Brock Lesnar and Dana White appeared on ESPN today to discuss Lesnar’s injury situation and announce that Lesnar will return to the Octagon this summer to face the winner of Carwin-Mir (a bout set for March 27th at UFC 111).
Payout Perspective:
The announcement pretty much went as expected. Again, this was a pretty smart – if not a no-brainer move – for the UFC. There was no better avenue for this interview and to release this news (although just an hour later it’s not even front page material on the ESPN.com website).
It’s hard not to look back at this entire thing and feel that it was sensationalized a bit, but that’s what a promoter does. The comeback angle on this fight will likely ensure that – whether the opponent is Mir or Carwin – Lesnar’s next fight is bigger than it could have ever been without the incident.
The only question now is whom will Lesnar fight. White stated that it’ll be the winner of Carwin-Mir unless that individual is injured, and then he’ll look to the winner of Nogueira-Velasquez. If that’s the case they should probably just drop the interim title headline from the Carwin-Mir bout, but I have a feeling that’s unlikely given that another “title bout” adds value to UFC 111 in the minds of consumer which is likely to induce a greater purchase rate.
——
Lesnar didn’t look too small, but he didn’t look huge either. I wonder what the impact is going to be on him trying to regain this weight and rebuild his cardio.
Who sensationalized what?
Maybe the media sensationalized it but to me Brock’s account of what went down backs up what Dana had been saying. Dana kept saying Brock’s career could be over because that is exactly what he knew at the time. Brock confirms that in this interview. Brock said he got multiple opinions and they suggested he needed surgery and that meant the possible end of his career. Only after Jan. 5 when Brock went back to the hospital did that change.
So how did Dana sensationalize this if he was only stating exactly what multiple doctors were telling Brock?
I think it was a situation that was completely up in the air and the UFC probably used it to their advantage a little bit, but it did have the potential of being extremely serious. For a guy like Brock to lose about 40 lbs says enough.
I also think it works to their advantage if Brock loses his first match back, especially if it’s against Mir. Mir would than have a 2-1 advantage and in combat sports trilogies are the norm. This way if Mir pulls off a win the UFC can push that Brock took an extremely difficult fight in his first fight back from this career threatening illness. Same thing if he fights Cain or Big Nog, they can keep him in the upper end of the HW title pic with that logic
I agree with Matt. I had the very same feelings when I read the piece.
It might be added that Brock doesn’t seem to the most reliable source of information about his illness. According Beau Dure at USA Today Fighting Stances, he confused two related colon diseases, diverticulitis and diverticulosis, during the news conference—as, frankly, I would as well. And contrary to his statements about mononucleosis, he did test positive for that condition. Further, he ignored the Canadian doctors’ advice to get a follow-up CT scan and instead had his wife drive him to the states, thus delaying the full diagnosis. Finally, Dana’s comments during Brock’s long absence that there was a middle course that would have kept him out of action for a long time but still enable him to compete eventually was also correct. It would have required two operations, one to remove a small section of colon temporarily and the other to restore the colon.
In short the criticism of Dana is blaming the messenger. His comments were correct, if frustratingly vague. Nevertheless, I think his approach was appropriate. He’s not a doctor anymore than Brock is, and to talk off the cuff about an area where he doesn’t have expertise could easily have exacerbated the problem rather than clarifying it. As the saying goes, “Better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
As to ESPN’s web page, I haven’t been there yet, but at about 2:00 this afternoon I was eating lunch in a restaurant when ESPN itself carried the story on the air. Two men at the table in front of me suddenly dropped their forks and turned to watch the report. I often look around me for evidence that MMA is reaching the general public. This was the most striking instance I’d seen to date.
Who’s blaming Dana and for what? He did his job.
I challenge either of you to argue that Dana White and the UFC didn’t sensationalize this thing a bit. The fact is for a while nobody really knew what was going to happen with Brock or what the probability of each of the various outcomes was. That didn’t prevent Dana or the UFC from frequently talking about how Brock could potentially (the most severe and least likely of the outcomes); and, this despite the fact that numerous people in his camp and from around the MMA community were stating otherwise.
Dana had the option to say he didn’t know – because truthfully he didn’t – so why didn’t he take it? The answer is obvious. I’m not faulting him for it. Really. It’s smart and that’s all I’ve ever maintained.
Thanks for the contributions guys. Nice chatting.
I just don’t see how Dana answering a question truthfully is somehow sensationalizing it. Sure he could have not answered it but he choose to answer with what he knew. It’s not like Dana was exaggerating Brock’s illness. He was stating exactly what every doctor told Brock. Telling the truth is not sensationalizing it.
This statement confuses me though: “(the most severe and least likely of the outcomes)”.
How can you say that was the least likely of outcomes when at that point in time it was the only opinion he was getting from multiple doctors?
He chose to answer it by saying that Brock could die from a disease with a mortality rate of 1%. With or without information directly related to Brock that nugget is freely available on the internet.
Look, I’m not bashing the guy. If you read this site enough, we support everything we say with a logical argument (right or wrong…we’re not always right). But in this instance I see all of the following adding up:
1.) The UFC has built its business on public relations and Dana White is a masterful PR strategist.
