web hit counter Tom Aspinall still not medically cleared after Ciryl Gane eye pokes at UFC 321 – TopLineDaily.Com | Source of Your Latest News
Breaking News

Tom Aspinall still not medically cleared after Ciryl Gane eye pokes at UFC 321

Tom Aspinall still not medically cleared after Ciryl Gane eye pokes at UFC 321

UFC heavyweight champion Tom Aspinall does not know when he’ll fight next. Aspinall remains sidelined after two eye pokes from Ciryl Gane, whom he called a cheater, cut their UFC 321 main event short.

Aspinall provided several notable updates about his health and the Oct. 25 fight over the weekend. On Sunday, Aspinall uploaded a YouTube video revealing that there’s no timetable for his return despite UFC CEO Dana White’s interest in booking a rematch.

“I think right now, we’ve got to focus on the path back to normal and following doctors’ orders,” Aspinall said. “That’s all I can control right now. We’ll cross the bridge [of my future with the UFC] when I’m feeling better and everything is right. 

“If you were sidelined from doing your job for 15 months, not allowed to do anything, then train your ass off for six months for a fight to get double eye-poked and left with no vision for nearly six weeks because of an illegal move, how do you think I feel? I’m not feeling fantastic, am I?”

UFC 321’s disastrous main event spawned a swathe of reactions. Some people called Aspinall a quitter, while others labelled Gane a serial rulebreaker. Those siding with the champion dug up numerous examples of Gane eyepoking others; meanwhile, Aspinall’s detractors pointed to Gane’s early success before the eyepoke. Aspinall initially thought the illegal moves were an accident, but, upon further inspection, accused Gane of intentionally breaking the rules. Count Aspinall among those calling Gane a “big cheater.”

“When it happened initially, I didn’t really think much of it,” Aspinall said. “I thought it was an accidental eye poke. When I watch the fight back, that’s when I really get the gist of what’s going on. The guy was trying to f—ing poke my eyes out all the way through that round. Multiple exchanges, nearly every exchange, I could have put him in danger; he had his fingers out, pointing towards my eyes. The guy was cheating from the first second. The way that he wanted to win that fight was to have me compromised by cheating.

The fight was ruled a no-contest with Aspinall unable to continue after 4:35 of Round 1. The heavyweight champion stands by his decision not to fight compromised.

“I didn’t continue, and I’ll tell you why,” Aspinall said. “Because I’m not a f—ing dummy. I’m not going to go out there and fight one of the best strikers in the world when I can’t see with one eye. I know, as an MMA fighter, things are going to happen in a fight that compromises you. If it’s a legal move, you have to fight through it. That’s what we do as a fighter. But if it’s illegal, why am I going to put my health at risk when I can’t see at all?” 

Earlier, Aspinall posted a medical diagnosis of his injury on Instagram.

“Following a bilateral eye-poke injury sustained during a UFC fight in October 2025, the patient has been diagnosed with bilateral traumatic Brown’s syndrome, indicating significant disruption to the superior oblique tendon-trochlear complex. Clinically, he presents with:

  • Persistent diplopia in multiple gaze positions, including lateral gaze and upgaze.
  • Blurred vision and photophobia following the trauma.
  • Marked restriction of elevation in adduction in both eyes, confirmed on orthoptic assessment.
  • Reduction in visual acuity bilaterally.

Severe bilateral visual field depression on Humphrey visual field testing.Imaging and investigations demonstrated:

  • Findings requiring continued monitoring, with no definitive structural explanation identified for the degree of functional deficit.
  • CT imaging initially raised concern for a medial orbital wall abnormality.
  • MRI demonstrated no acute structural abnormality to account for motility impairment or visual symptoms.
  • Intraocular pressures and anterior segment findings did not identify the source of functional limitation.”




Source link