Follow up on the Oklahoma PPV tax
May 23, 2012
Last week, the Oklahoma Attorney General decided that the state’s tax on pay per views was unconstitutional. MMA Payout takes a brief look at the potential legalities behind this question.
As those who have been following know, the UFC threatened to sue the state of Oklahoma for its 4% tax on pay per views. As a result, there was a possibility that the state would have to shut down the regulation of MMA events within the state. Since the initial issues, the state Attorney General reviewed the PPV tax and determined it could not defend the constitutionality of the law.
So we postulate on what the AG could have looked at to determine why it could not support the law.
State regulations and state taxes that burden interstate commerce can be challenged under the dormant commerce clause of the US Constitution if they place an undue burden on interstate commerce. Essentially, even if Congress has not acted with respect to a state/local law affecting interstate commerce, it would fall under the purview of federal law. Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, there is a strong presumption against state discrimination against out-of-staters. Any tax related to this would be struck down. The US Supreme Court has made it clear that states cannot use their tax systems to help in-state businesses at the expense of out-of-state businesses.
In general, taxes specific to out of state commerce are never allowed while nondiscriminatory taxes are much more likely to be permitted.
In Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, the issue was whether a tax was unconstitutional because it was applied to an activity that was a part of interstate commerce. A tax was placed on Complete Auto as it hauled General Motors vehicles from out of state to in state car dealers. The US Supreme Court upheld the law and applied a four part test in concluding that a state tax does not violate the commerce clause. The four part test ask if:
1) It is applied to an activity with a substantial nexus to the taxing state;
2) It is fairly apportioned so as to tax only the activities connected to the taxing state;
3) It does not discriminate against out-of-staters; and
4) It is fairly related to services provided by the state.
Without going through an exhaustive analysis of the test (since the issue has been decided), arguably the state PPV tax could fall within the Complete Auto test if the tax was similarly applied to in-staters (#3, the nondiscrimination element). However, as explained in this article, most of the OK State Athletic Commission’s revenue came from out of state PPVs. The AG probably looked at the likelihood of successfully arguing in favor of the PPV tax and determined that the law could not be successfully defended.
Obviously, there were other legal issues it factored into its analysis but this was one of the likely hurdles the state decided it could not overcome.
DISCLAIMER
The information in this post is opinion only. In addition, and because this is my opinion, it is not intended to be (and is not) legal advice or an advertisement for legal services. This post provides general information only. Although I encourage interested parties to contact me on the subjects discussed in the article, the reader should not consider information on this site to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. I disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any contents of this post. Any e-mail sent to me will not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not use this site to send me e-mail containing confidential or sensitive information.
Diaz fined, suspended one year by the NSAC
May 21, 2012
MMA Junkie reports Nick Diaz has been suspended one year retroactive to February 4th per the Nevada State Athletic Commission ruling. In addition, Diaz was fined 30 percent of his UFC 137 fight purse which amounts to $60,000.
UPDATE: MMA Fighting reports that the Diaz legal team is considering a judicial review by the state district court of today’s NSAC ruling.
The NSAC determined Diaz had failed his UFC 143 drug test and was less than truthful on his pre-fight medical questionnaire.
Diaz’s attorney was unsuccessful in arguing that a showing of marijuana metabolites did not prove he had used it for in competition use and that the World Anti-Doping Agency code does not prohibit out of competition use of marijuana. Despite a medical witness on behalf of Diaz, the Commission handed down a 1 year suspension.
The Commission indicated that there’s a strict liability standard that makes an athlete responsible for what’s in their body. However, according to the report by MMA Fighting, the Commission inferred that it would have entertained a usage exemption for Diaz’s use of marijuana based on his past medical history.
Payout Perspective:
The suspension is another chapter in the tumultuous career of Nick Diaz. It will definitely hurt Diaz’s career and the UFC’s welterweight division. The Nate Diaz-GSP matchup would have drawn considerable interest especially if it would have been slated for GSP’s return at UFC 154 in Montreal (assuming that’s when he comes back).
