good morning your honor this is brian boshi on behalf of the appellant as i've watched lawyer after lawyer go over their time i guess i better reserve three minutes for rebuttal okay thank you preliminarily i would like to point out that in addition to all the other things we're going to talk about this morning and all of the claims and the elements of the claims my client mark hunt is the only party of this action who did not commit wrongdoing in this matter brock lesnar cheated and got caught and was sort of rustling blocks out sound the other way because it didn't want to know that brock lesnar was cheating and was not going to be able to headline their ufc two hundred card and was going to cost them tens of millions of dollars my client complied with contract he signed expended tens of thousands of dollars of personal expense training traveling doing everything he was required to do to fight in the manner that ufc guaranteed him and yet somehow after the lower court's decision he is left without recourse and candidly among all the other reasons i'm going to site to in this argument that can not be the right answer this matter should be remanded because he does have and those claims were properly alleged and he was wrong preliminarily what was wrong sorry go ahead what was error about the determination that all of the damages he saw were consequential damages that were barred by the contract because all of the damages that were alleged were not consequential damages i was going to deal with that in the contract section but i'm happy to deal with it now judge rawlinson at the end of the day the damages that mark hunt suffered in addition to consequential damages that that ufc has pointed out are barred mr hunt expended tens of thousands of dollars training traveling for one event where he was ice skating uphill for lack of a better term i mean he was beaten before he walked into the ring against brock lesnar and another event that he was pulled out of primarily for the allegations of the complaint because he had shed a light on what ufc had done in the lesnar fight and though he relied upon the representations in both his contracts and specifically and i don't want to quote it because it's filed under seal but if you look at this up o6 through o8 and the guarantees that are in the contract that my client is going to get a clean fight in all of his contractual fights he didn't get that and he relied upon that to his detriment and the breach of contract caused him actual damages he lost appearance fees that were booked before the fight based upon reliance that he was going to have a fair fight with mr lesnar and he didn't i mean and then the record is i mean i don't think there's we're at the putting stage so when i say the record is clear mr lesnar got caught he tested positive twice and was suspended and paid a nominal monetary fine for it but at the end of the day it was my client who suffered so these are not and i know that judge dorsey was very hard on that in her decision and candidly i disagree with it that these are all consequential damages i don't know and i don't think anybody knows it is a pure speculation as to whether my client would have defeated brock lesnar had he not cheated that is absolute speculation but the damages incurred because he had to fight brock lesnar he had to fight a fighter who had been cheating are absolutely not consequential and they are absolutely not speculative he should've never been in the ring with brock lesnar brock lesnar should've never been in that fight and had that not happened can i ask you can i ask a question if you're still answering judge rawlinson's question i apologize you can continue i didn't want to it seemed to me he's answered my question already oh thank you okay it just seemed to me that the breach of contract claim is a tough one is an uphill battle you know your client got i believe seven hundred thousand he fought he says you know had i known there that there was doping and i wouldn't have you know that the contract was therefore breached i suppose it would require that your client remit the seven hundred thousand he received and seek some consequential damages but you know it just struck me that it's almost more of a toward theory and it's either fraud in the inducement or just you know a garden variety fraud claim which you've already plead and it seems to me that once you get into well he would have won or he would have done better and he might have not lost endorsements cause he might've done better that just strikes me as being pretty speculative what seems fairly clean to me however is the argument you know that if i knew that this other person was doping i simply wouldn't have gone forward because it would have been bad for my reputation doping is very effective in terms of giving unfair advantage to folks if that's the evidence and i simply wouldn't have gone forward with this fight and one can then at least there's a fairly clean road in terms of damages in what that might've meant as opposed to sort of betting on the outcome of a fight with this you know these uncertainties so i just like your reaction to my sort of pared down version of what i think maybe is left in this case and judge pregerson i agree with most of i actually agree with most of what you said i would direct your honor to and it's again it's under seal it supplement o6 o7 and o8 as the contract and here's why it is significant that he fought brock lesnar who was a doping fighter the contract provides that my client was going to get paid seven hundred thousand for the first fight regardless of who he fought he was going to get that money whether he fought brock lesnar whether he fought another fighter whether he bought someone else later in the contract in paragraph in sub two sub three and then eventually in sixty two there are incentive clauses where my client had he had the opportunity to fight for a title had he gone in with a legitimate fighter in his first fight there are performance bonuses he is entitled to more money under their contract if he