Back in July, the UFC quickly sued Wanderlei Silva for intentional misconduct when he said he had proof of them fixing fights. Silva has been on bad terms with the promotion since his (since overturned) indefinite suspension by the Nevada Athletic Commission last year. The UFC wouldn’t release Silva from his contract even though he could never fight for them again, that angered him, and he posted this on Facebook (emphasis ours):
Either you do what they tell you, or you’re fired. I won’t give up until they free the athletes. This promoter is killing our sport. There are fighters going back to work to support their families because they can’t live from the sport alone. They’re very poorly paid. We are getting organized and soon I’ll have news for my brothers in the ring. This will not stand! Some have tried to buy me, but I am not, nor have I ever been for sale. And I will fight to the end, to unmask these promoters, who are deceiving the public, cheating, and taking the dignity and the honor from our sport! This is turning a pro-wrestling show with fixed fights. We have to stop these guys because that’s the end of the line for us!
John Nash at BloodyElbow.com is now reporting that Silva’s lawyer, Terry A, Coffing has filed a motion to dismiss (PDF) in the case. Here are what his argumnts boil down to:
- The UFC his failed to show damages or prove that Silva’s comments were false, so the lawsuit is just to silence him.
- By “fight fixing,” Silva was referring to things like trying to get him to fight while injured and the recent story about the Vitor Belfort blood test that should have been flagged even though there’s no indication it went anywhere. This is an interesting argument because Pride FC, where Silva spent much of his career, has a reputation for fixing fights, but they did much more deck stacking than outright fixes or worked fights.
- Silva’s statements are “absolutely privileged under the litigation privilege. The absolute litigation privilege extends to all statements made by litigants in anticipation of or during judicial proceedings.” The argument is his comments tied in the class action lawsuit against the UFC, so they were “in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body.”
There has been no official response to the motion as of yet.