The Diaz legal team put up a novel defense but in the end none of the legal wranglings could save Diaz from his fate. Worse for Diaz is that the legal efforts probably means a big legal bill in addition to his fine and suspension.
Maybe Diaz will focus his time on triathlons, boxing or help out his brother. But, if and when Diaz returns, hopefully he matures and gets his act together. He’s an asset to the UFC and that’s why the UFC hasn’t bailed on him yet.
Oklahoma PPV tax declared unconstitutional
May 17, 2012
MMA Payout has learned that the Oklahoma PPV tax has been declared unconstitutional by the state Attorney General of Oklahoma. The tax has been challenged by the UFC as it threatened litigation prior to a review of the issue by the Oklahoma AG.
In an email correspondence to MMA Payout, a representative from state representative Tom Newell’s office stated that after extensive research and legal analysis of the issue, an attorney on behalf of the Athletic Commission concluded that the law could not be successfully defended.
Representative Newell is sponsoring SB1533, a bill that would grant the Oklahoma Athletic Commission $200,000 to fund combat sports in the state. “SB1533 Oklahoma Athletic Commission PPV law is assigned to a conference committee with language deleting the unconstitutional fee. We don’t anticipate having any problems,” stated Representative Newell in an email to MMA Payout. Thus, despite striking down the tax, SB1533 should pick up for the loss of the tax revenue.
Below is the fiscal analysis from the Conference Committee Report from today:
The measure deletes the State Athletic Commission’s Gross Receipts Assessment as it pertains to certain telecasts and pay-per-views. Prevailing legal opinion is that these assessments are unenforceable therefore; the measure brings current statutes into conformity with the prevailing legal opinion. The Commission expects to loose (sic) approximately $240,000 annually in revenue as a result of the assessment no longer being collected; however this fiscal impact is not a result of HB 2746, but a result of the legal determination that the assessment is unenforceable. The measure has no direct fiscal impact on the State Budget or Appropriations
Payout Perspective:
MMA Payout will have more on this news in the coming days. It may have boiled down to an analysis of the Dormant Commerce Clause as it affected interstate commerce. According to representative Newell’s office, the tax had been thoroughly examined by the state’s attorneys to determine the constitutionality of the law. The good news is that based on SB1533 it looks like combat sports will continue in Oklahoma.
Diaz denied injunction by Nevada court
May 14, 2012
MMA Fighting reports that Nick Diaz’s request for an injunction has been denied by a Nevada court. However, Diaz’s hearing on the merits of his case will be heard before the Nevada State Athletic Commission on May 21st.
In addition with filing their Complaint on April 26th, Diaz’s attorney filed a temporary injunction seeking a court order staying the NSAC’s suspension of Diaz for failing his UFC 143 drug test. The NSAC opposed the injunction stating that Diaz’s legal actions were premature.
No transcript of Monday’s hearing was released as of this writing although the ruling was confirmed by MMA Fighting.
Payout Perspective:
While this was a win for the NSAC, the Diaz camp received a date for a hearing on the merits next week. So, despite losing Monday, they have a week to prepare for the hearing. Diaz faces a year suspension if his defense is not successful.
Petersen-Khan fight canceled due to failed drug test
May 11, 2012
MMA is not the only sport with a drug issue as it was announced on Wednesday that the LaMont Petersen/Amir Khan rematch has been canceled due to Petersen’s failed drug test.
The test comes just over a week before the anticipated rematch as Petersen upset Khan in a controversial decision in December.
MaxBoxing, ESPN and BoxingScene.com have the details. The short version of this is that Petersen failed a random VADA (Volunteer Anti-Doping Association) drug test at a press conference hyping the fight in March. Ironically, it was Petersen’s camp that requested the random blood and urine testing leading up to the fight. According to BoxingScene.com, the samples were split into “A” and “B” samples and sent to the World Anti-Doping Agency in Los Angeles. The notice of the sample was given April 12th to VADA and Petersen’s camp was given notice on April 13th. The “B” sample was tested and it too came back positive on April 30th. Details of what transpired in the interim can be found in VADA’s statement below.