fights for a title and then if he becomes a champion he's entitled to more money after that and then he's entitled potentially to a piece of the payperview so when i say that he should not have fought brock lesnar at all certainly he would not have been entitled to the seven hundred thousand and then another seven hundred thousand for another fight what i'm saying is he would have gotten the seven hundred thousand regardless of who he fought he could have fought me that would have been even more inequitable than fighting brock lesnar but had he fought someone else he would have gotten the same seven hundred thousand and the contract provides that there would have been other opportunities that's point one point two would be the guaranteed fight money is one component of the contractual damages but he was going to get that regardless of who he fought the guts of what i think was alleged and i think what stems from ufc's contract and again i would point out that this is ufc's contract i happen to know mr williams drafted it he did a very fine job drafting it for his client it is a very good contract for ufc but it is their contract and when we're talking about categories of damages that can or cannot be recovered under this contract it doesn't say reliance damages in there and it doesn't say that for a reason and again i would argue that to the extent that there's any ambiguity at all it'd have to be conveyed against the drafters of the contract but mr lesnar if he would not have had to fight brock or if mr hunt would not have had to fight by mr lesnar he would not have expended the money the training the other things that he did to fight that fight and he certainly would not have expended the time money effort tens of thousands of dollars in travel to be on the ufc one hundred and twenty one card that he was ultimately pulled off of because he complained about the brock lesnar situation so i think that while i agree with you that certainly the fraud claim and in my opinion the battery claim which i'm going to get to in a second are much cleaner i do think there's a contract and a covenant of good faith and fair dealing here and i think that their contract sets forth damages that are recoverable by my client for the breach irrespective of whether he was paid for the fight with mr lesnar or not i think that there are damages above and beyond that seven hundred thousand in the contract and outside of the seven hundred thousand that are recoverable for their breach i don't know if that completely answered your question judge pregerson but if you had any follow up to that i'd be happy to address it i mean just thinking i don't want to take too much time but just thinking this through a little further maybe an expert could testify that the doping provides some percentage of an advantage fifty forty and maybe i'm wrong that it would have to be his only remedy is you know to not have fought at all that maybe there can be a damages calculation based upon on those issues i don't know i don't know it just seems tough well and i don't disagree that it's a hard analysis and it's a hard it's a little bit of a burden to overcome but i will suggest your honor that i think the contract and i think expert testimony to your point as to the doping advantage but certainly there are damages recoverable for the breach of contract and certainly for the battery i look at the battery and aiding and abetting battery claims and i'm jumping into this right now because i see four and a half minutes left the district court relied on avila and rely on the avila case as the sole reason to dismiss the battery and aiding and abetting battery claims against lesnar in the ufc based upon an assumption of risk theory and i can't think of a better way to say that analysis is just wrong i coach when i'm not doing this i spend a lot of time managing baseball and every one of my kids that goes up and goes to that bat in our games knows that there's a chance that they're going to get hit that the pitcher is going to either miss or is going to be mad at them and throw at their head or is going to throw it some other that they could get hit with a baseball it's a fundamental part of the game okay so when my kids are playing baseball or the college kids in avila are playing baseball when they go to home plate with that bat and that helmet they know right then and there that they could get hit at any moment with a pitch ball when we're talking about assumption of the risk in a ufc fight the ufc and zuffa contractually guarantees in their agreements that fighters are not going to have to assume that risk against doping fighters that they are going to get fights against clean fighters and just in case it wasn't crystal clear in the contract mr white personally assured mr hunt that he was going to get a clean fight that mr lesnar was going to be tested used some profanities cause that's what mr white does from time to time but that mr lesnar was going to be tested and what happened not only was he not tested until a week before the fight he was tested and the results were held until after the fight was over so that candidly ufc two hundred wasn't going to lose another draw because they had already lost john jones for a doping violation and they didn't want to lose mr lesnar on top of it so this to me is not comparable to avila decision this is a clear cut case of battery aiding and abetting battery and damages that ensued from the battery and mr hunt did not assume a reasonable amount of risk stepping into the ring with mr lesnar because he had a contract and specific representations and that goes more to the fraud claim a little bit from mr white that he was not going to step into the ring with a doping fighter so assumption of risk analysis that judge dorsey took looking at avila as compared to this situation in our opinion is misplaced and it is a completely different standard and mr hunt did not assume reasonable amount of risk just because he's a ufc fighter to that point as with the other claims and i kind of touched on this a little bit i'm sorry