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.
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.
No vote on MMA in New York this year
May 8, 2012
The New York Daily News reported that there will not be a vote to legalize MMA in New York. After a behind the scenes discussion on whether there were enough votes for legislation, the Assembly Democratic conference decided not to bring it to the floor for a formal vote.
State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told the Daily News that the thought of legalizing MMA is “evolving” among politicians and was optimistic that passage of legislation could happen in the near future.
Of course, the UFC expressed disappointment with the fact an “up or down” vote was not made.
Via NY Times:
“All I want is a vote on the Assembly floor,” Mr. Ratner said. “If it doesn’t pass, it doesn’t pass. Not to get a vote by the full Assembly, to me, is un-American.”
Ratner cited the hotel worker’s union of New York in solidarity with the Culinary Worker’s Union as the main impediment to the legislation.
In addition to the New York news, Connecticut indicated that it would not vote to legalize MMA this year.
Payout Perspective:
While legalizing MMA through the political process may have to wait another year, the belief is that more people are warming up to the idea. So, perhaps the lobbying and the UFC on Fox is helping with people getting used to the sport. Zuffa’s lawsuit against the state still looms although no word yet on New York’s motion to dismiss portions of the lawsuit.
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.
White threatens no UFC in CA if AB 2100 passes
April 29, 2012
UFC head Dana White has threatened to cease holding events in the state of California if a controversial piece of legislation passes in the state. Assembly Bill 2100 was introduced last Wednesday and is supported by the Culinary Workers Union while opposed by the UFC among others.
Via San Jose Mercury:
(Assembly member Luis) Alejo wants to eliminate what he sees as abusive contracts, freeing up fighters to make Assembly Bill 2100 would prevent promoters from claiming unreasonable future merchandising rights, prevent unreasonable restrictions on fighters’ seeking outside sponsors and prohibit other onerous contract provisions.
Dana White told the OC Register:
“Do you know what’s going on in Sacramento, right now?” White said. “They are trying to pass this bill to raise our taxes and do a bunch of crazy (expletive) to us. They voted 4-2 for the bill. There were a couple of people not present to vote on it. If that thing passes we won’t do anymore fights in California. All kinds of crazy (expletive) they’re trying to throw in this bill for MMA. You know who’s doing it? The Culinary Union from Las Vegas. These guys have been (expletive) with us in New York, too. That’s why we’re not in New York. These guys got a bunch of lobbyists together to try to pass this bill against MMA. They are putting pressure on my partners, the Fertitta brothers, because they own the fourth-largest gaming company in the country and they are non-union.”
More info on AB 2100 can be found in our previous post.
H/t: Bloody Elbow
Payout Perspective:
Would it hurt the UFC economically if it did not run events in either New York or California? It’s an intriguing question considering the UFC derives most of its income from PPV revenues and many of its live events are expanding to new areas or in Las Vegas. The UFC is expanding internationally and could find new venues in the US to hold events. Still, not holding events in the two biggest states in America does seem odd. The self-imposed ban on the state of California would affect Strikeforce more than it would the UFC. Although the UFC held its biggest event in Anaheim (UFC on Fox 1), Strikeforce has held events in San Jose or San Diego more often than the UFC has held events in the states. Of course, we do note that UFC on Fuel TV 4 will be in San Jose and UFC on Fox 4 will be in LA. So, maybe the strategy is to stress the economic impact Zuffa creates in the state with the 2 upcoming events and threaten that this will all end if AB 2100 passes.
Blue Chip Sponsor Anheuser-Busch Warns UFC About Fighters’ Sexist, Homophobic Comments
April 27, 2012
AdvertisingAge reports that Anheuser-Busch, a major blue chip sponsor for the UFC, has “reprimanded the mixed-martial arts organization for remarks made by some fighters”. Multiple advocacy groups have recently criticized UFC employees and fighters for using comments described as “sexist and homophobic.”
A-B recently released a press release which stated the following:
“We’ve communicated to the UFC our displeasure with certain remarks made by some of its fighters, and they have promised to address this. If the incidents continue, we will act”
In a statement to AdAge regarding the A-B situation, UFC issued the following response:
With over 425 athletes on our roster, there have unfortunately been instances where a couple athletes have made insensitive or inappropriate comments. We don’t condone this behavior, and in no way is it reflective of the company or its values
…. unlike most other sports leagues, we encourage our athletes to engage online. It is part of our company culture, and whenever you are at the forefront of a trend or initiative, it comes with its own pitfalls. We will continue to embrace social media while looking for better ways to stay in front of the issues. This includes a mandate for our athletes to attend sensitivity training and a seminar on proper use of social media.
AdAge also cited three recent incidents that were documented in a letter by the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence. One involves UFC fighter Quinton “Rampage” Jackson urging Japanese fans to say homophobic statements, another of UFC fighter Rashad Evans hyping his fight against Penn State alumni Phil Davis inappropriately stating “I’m going to put those hands on you worse than that dude did them other kids at Penn State”. The last is not a fighter, but UFC announcer Joe Rogan, who used sexist and misogynist language against Yahoo Sports blogger Maggie Hendricks after she pointed out Rampage Jackson’s inappropriate behavior towards female reporters. Plenty of other instances regarding UFC president Dana White performing similar acts have also been reported within the last few years, but were not cited in the write-up.