A hearing on the matter before the NSAC would not have happened until fight week and it was likely Petersen would not be licensed in time.
Another issue here, and probably the bigger one, is that Golden Boy and Team Khan were not notified of Petersen’s positive test until May 7th. NSAC head Keith Kizer let Golden Boy know this past Monday. VADA states that it had no contractual obligations to reveal the results to Golden Boy as the two parties did not come to a consensus on contract language for revealing test results. As such, VADA believes that it was a matter of medical ethics with respect to privacy. On the other hand, Golden Boy Promotions believes there was a contract in place in which it should have reported the test results. Golden Boy head Richard Schaefer states that emails with VADA (via ESPN) reflect that it was to disclose information of a failed drug test. If it had known sooner, it could have taken the steps to request the process to be sped up, or in the alternative, find a replacement for Petersen.
Keith Kizer, in an interview with BoxingScene.com indicated that he did not know why VADA did not alert Golden Boy and/or Team Khan. Kizer references the Alistair Overeem drug test in which the UFC and JDS’ camp were alerted immediately of the results of Overeem’s test.
VADA’s statement on the controversy is below:
VADA’s mission is to help protect the health and safety of athletes who are willing to demonstrate their commitment to clean sport. As a voluntary organization, we depend on those who share our vision to help rid boxing and MMA of PEDs. VADA understands and shares the disappointment that is felt by Golden Boy Promotions, Amir Khan, the undercard fighters, HBO, and the thousands of fans who were looking forward to Khan-Peterson II. This unfortunate situation, however, serves to underscore the need for PED education and the high-caliber testing procedures that VADA offers.
VADA has respect for Richard Schaefer, GBP, and their commitment to clean sport. However, VADA disagrees with Mr. Schaefer’s characterizations of the contractual relationship between GBP and VADA. The facts are as follows.
There was never a final or signed contract between GBP and VADA. When VADA became involved with the Peterson-Khan fight in March, the individual athletes signed up for the VADA program and executed the proper documentation.
VADA was told that GBP also wanted a contract so that GBP would be authorized to receive the testing results, including the preliminary results from an “A” sample analysis. It is important to understand that “A” sample results are only preliminary, do not legally stand up by themselves, and under commonly accepted anti-doping procedures are typically released only to the athlete.
In order for VADA to release the preliminary “A” sample results to a third party such as GBP, VADA requires an executed authorization allowing us to do so. VADA sent GBP a draft contract for its signature which would have authorized the preliminary “A” sample results to be released to GBP. This initial draft (which was never signed) contained a clause pursuant to which GBP would have represented that it had obtained the necessary authorization from the fighters. GBP’s legal team rejected this clause and instead suggested making the fighters signatories to the contract with their signatures being the necessary authorization. VADA’s counsel made it clear to GBP that, if GBP wanted to handle it this way, GBP must take responsibility for obtaining the athlete’s signatures. Unfortunately, and to VADA’s dismay, GBP never obtained the signatures. Various versions of a draft contract were sent back and forth between GBP and VADA. The contract was never finalized. Richard Schaefer may, or may not, have been aware of this situation. The bottom line is that VADA had no contract with GBP. This is not a mere technicality. It involves issues of medical ethics. VADA needed a signed contract in order to deviate from its Results Management Policy (posted on our website) and release the preliminary and personal medical information to a third party. VADA still has never received a signed contract or signed athlete authorization from GBP. VADA would have been happy to inform GBP of the preliminary “A” results. But we needed a signed authorization allowing us to do so, which we never received.