i just have to interrupt you i you know i watched a lot of baseball too you coach i don't think that deliberately trying to bean somebody is within the assumption of the risk of major league baseball i mean what happens is the benches get cleared you throw up a hundred mile an hour fast ball at somebody's head i don't think that's part of the game you know yeah it happens and people do it but you tell me that you can line up four batters and the pitcher can deliberately throw at each one of their heads and that's part of the assumption of the risk no i don't think so so i'm kind of surprised you go there okay and to that point i think that avila doesn't necessarily talk only and i'm more referring to the dissent which i tended to agree with more than the decision in that an intentional pitch ball at someone's head or a negligent pitch ball at someone's head candidly when your batter when you're going up and you know these are college age kids and so i don't know what in avila what was going through their minds i don't think most people would but when you go to the plate you know that there's a chance that you can get hit whether it's intentional or negligent or otherwise i would refer to and judge pregerson sounds like you're a baseball fan the astros played the dodgers earlier this season and those guys all went up to the batter's box and the astros players one by one had a pretty good idea that someone was going to throw at them and eventually it happened and joe kelly missed because he's not very good but he threw the ball behind one of the batter's heads and that was something but the astros players knew that that was a possibility when they stepped into the batter's box that night and i would submit that under avila when you played baseball generally whether it's intentional or negligent you know that there's a possibility that you could get hit and i think this is a completely different situation specifically because the ufc contractually guaranteed that this was not a risk that he was going to have to assume i'm a little over my time but i'm happy to follow up on that question all right well let's go over to the other side opposing counsel good morning your honors my name is colby williams i represent zuffa llc which we'll sometimes refer to as the ufc and mr dana white the president of the company i'm sharing time with my colleague mr olson who will be arguing on behalf of mr olson i plan to argue for nine minutes so okay picking up with the contract issue because both judge rawlinson and judge pregerson asked about it let me see if i can quickly knock that out because something that has occurred in the oral argument that has continued to happen in this case both in the district proceedings below and in the opening brief and that is mr hunts claims morph what you've heard mr boshi arguing is that he was deprived of training expenses and traveling expenses traveling expenses was never an issue below anywhere and there's a reason for that the contract between the parties in section seventy one which is in the record provides that zuffa pays the traveling expenses for mr hunt and that was done here there was never a claim that that wasn't done what we see is mr hunt gets blocked on a particular argument and then seeks to expand it so i just want to clarify that for the record there are three independent reasons why the contract claim fails first and i won't spend a lot of time on it but it's emblematic of what i was just talking about the issue of reliance damages was never presented mr hunt never once argued that he was entitled to quote unquote reliance damages the argument that was presented to judge dorsey and that's why it's unfair to criticize her for addressing only consequential damages was that he lost his training expenses for ufc fight night one hundred and twenty one that occurred after ufc two hundred and thus judge dorsey viewed it as something occurring after ufc two hundred and thus was a consequential damage barred by the contractual language that section is section one hundred and five it clearly bars consequential damages the fighter is only entitled to recover his purses there is no dispute in this record that mr hunt was paid for ufc two hundred and i will go further and tell you as part of our summary judgment briefing it is also clear we provided every single bout agreement mr hunt was paid every purse for all six fights there is no dispute about that whatsoever the next reason i think this is probably the most important reason why the contract claim fails is because reliance damages your honors are meant to put the complaining party into position he she or it would have been in had the contract never been performed or had never come into fruition you typically see this in the context of a contract and negotiate in good faith where the parties negotiate for a period of time one may do due diligence spend money on fees and the deal doesn't come to fruition that's a situation where reliance damages may be appropriate not here not where zuffa has fully performed and paid every cent owed under the contract so unless there's any further question on reliance damages i will go ahead and move on to what the next focus of mr boshi's argument was and that was the battery claim mr boshi says that the contract and mr white both guaranteed that mr hunt would fight a clean fighter most respectfully that is not correct no question that the contract provides that fighters are to honor the provisions requiring them to comply with all nevada athletic commission regulations including rules prohibiting the use of certain substances that is agreed but zuffa can't guarantee that a fighter isn't going to take a prohibited substance and can the fighters themselves reasonably assume that that's going to be a clean fight i'm sorry judge can the fighters themselves assume that it's going to be a clean fight in light of under the rules of the association they got to follow the nevada sure your honor i think that's certainly the goal it's certainly zuffa's goal to eliminate why would it be