of community service was issued to “close the gap.”

An arbitrator in Jones’ USADA case determined that the former UFC light heavyweight did not try to cheat despite having traces of a banned substance in his system.

In February, Jones was fined $205,000 and had his fight license revoked.

No word on when and what type of community service Jones will have to perform.  But its assumed that he could re-apply for a license to fight in California once complete.

Payout Perspective:

The punishment by California should not be too surprising.  Jones has been out of action since July 2017 and the impetus was put on USADA to hand out its punishment.  The surprise was the arbitrator’s 30 month reduction of the guideline suspension per the UFC anti-doping policy.  Couple that with Jones’ remorse…once again, and California probably was not going to tack on anything substantial which would impede Jones’ career any further.

Joe Silva explains UFC matchmaking in deposition excerpts

September 20, 2018

After a little bit away, MMA Payout takes a look at some of the depositions taken place in light of the Zuffa Antitrust lawsuit.  The depositions were attached to the motion papers in support of Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Joe Silva, former matchmaker for the UFC, was deposed regarding his role with the company.  The deposition took place in June 2017.

Exhibit 52 – Depo of Joe Silva by on Scribd

Silva was asked about the acquisition of Pride and whether after the acquisition did Zuffa have the vast majority of the world’s top fighters.  Silva stated, “I would say we had the most, but not all.”  He added, “As you see that even after the acquisition, we continued to bring in other fighters from other places in the world.  If we’d already acquired all the best fighters, then no more acquisitions would be necessary.”

Silva was asked about when a fighter may be ready for the UFC and the talented 155 division.

There is a back and forth regarding an email from Stipe Miocic’s ex-manager Greg Kalikas.  The email indicates Silva telling Kalikas: “Too many 170s under contract right now.  Keep Stipe winning and we’ll get him in.”

 

Silva explained, “…it was very important for us to not have too many people on the roster.  We wanted to be able to manage it.  We wanted to be able to fulfill all our contractual obligations, so you have to limit the amount of people that you sign at any one time.  So at this time, 170 was particularly full….To maintain a fight for a fighter who didn’t get injured, I will now go to other people on the roster, and go, hey, I’ve got a dropout, fight’s only two weeks away from now, can you do it.  And if they go, no, I can’t make weight in two weeks, I haven’t been training, I’ve got an injury, I go to everybody who is on the roster.  If nobody can do it, I still want to get a fight that other guys, so now that’s an opening…”

Silva testified about a “policy” he had in which he would not release a fighter if they had lost 2 in a row and then lost a third but the last match was taken on late notice.  He also stated that he “never put pressure on anybody to fight late notice…”

He also stated that he left contracts up to the legal department although he knew that they were revised through the years.

He was aware of the fact that there is a provision in Zuffa contracts that extend the terms of the contract if fighters turn down fights.

There is some criticism about former UFC fighter Melvin Guillard.  It was based on an email to Dana White which states, “In the press conference the day before he said he is an A level fighter fighting in a B level show.  Never was the smartest guy.”  Originally, plaintiffs’ attorney thought he was talking about Justin Gaethje.  But, it appears that there is some mistaken interpretation as Silva explains that Guillard was talking about World Series of Fighting.


There is a text where he makes fun of Bellator’s main event of Tito Ortiz versus Rampage Jackson.  He explains about a comment regarding Jackson criticizing Silva for putting him up against fighters with wrestling backgrounds.

He also points to the hypocrisy of Bellator which was tournament based but turned to Ortiz- Jackson to headline their show.

There is also an email show to Silva in which Monte Cox emails Silva about the potential to have one of his fighters on a UFC Winnipeg show.  Silva responds that he could not because “I have to cut a hundred guys.”  Obviously, Silva was exaggerating but he explained about the roster and at the time – March 2013 – he had “too many fighters under contract.”

Payout Perspective:

The deposition testimony reveals a little bit behind the thought making process of Silva as he made the bulk of the matches for the company until he left shortly after the sale of the UFC.  He came off as a reasonable individual and there was not much in testimony that presented red flags.  Plaintiffs’ counsel did discuss some controversial emails which Silva easily explained away.

Next Page »