It has also been asked why it took so long to test the “B” sample after the first positive test result. When VADA notified Mr. Peterson of the adverse finding on April 13, Mr. Peterson had one week to challenge the “A” test result and ask for the “B” sample to be tested. During that time, Mr. Peterson also had the opportunity to supplement his earlier written submissions to VADA with regard to drugs and other medications that he had used prior to the testing. Mr. Peterson’s representatives waited eight days (until Saturday, April 21) to respond. At that time, they did not communicate any of the “exculpatory” material later offered to the Nevada State Athletic Commission. Instead, they chose to challenge the positive test result, asserted their right to be present when the “B” sample was tested, and asked that the “B” sample be tested on Friday, April 27th. The UCLA laboratory said that Friday was an inappropriate day to begin testing because four consecutive days are needed to complete the test. The sample “B” test began on Monday, April 30th.
VADA has complied in every way with all signed contracts that we had and will continue to do so. VADA welcomes the discussion about the dangers of PEDs to those who use them and to their opponents. We also reiterate our contention that it is imperative for the managers, promoters, and friends of these brave athletes to assist in the education about PEDs. VADA will help in every way we can. Our hope is that there will come a time when every test is negative.
Payout Perspective:
The cancellation is a dent into HBO’s boxing schedule although it should have Khan for his June 30th bout. While the promotion will have to refund tickets, it was unlikely that paid attendance was a huge concern. The most hurt out of this would be the undercard fighters who will now miss out on a payday. This rematch had some appeal considering Petersen’s strong showing in their first bout. Now, the outcome of that fight may be doubted considering Petersen’s positive drug test. For Khan, avenging the loss would have helped as he may be on track to be next for Floyd Mayweather, Jr.
The discrepancy over when VADA should have released the results is a bigger issue than the actual cancellation. This is highlighted by the fact that NSAC’s Keith Kizer questioned why VADA did not release the info as the NSAC did when Alistair Overeem failed his test. Knowing ahead of time, the UFC was able to insert a replacement for Overeem.
The contractual relationship between VADA and Golden Boy poses the interesting question about releasing the medical information of an individual to outside parties. It also underscores the need for a standard set of rules when it comes to drug testing. MMA has had as many issues related to drug testing, but the timing of releasing the information to a promoter and/or opposing fight camp is a unique twist. Just like most medical places, health information cannot be given to third parties without consent. It appears that the issue here was what entity would ask the fighters about releasing the information. It seems like that there should have been something in the fight contract that would allow Golden Boy/HBO notice of a failed drug test to allow for alternatives to be planned. Still, when dealing with third parties, the fighters would have likely had to sign off on this. We shall see if the VADA/Golden Boy situation turns into a legal battle.
Nevada states position on Diaz suspension
May 1, 2012
MMA Fighting reports that the Attorney General of Nevada stated its position to Nick Diaz’s claim that his suspension by the Nevada State Athletic Commission violated state administrative laws and Diaz’s due process.
In a letter which preceded Diaz’s lawsuit, the NSAC framed the suspension as “temporary” not a “summary” suspension as claimed by Diaz’s attorneys.
The Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto argues that Diaz’s lawsuit is misguided as the legal team “misunderstood” the suspension. In a letter to Diaz’s attorney, the AG explained the NSAC’s actions.
Via MMA Fighting:
“No Notice of Summary Suspension was ever served on your client,” Masto wrote. “In this matter, Mr. Diaz was properly served with a ‘Notice of Hearing on Temporary Suspension’ and he failed to appear at the hearing. The Commission temporarily suspended Mr. Diaz’s license at the hearing. Neither Mr. Diaz nor you objected in any manner to the temporary suspension.”
Under a “Summary” Suspension, the Nevada rules state that a hearing on the merits must occur within 45 days after the suspension. However, Nevada contends that the suspension was “Temporary” which does not come under the 45 day rule. A hearing on the temporary suspension was not attended by Diaz or his attorney. The Nevada AG also argues that Diaz’s failure to produce his medical marijuana card caused the delay in part. Nevada claims it will proceed with a hearing on the suspension although no date has been set. Meanwhile, the injunction hearing against the Diaz suspension will occur on May 14th.