unreasonable why would it be unreasonable yeah i think this case provides an example of it your honor mr hunt's entire complaint the rico complaint that was such the focus below is premised on the fact that he had previously fought two fighters who came back testing positive for a prohibited substance but that last fight was against frank mir in march of two thousand and sixteen the very next month is when he signed his current promotional agreement with the company so he's clearly aware that that takes place the first fight that he gets scheduled for under the new promotional agreement is with mr lesnar if you look at the allegations in the complaint and the sprewell case from this court teaches us sometimes a plaintiff can plead himself out of a claim by providing too much detail and i would submit that's what mr hunt did here because he recounts his repeated communications with mr white where he is raising questions about mr lesnar and his compliance with the testing program and so i think in this case mr hunt absolutely consented to this fight but while it may be an aspiration and one we tried very hard to accomplish that fighters are not going to test positive we ultimately can't control what a fighter puts in his or her body either knowingly or not knowing so how does this argument relate to the fraud claim how does it relate to the fraud claim yes well so the argument on the fraud go ahead judge dorsey found that there was no proximate cause for the fraud claim and that was tied because again the focus below was on the rico claims and when she found no proximate cause on the rico claims she found no proximate cause on the fraud claims but we would submit your honor that there is an additional basis upon which this court could affirm on the fraud claims and that is none of the statements identified in the complaint constitute an actionable misrepresentation that could have been relied on by mr hunt we have a slew of things included but they typically are statements mr hunt made himself statements that were made during the parties contract negotiations which now mr hunt says well i would have wanted this that or the other thing in the contract but you didn't agree to that ultimately but you did agree to the contract nevada supreme court in the road and highway builders case teaches us that you can't have a fraud claim based on allegations that contradict the contract and then can you have a fraud claim based on nondisclosure you can if there's a duty of course you can your honor you certainly can have but there's no allegation that there was a nondisclosure here because mr white isn't alleged to have known that mr lesnar was testing positive mr white's statements reflect that you saw enough the independent testing agency was testing mr white or excuse me but council wasn't there some inference that the tests were delayed sufficiently so that the results would not come back before the bout yes judge rawlinson that's certainly something that mr hunt has argued and i'm glad you raised it because i want to get to that point and it may require me i want to tread carefully and then the court can tell me how to proceed the allegation has been made that the first time mr lesnar was tested was on june 28th and that's the test that came back positive on july 15th after the fight the record will reflect below as part of our motion to dismiss briefing we submitted a request for judicial notice where we submitted all of mr lesnar's testing and what i will represent to the court is that reflects far more testing than has been represented by mr boshi i don't want to go any further unless the court has specific questions was there an exemption sought from any of the testing requirements was there i didn't hear the question judge rawlinson was there an exemption sought from any of the testing requirements yes so typically when a fighter has been in the program and retires or leaves the sport for a period of time when he or she comes back they have to be in the program for a period of four months mr lesnar was as is contemplated under the doping program mr lesnar was granted an exemption to that four months testing window who requested the exemption whether it came from mr lesnar or the ufc decided to grant it unilaterally i don't know the answer to that question i will ultimately it was the ufc's decision correct correct and they were questioned about that by the nevada state athletic commission they provided a written response we also included that in our request for judicial notice that was exhibit five to our request for judicial notice so let me ask you this if there had been no exemption granted wouldn't mr lesnar have been tested prior to the bout mr lesnar was in fact tested prior to the bout on multiple occasions that's what i'm telling you we put into the record were the results revealed prior to the bout the results were revealed for his first five tests all of which were negative but not all of them how long before the fight was his last test he was tested the night of the fight july 9th two thousand and sixteen well but the result for that come back before the fight that's right and that's for all of the other tests that preceded the fight how far in advance of the fight were those all throughout the month of june when was the most recent one when was the latest one in june prior to the one the night of the fight june 28th and what was the night of the fight july 9th okay so between june 28th and july 9th there was no testing that's what the record reflects your honor i see i'm over my time and i don't want to take anything no i'll give you time for rebuttal judge pregerson i wasn't clear i thought that he had been tested test came out positive those results could have been available prior to the fight they could have been whether the word is expedited or whatever they could have been made available prior to the fight then the positive result but it was not is that correct in part your honor if i may quickly elaborate answer his question yes there were five tests i just want my question answered the two