Do fighters have a say in their contract after USADA?

[Dimbis]

Now that USADA is gone, should fighters have a say in continuing their contract? I imagine they had to have some agreement to work with USADA when signing their contracts. Does that mean they can opt out of their UFC contract with no repercussions with this change?

The only fighter I could see opting out, if given the opportunity, is a fighter that rhymes with Rice Fitchell. We know he’s a little kooky, and this 24/7 location surveillance might get to his head.

Anyways! Are they given the option to leave with the change or does it not matter enough to let fighters leave their contracts?

 

[oscerthegrouch]

its a good question Does eh contract have to be redone... seems to me those contracts could be void by fighters as a health safety risk or something shrug i sure the UFC would fight it or frown any who dare ask lol

 

[jeff7b9]

Highly unlikely the UFC lawyers didn't include some sort of clause:

"business affiliates subject to change"

 

[MRT]

I imagine there is some broad clause that applies to PED testing rather than an overly specific USADA one...but I think full contracts have been posted online before, so someone could probably find out for sure what is stated.

It is unfathomable that the UFC would have structured its contracts in such a manner that a change in testing partner or protocol would potentially impact the deals for the entire roster.

 

[Gabe]

I think the contracts are for a set number of fights I doubt the new drug testing policy would void the contract it would just change the stipulations.

 

[Alpha_T83]

No. Because the testing is always done by the commissions. The commissions and the UFC just agreed that testing will be delegated to USADA, who will then report the results to the commissions.

 

[jeff7b9]

I imagine there is some broad clause that applies to PED testing rather than an overly specific USADA one...but I think full contracts have been posted online before, so someone could probably find out for sure what is stated.

It is unfathomable that the UFC would have structured its contracts in such a manner that a change in testing partner or protocol would potentially impact the deals for the entire roster.

I deal with real estate contracts for work and there is standard inclusion of something called a "severability clause"

Essentially, a change in part does not mean a change or break of the over riding agreement.

 

[Belaya Smert]

I’m pretty excited for the Roid Rage era.

This break in the action sponsored by Trenbelone and D-bol.

 

[Pierced7681]

I’m pretty excited for the Roid Rage era.

This break in the action sponsored by Trenbelone and D-bol.

Bring back Ubereem

 

[MRT]

I deal with real estate contracts for work and there is standard inclusion of something called a "severability clause"

Essentially, a change in part does not mean a change or break of the over riding agreement.

View attachment 1006465

Funny, I used to work in that domain too.

AFAIK, that type of clause is a general tenet in much of contract law...and it can often be enforceable whether it is explicitly stated or not.

The fun with contracts is that just because something is (or is not) written into a contract, it does not automatically follow that it is enforceable (or not) under the law.

 

[Belaya Smert]

Bring back Ubereem

 

[MDoza]

Sure, they have a say..

They either agree to the new terms, or get cut.