Payout Perspective:
This post should clarify (h/t to Jonathan Tweedale) a previous tweet in which I stated that Nevada was responding to the lawsuit when in fact it was the lawsuit was the response to the letter sent by Nevada. One thing is correct from the tweet, in law, you have to read carefully. The timeline of events is important here considering Nevada’s letter to Diaz’s attorney regarding the status of suspension and the failure for Diaz to object to the suspension. Still, the Court will determine the status of the injunction on May 14th. This may clarify the status of the suspension and hopefully the commission will set a hearing date for it to hear the merits of the case.
Diaz sues Nevada State Athletic Commission
April 26, 2012
MMA Fighting reports that Nick Diaz has filed a lawsuit against the Nevada State Athletic Commission. In addition, Diaz’s attorney filed a preliminary injunction which would stay Diaz’s suspension related to his failed drug test from UFC 143.
Via MMA Fighting:
The suit is asking the court to immediately stay the summary suspension handed out to Diaz by the NSAC as well as to enjoin the NSAC from going ahead in any further disciplinary proceedings. Diaz’s complaint also asks the court to declare his due process rights have been violated by the NSAC’s failure to promptly convene a hearing to determine the merits of the disciplinary complaint against him.
Diaz vs. NSAC
Diaz’s attorney stated that according to statute, Diaz’s disciplinary hearing must have been heard within 45 days of the temporary suspension or it would consider the complaint dismissed. However, Diaz failed to appear at a temporary suspension hearing according to the NSAC.
Payout Perspective:
This will be interesting to see how the court rules on April 14th – the date of the preliminary injunction hearing. Diaz is not challenging the merits of the NSAC’s complaint, but the process. This could have major implications for the NSAC and athletic commissions on a broader scale as it relates to how it governs.
Diaz indicates that he is ready to fight immediately if the suspension is lifted. This could be helpful for the UFC for its late summer/fall schedule as a rematch with Carlos Condit would fill a PPV main event in prelude to a GSP showdown in Montreal.
UPDATED 4/29/12:
Diaz’s primary complaint is that the NSAC has not acted within the statutory regulations provided by the state of Nevada which relates to his other complaint of lack of due process. Essentially, Diaz states that the temporary suspension required the NSAC to have a full hearing on the merits of his drug test and subsequent suspension. That has not happened. The NSAC had served Diaz with an Amended Complaint which adds the fact that Diaz lied on his pre-fight questionnaire. The NSAC may argue that the amendment to its original Complaint equated to additional time required prior to a full hearing on the merits.
Another interesting observation is the explanation from Diaz’s camp that it did not challenge the initial “Summary Suspension” due to the reliance that it would receive a full hearing “in the near future.” Diaz’s legal counsel does a good job in laying out dates of its continued request to the NSAC as to when Diaz may receive a hearing.
It’s an interesting legal strategy and its plausible that the injunction may be granted.
UFC demands retraction from MMA web site
April 17, 2012
The UFC issued a press release Tuesday announcing it had served a demand for retraction from MMA web site Cage Potato. In Nevada, the demand is a prelude to a defamation lawsuit.
The UFC’s issue concerns a post on the web site on April 14th. The post is in regards to Jon Jones wearing UFC branded gear in his upcoming fight April 21st. The offending issue appears to be the picture and caption used by the web site. The picture, taken from the White-Jones Bud Light commercial which ran last year, included a caption which stated White was betting on Jones this Saturday. The web site oftentimes takes a satirical tone with its stories and captions. Of course, the caption was a joke. However, the demand for retraction was no laughing matter.
