Defendants in the Lyman Good tainted supplement lawsuit have filed a Reply Brief in response to the fighter’s opposition to the dismissal of his lawsuit. Despite Good’s arguments and affidavits which support a finding of a supplement tainted with a banned substance, lawyers for the nutritional company and supplement maker contend that the information is misguided and inadmissible in court.
Defendants emphasize that Good does not have an expert to testify to prove his case that the supplement taken by Good was intentionally spiked with a banned substance. Moreover, in order to prove his case, he does not have the expert witness to prove his case. Despite the fact that Good argues that he has the report findings from the lab that detected the tainted supplement, defendants argue that evidentiary rules require an expert to interpret the findings in order to make the conclusions that are written in the report. Otherwise, the document itself would be inadmissible hearsay.
Defendants also attack two affidavits submitted by a USADA lawyer and SMRTL which they argue do not help Goods’ case.
According to Defendants theory of the case, Good lost the evidence he needed to prove his case and he does not have an expert to testify as to the results of the testing on the lost bottle of Anavite which contained the alleged tainted substance. In addition, Good did not include Anavite on the list of supplements on a required document prior to taking the USADA test which he failed.
Payout Perspective:
Although buried from the news, this lawsuit is still relevant when it comes to solutions for athletes if they believe their UFC suspension was caused by a tainted supplement. But, the prospects of Good prevailing in this case seem slim. As previously pointed out by Gaspari Nutrition and Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is that Good has not secured the testimony of an expert that can give an opinion of the test results from the third-party lab in which Good tested the tainted supplement. The reason why this matters is that for evidence to be admissible at trial, there must be certain requirements to avoid hearsay which amounts to second-hand statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted. In this case, the test report identifying the alleged supplement to be tainted would be hearsay according to defendants because even though the report outlines the findings, it is essentially hearsay according to the defendants. Good argues that the findings are admissible and can be used as circumstantial evidence to prove that there was a tainted supplement. But that will dependent on the court. MMA Payout will keep you posted.
Reply Memo From Defendants … by MMA Payout on Scribd
Leave a Reply