tests that came back positive first was june 28th could it have been expedited there is a procedure for expediting the part i can't answer your honor is whether it would have come back before the fight that's up to usada the independent testing agency so i don't know how long that would have taken and there's no evidence one way or the other go ahead judge pregerson there is no evidence on that the record your honor okay there were two positive tests prior to the fight is that what you said one prior one the night of all fighters are tested the night of because if it turns out typically the way this works with a fight is if you're going to be doping you're doing it farther in advance prior to a fight you know you're going to be tested the night of the fight so typically those types of positive tests are rare because fighters are always tested the night of the fight but in fact this one came back positive and he was fined for it but it really didn't matter because he still got his purse basically with you know a small amount deducted for the positive test he did receive his purse he was fined he was suspended he was fined five hundred thousand out of twenty five million i believe he was fine i think it was two hundred and fifty thousand your honor mr williams i just have one last question for you switching over to the battery claim do i understand your position to be that he consent that the plaintiff consented to fight a fighter who had doped up that is our position your honor yes very quickly the judge found below that there was express consent through their promotional agreement she also found that there was consent based on consenting to the inherent risks in the sport and given the nature of the complaint that we were here on and given the specific representations that went back and forth between mr lesnar excuse me mr white and mr hunt it's clear that he knew that there may be an issue with mr lesnar and there's one additional place where i believe consent is evidenced and the judge didn't rely on this but i believe that this court can because you can rely on anything in the record that supports this issue and that would be the night of or for a particular fight fighters not only sign their promotional agreement they sign bout agreements for the specific fight at issue the promotional agreement is longer term the bout agreement is for the particular fight in question mr hunt included the bout agreement as part of his complaint so it's incorporated by reference we submit we also submitted the bout agreement for ufc two hundred in our motion to dismiss briefing as well as in the summary judgment briefing so that's in the record and it too contains the express consent that judge dorsey found and the last point i'll make and it touches on something but does nevada law permit those kinds of waivers excuse me your honor does nevada law permit parties to waive liability for intentional towards as an assumption of the risk your honor there isn't that i'm aware of in nevada supreme court that addresses that question okay well the okay the lower court seemed to indicate no right well the lower court relied on for that portion of the consent finding relied on avila the california supreme court case that's the baseball case that's the baseball case and isn't there something qualitatively different between doping and this history of baseball that we have with batters and pitchers and that rivalry i mean when baseball players are found to be doped they strip them of their titles they take away their batting championships there are significant consequences so are you saying they're the same thing i'm saying there that there are significant consequences for doping your honor absolutely in that perspective i would say there are in addition to what the athletic commission does with the fines and the suspension zuffa has a set of consequences under the antidoping policy as well that it impacts i can tell you mr lesnar has not fought for the ufc since this fight go ahead i'm done go ahead judge pregerson you're finishing i was just saying that it just seems to me that if a fighter conceals the fact that they're taking a performance enhancing drug that potentially will not only cause them to win but perhaps do more damage to an opponent i have a hard time thinking that that is part of the assumption of the risk when you're dealing with you know this context that's all go ahead mr william do you have a point you want to make i was going to say this is it thank you i understand that and all i would say is i think the analogy could apply across a number of sports whether it's a doping hockey player a football player or a mma fighter in this context if a particularly hard hit is leveled during one of those types of games is the recipient of that hit going to be able to go back and seek to use the tort liability to police those types of incidents within the sport and i would respectfully submit the answer is no your honor okay okay let's hear from your cocouncil yes thank you your honor mr lesnar mr olsen originally sent out to have five minutes so i'll give it to you but i got to hold you to it thank you your honor david olson on behalf of brock lesnar since we're talking about battery i think we have to put this into focus the question when we're looking at a battery claim is whether the defendant owes a duty to protect the plaintiff from an injury consent of course negates the duty the existence of a duty because the absence of a consent is an element of the claim of battery here hunt has definitely pled in his own complaint that he consented to whatever injuries he received in the fighting cage first he expressly consented to accept the risk of injury and even death when he got into the mma fighting cage if you look at exhibit b to his own supplemental complaint it's the promotional and ancillary rights agreement at paragraph twelve he specifically says fighter fully understands and agrees that the professional sport of mixed martial arts is an inherently and abnormally dangerous activity that can result in severe