Via UFC press release:
As detailed in the formal demand for a retraction prepared by UFC® attorney, Donald J. Campbell of the Las Vegas law firm, Campbell & Williams:
“The claim that Mr. White would financially wager on the outcome of a UFC® event is outrageous in the extreme. Indeed, in the verified complaint we are presently preparing for Mr. White’s signature upon his return from Abu Dhabi, Mr. White expressly states under oath that at no time in the history of his association with the UFC® has he ever financially wagered on the outcome of a UFC® event.”
Mr. Campbell further explained that under Nevada law a demand for retraction is the first required step in the filing of a lawsuit seeking punitive damages against a party that has maliciously published defamatory statements about another.
Cage Potato complied with the demand and issued its retraction on the site. Cage Potato’s managing editor Ben Goldstein spoke to USA Today about the issue:
“This is just so silly that I want to print this retraction and get this behind us,” Goldstein said. “I have no (problem) saying on our website, ‘Look, it’s just a joke. We didn’t mean it to be intended this way.’ I’m just not interested in turning this into some sort of beef with UFC. It’s really not that important to me.”
Via social media, it appears that Dana White is still not cool with the situation despite the retraction.
Payout Perspective:
It’s an interesting strategy by the UFC as to how it is dealing with this. We probably know it has to do everything with the joke being about gambling on the sport. The UFC is likely sensitive to the perception that the UFC is fixed – especially since its top draw for the past couple years, Brock Lesnar, was a former pro wrestler…and has returned to sports entertainment. While most MMA fans will likely think this is ridiculous, there is a huge population out there that are beginning to watch the sport because it is now on Fox.
Another point in the gambling angle is the fact that the Fertittas own casinos and they do not want any inference that they bet on the sport.
The UFC brand is another reason. It wants to protect the brand and ensure that there is no inference of gambling. While it could have made a request for the web site to take the offending piece down without much news, it decided to make the formal request and press release. Thus, it served notice on others on how it would handle people that defamed the UFC.
As for the legal strategy, the Fight Lawyer points out a lawsuit may open up Dana White’s reputation in discovery. This could potentially stir up issues for White and the UFC not related to the lawsuit, yet still discoverable .
Oklahoma addresses state PPV tax
April 11, 2012
State Impact reports on the current status of MMA in Oklahoma. You may recall that Zuffa threatened litigation due to the state’s 4% tax on PPV purchasers within the state.
ESPN’s Josh Gross reported early last week that Oklahoma was back in business and accepting MMA promoter applications.
A little background on the subject via State Impact:
The Oklahoma State Athletic Commission doesn’t receive any state funding, and its entire budget depends of fees and licenses for combat sports events. The commission licenses professional fighters and promoters, enforces health and safety rules and oversees fighting exhibitions and competitions.
The State Impact article reports that in 2011 64% of its revenue is generated from the PPV fees. 23% of its revenue were from live fights within the state. Chart via the Oklahoma State Athletic Commission.
The Oklahoma Attorney General is reviewing the constitutionality of the law. As a result, Zuffa is holding off on filing a lawsuit until the AG makes its decision. Thus, this appears the reason why the commission continues to operate.
As of right now, SB 1533 – known as the “Oklahoma State Athletic Commission Act” – would provide the commission with $200,000 in hopes of quelling a potential lawsuit from the UFC. The money would make up for the amount it would receive from the PPV payouts. The bill passed the House of Representatives Appropriation and Budget Committee.
An interesting sidenote as most of the PPV generated in the state is from pro wrestling PPVs and not the UFC. Yet, there has not been public lobbying from the WWE (or TNA) about the tax.
Payout Perspective:
SB 1533 passed preliminary committee with no opposition so if passed, it appears that the resolution may suppress a Zuffa lawsuit. Yet, it will be interesting to see the outcome of the AG’s decision on the constitutionality of the PPV tax. We will see if Zuffa presses the AG for a decision regardless of SB 1533 as a means to quash any further state taxation on PPVs.