2.) Headlines like “Brock may die” or “Brock may never fight again” have extreme shock value.
3.) Those types of headlines, due to their human interest nature, tend to break specialty press barriers and filter into the mainstream press.
Then:
4.) The mortality rate of the more serious disease – not even the form he actually had – is 1%.
5.) That means that the probability of him fighting again, or at least living – regardless of whether they were known or not – had to be greater than that of him dying.
6.) And, lastly Lesnar made a full and miraculous recovery to 100% with no sign of the disease at all.
It’s not a bloody conspiracy to generate press and hype the fight – none of this was fabricated.
However, it is an example of how promoters spin events to generate awareness and interest in their product. The UFC and Dana had nothing to lose by divulging the information; it’s either he could have died but has now made a miraculous recovery or he has to stop fighting because of the illness and we told you so.
I think your sensationalizing Dana’s statements right there.
Dana don’t write headlines. Headlines like “Brock may die” were written by the media.
Let me try this in order of events starting with when it got serious and Dana started commenting on it.
Brock woke up in shock and terrible pain which led to him spending 11 days in a hospital being fed intravenously and pumped full of antibiotics. At this point Dana started commenting on it.
I never saw a direct quote from Dana saying Brock may die. I did see media headlines making that claim though. I saw Dana say Brock’s life was in danger at one point and that was true considering the 11 days he spent hospitalized getting antibiotics and being fed intravenously. At least to me that merits life in danger because without that treatment he would have in fact died.
After that hospital stay Brock’s life was not in danger and Dana nor Brock claimed his life was in danger after that.
So now at this point the only case of this disease that matters to this discussion is Brock’s case. Brock got multiple opinions and they all gave him the same opinion that he needed surgery that could possibly end his career. Maybe somehow I’m confused but if every doctor he sees gives him that opinion then that has to be the most likely outcome as they know it. So that is the outcome Dana shared with the public because that is the only outcome they kept getting from multiple doctors.
Not one doctor gave him a different outcome. So with Brock’s particular case as they knew it the most likely outcome and only outcome they were getting as opinions at that point in time is what Dana kept sharing with the public.
Then after making some changes to his lifestyle and eating habits Brock went back in and got a clean bill of health. At which point Dana switched to no comment.
As I see it every time Dana offered a comment he told the truth as he knew it to be at that very point in time. Every step of the way Brock’s time line of the events back that up.
Of course I could tell you I’m might be the biggest Brock Lesnar Nut Hugger out there and I’m just being contrary. 🙂 So feel free to just dismiss me if you will but I do believe in my argument.
By the way here is an interesting article that relates to our discussion.
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/1/21/1263270/brock-lesnars-career-wasnt-the#comments
Yes, I’ve skimmed the article. It’s textbook sensationalism.
Dana and the UFC fanned the flames of this entire story angle by stretching or exaggerating the possibility. Brock will follow in step. Then the media will take this thing to a whole new level – essentially making it the story line of the year.
Why does the media function in this manner? The answer: stories like this sell. It’s the classic hero that overcomes adversity or shows nearly superhuman ability to beat the odds.
Again, I’m not blaming Dana or Brock. If you’re arguing to somehow defend their honor I’m not sure why…it’s not being attacked. This is the promotional aspect of the business – like it or not.
I know your not attacking anyone. Hell I don’t even know why I’m arguing this considering almost every other time Dana opens his mouth he is sensationalizing something with promotional hyperbole. I don’t know maybe I found it slightly admirable that in this situation involving a serious health issue that Dana appears to have stuck to exactly the truth. At least to me what appears to be exactly the truth as he knew it when compared to Brock’s time line of the events that transpired.
Was Dana sensationalizing? Is your 1% number realistic?
Sherdog now has a medical reporter, Matt Pitt, “a physician with degrees in biophysics and medicine,” who is comparable to MMA Weekly’s Doctor Johnny Benjamin. In summarizing Lesnar’s situation he says, “For once, White’s hyperbole was insufficient for the gravity of the situation…. Lesnar’s diverticulitis wasn’t diagnosed early, and he was absolutely right when he stated on “SportsCenter” that he very nearly died….
“The complication Lesnar suffered was a bowel perforation… If the perforation is contained, medical treatment and percutaneous drainage generally result in full recovery. If the perforation is not contained, if large volumes of pus and stool spill into the abdominal cavity, then emergency surgery is the only hope for survival and death is an expected outcome.” Note: “expected outcome.”
In short, my inference is that your 1% number is irrelevant because it applies to cases where the diagnosis is made in a timely manner which, in my experience knowing people who developed the condition, is easily the usual case. Lesnar’s inaction moved him into the 1% column.
It’s also interesting that Pitt’s description of normal treatment suggests that his recovery is not as miraculous as Lesnar believes it to be.
Incidentally, Dr. Benjamin hasn’t commented on the medical particulars of Lesnar’s case. His most recent comments on his own blog preceded the ESPN interview. I wouldn’t be surprised if he follows up, however.