and permanent physical injury including death and he does by clearly unambiguously and explicitly accept all risks all risks means all risks so council is your position that that consent encompassed illegal doping it's my position that that consent encompassed any injury he might receive in the ring whether it's a fighter who has violated the antidoping policy or not he accepted the risk of death and serious bodily injury he's not allowed that'd be true if the death came by virtue of combat with someone who had not been doping but the problem is the doping brings a new wrinkle into it and there's at least in terms of the pleading on the pleadings i am not certain that on the pleadings one could say that he consented to fight someone who had consumed performance enhancing drugs because his inquiries were to ensure that that hadn't happened so that's inconsistent to say he consented to something that he was assiduously seeking to avoid it's our position that the pleadings are just the opposite of that that in fact he did consent to potentially fight a fighter who will fail a drug test he admitted in his own complaint that on multiple occasions before he fought brock lesnar he had fought fighters who in turn tested positive he admitted that doping is an unfortunate reality in mma and that's a quote from his own complaint he admitted that he suspected lesnar of cheating of juicing of doping prior to the fight yet with all of that knowledge he chose to get in that fighting cage anyway and because he did but didn't he also say that was the reason he was trying to get some reassurance that had not occurred in this case and would thus we're supposed to interpret the pleadings in the light most favorable to the pleader so how do we make the inference that you're telling us is compelled from that complaint we make the inference because although he admits that he sought insurance that there would be no doping or no violation of the antidoping policy he never got that assurance he never got a guarantee he didn't contract for a guarantee the fighting contracts say that the fighters will adhere to antidoping policy that's all they say there's no guarantee that there will never be a violation and he knew there wouldn't be a guarantee like that i'm sorry you had a question not a guarantee an assurance that's different than a guarantee and we're saying that if we look at the allegations in his own pleading we take those allegations as true he knew there was no assurance when he got into the fighting cage he knew that it had happened before he knew that it's likely to happen again he knew that it was a part of the sport that's his own pleading that's what he said you make it sound like it's completely pointless for any fighter to rely on testing or that any other fighter is not going to be doped even in the face of making multiple requests is he clean has he been tested or words to that effect well in a sense your honor it is pointless because although not in the record when asked to put this in perspective and understand the nature of the sport and the antidoping policy the world antidoping association publishes the list that has literally hundreds of compounds on it these compounds are not all performance enhancing drugs they include standard medications they include over the counter medications they include substances that may occur in food that you buy from the grocery store packaged food processed food a fighter can never be sure that he will pass a test no matter how vigilant he is and no matter how much care he takes with what he puts into his body there will never be a guarantee no matter what the rules say no matter what ufc does no matter what usada does never be a guarantee that a fighter will pass a test that's just the reality of this sport okay so any representations to the contrary are pointless in essence yes the fighters can do their best to try to adhere to the policy they can never guarantee that they will not fail a test you keep using the word guarantee but that's not the standard it doesn't doesn't have to be a guarantee if there is a misrepresentation or an assurance that was knowingly false that's enough there doesn't have to be a guarantee if we look at the pleading there is no representation made by brock lesnar to mr hunt there is no representation made by brock lesnar in any agreement that provides any assurance that he will not fail on the test that representation was never made okay thank you council thank you okay i'll give the plaintiffs appellant's lawyer one minute but you need to turn on your mic you need to unmute okay i'm going to try to blend three minutes into one council's argument about mr lesnar and there's no guarantee of antidoping he took steroids he took performance enhancing drugs and got caught taking performance enhancing drugs this wasn't some supplement some dietary oh whoops i took the wrong over the counter drug he was caught cheating to get bigger stronger faster so that he could put my client in a lifethreatening situation that's the reality of what happened and the analogy and i'll go to judge pregerson's point with baseball there was a pitcher for the dodgers a number of years ago who was a nice pitcher he threw an eighty eight mile an hour fastball and he started using steroids and he started throwing a hundred mile an hour fastball and he hit a guy in the head and one of the reasons that baseball tests so diligently for performance enhancing drugs is because that situation creates a lifethreatening possibility if you've got someone on performance enhancing drugs that can kill someone that's what happened here mr lesnar took performance enhancing drugs against the policies of the ufc and the nevada athletic commission for the sole purpose of getting bigger stronger faster and hurting potentially irreparably hurting my client and that's battery and in the ufc knew he was going to do it and they turned the other way and that's aiding and abetting battery and i've used up my minute so yes thank you thank you council we appreciate your arguments thank you judge