King Mo ousted by Zuffa
March 28, 2012
Tuesday was a bad day for “King” Mo Lawal as he was suspended by the Nevada State Athletic Commission 9 months and fined $39,000 for using Performance Enhancing Drugs. To compound the suspension, Lawal took to twitter to vent which lead to Zuffa cutting Lawal.
As you may recall, Lawal tested positive for PEDs after his last fight in Strikeforce in January. The hearing before the Nevada State Athletic took place on Tuesday and it didn’t go well. Lawal was fined a total of $39,000 and suspended 9 months by the NSAC. Also, his KO of Lorenz Larkin was ruled a No Contest.
MMA Fighting reports that Strikeforce’s Scott Coker stated that the release was based upon the “subsequent reaction” by Lawal. This is in reference to Lawal’s twitter rant after the hearing. The tweets railed against a female member of the NSAC questioning Lawal as she asked if he could read and if he spoke English. Lawal took offense and some of his tweets reflected his disdain. As a result, Zuffa notified Lawal’s management that the fighter had been let go.
With Lawal’s termination came the uproar as to the lack of symmetry in doling out punishments by Zuffa. But there is a code of conduct in fighters’ contracts.
MMA Junkie provides the section in a Zuffa fighter’s contract regarding code of conduct:
Section 9.1 of the Zuffa (or Forza, LLC for Strikeforce fighters) contract states:
“Fighter shall conduct himself in accordance with commonly accepted standards of decency, social conventions and morals, and Fighter will not commit any act or become involved in any situation or occurrence or make any statement which will reflect negatively upon or bring disrepute, contempt, scandal, ridicule, or disdain to Fighter, the Identity of Fighter or any of Fighter’s Affiliates, FORZA or any of its officers, managers, members, employees, or agents.
“Fighter’s conduct shall not be such as to shock, insult or offend the public or any organized group therein, or reflect unfavorably upon any current or proposed sponsor or such sponsor’s advertising agency, or any network or station over which a Bout is to be broadcast.”
Payout Perspective:
The termination issue here is based on Lawal’s tweets, something that has gotten UFC fighters in trouble in the past. Recent memory will point us to Miguel Torres and his brief expulsion due to an off color tweet. Also, Torres was taken back into the good graces of Zuffa less than a month after he was terminated. But Forrest Griffin had a controversial tweet about rape and was not punished. Rashad Griffin made a topical, yet off-color remark about Phil Davis’ alma mater, Penn State in promoting their fight and was not punished either.
As for the reason for the tweets, it’s certainly understandable for Lawal to be upset for the line of questioning about whether he could read and/or speak English. As an attorney that’s actually been in situations like this, feelings are hurt and it’s unfortunate that this happens in the profession. After listening to the audio, it seems like Pat Lundvall was asking a line of questioning which would segue into further questioning. Definitely, she could have asked different questions to get to the same point. But, it appears that she may have been upset with the fact that Lawal did not actually fill out the questionnaire which she questioned Lawal about preceding the read and speak questions. Honestly, I’m not even sure if she realized that the questions were condescending. But that’s only speculation.
The termination gives cause to pause about whether there should be a need to inform Zuffa fighters about its twitter policy (maybe implement one if one does not exist). Zuffa could amend its code of conduct to specifically include social media use to spell it out to its fighters too. For a tool it wishes, and in fact awards, its fighters for using, there needs to be some ground rules. While it doesn’t want to restrict tweeting, fighters need to be smart about what they are tweeting. Lawal has been through a difficult time and the tweets reflect his frustration. But, he should have self-imposed a cooling period. Stay off of twitter for a day so your tweets don’t get you into trouble. It’s one of the reasons why the media is not let into locker rooms immediately after a football/basketball game. Players need to calm down lest they say something they regret.
In the end, Lawal may still have a chance to comeback to Zuffa. If he shows contrition for his tweets and accepts the suspension, Lawal still may land back in Strikeforce or even the UFC. One need only look to Miguel Torres. You could even point to Nate Marquardt as a fighter exiled by the company only to return.