The letter that caused a lot of the recent commotion for A-B and the UFC was a letter from the group Alcohol Justice, who titled it “An Open Letter to Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI) Shareholders – RE: Opposition to sponsorship of the Ultimae Fighting Championship (UFC).
The letter states the following:
Dear Shareholder:
As fellow shareholders and as public health advocates, Alcohol Justice (formerly Marin Institute) asks you to vigorously oppose ABI’s sponsorship of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), the world’s largest promoter of violent cage-fighting events.
We believe ABI’s sponsorship of UFC must come to an end as there is a very tangible risk to the bottom line of dividends and stock price value as well as long term bad press as the relationship of this patently brutal blood sport to predatory marketing of Bud Light to underage youth are played out on the global stage of public opinion. It’s already being called “Blood Light.” This cannot be good for business, sales, or long-term profitability.
Alcohol Justice, the alcohol industry watchdog, has served as a leading research and advocacy institution for over 24 years. We monitor and expose the alcohol industry’s targeting of youth and minority populations, as well as the industry’s adverse effect on public health and the environment globally.
There is compelling evidence that exposure to alcohol advertising and marketing increases the likelihood of underage drinking. Since 2001, at least seven peer-reviewed, federally funded, long-term studies have found that young people with greater exposure to alcohol marketing — including on television, in magazines, on the radio, on billboards or other outdoor signage, or via in-store beer displays, beer concessions, or ownership of beer promotional items or branded merchandise — are more likely to start drinking than their peers.
As the primary sponsor of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI) is delivering harmful content to millions of underage youth. At center stage is the ever-present Bud Light logo, imbued throughout all of UFC’s violent events, including live fights, Pay-Per-View, and television broadcasts that reach 354 million homes worldwide. These homes are filled with children!
In addition, millions of UFC fans of all ages have access to live streaming of fights via Facebook, and limitless YouTube videos of bloody fights, promotions, and “pornohol” such as Bud Light Lime ads featuring UFC “Octagon Girl” Arianny Celeste topless, underwear-clad and rolling around in a bed of limes.
UFC President Dana White has been quoted as saying “our targeted audience is anywhere from age 17 to 35.” He and a number of UFC athletes have recently come under fire for sexist, homophobic, violent and derogatory remarks, including jokes about rape and sexual assault. As A-B InBev shareholders we should be outraged by this behavior.
Given that alcohol is the number one drug of choice among America’s youth, and the U.S. Surgeon General estimates that approximately 5,000 people under age 21 die from alcohol-related injuries involving underage drinking each year, board members, shareholders, and consumers will become more aware of the ethical ramifications that continued sponsorship of UFC will have on ABI. Do we really want Bud Light ads to be condemned for irresponsibly delivering harmful content to millions of youth, exposing them to people beating one another to a bloody pulp?
We believe this will lead to mounting litigations, inevitable regulatory and legislative actions, and growing concerns about the safety of youth exposed to harmful content by viewing UFC promotions. All of this can only hurt ABI’s reputation as a corporate citizen and its robust revenue.
As shareholders we have an obligation to help protect stock value by holding the corporation to higher standards of responsibility, especially those related to underage consumption and harm. We can insist that management address these ethical issues with more integrity by pulling its support of this graphic, violent, bloody sport. While the world may still want to enjoy a Bud Light, it does not need “Blood Light.”
Respectfully,
Bruce Lee Livingston, MPP Executive Director/CEO
***
That very same day, Business Insider Advertising also wrote a write-up titled “Budweiser Threatened To Pull Its Ad Dollars From The UFC After Seeing This Guy’s Nazi Tattoos”. They went to state that the statement released by A-B regarding the inappropriate language and behavior is “almost unheard of in sports sponsorship, where advertiser displeasure is usually delivered to media partners behind closed doors”. The website also stated “While the sport can’t be expected to be a bastion of Edwardian manners, it is not until you see a collection of the kinds of things said by UFC pros that you realize just how unprofessional the organization is. What follows is a slideshow of incidents in which offensive language and behavior is used in the UFC”.
This is not the first time A-B has reprimanded the UFC. If you recall back at UFC 100 – the biggest show in UFC history to date – Brock Lesnar stood on the Bud Light logo, pointed at it, and said he was looking forward to going home with his wife and “drinking a Coors Light because Bud Light won’t pay me anything”. That problem was dealt with behind closed doors as both the UFC and Lesnar were reprimanded by A-B and during the post-fight press conference, Lesnar issued an apology for his post-fight behavior and continued to answer questions as a Bud Light bottle was strategically placed in front of him.
Courtesy of Bleacher Report
***
Regarding who is responsible for triggering most of this recent bad press for the UFC, look no further than the Culinary Workers Union Local 226, who has had ongoing labor dispute with Station Casinos and UFC owners Lorenzo and Frank Fertitta – who are both firmly against labor unions. So far, the Culinary Union has been credited for keeping the UFC out of the state of New York for several years by backing anti-MMA legislators in the state, triggering a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation, writing letters to UFC advertisers and TV partners (FOX) informing them of the inappropriate language and behavior of the organization and its fighters, the creation of http://www.unfitforchildren.org/ (a website illustrating many of these examples), and just recently, drafting up a version of MMA Bill of Rights and presenting it in front of the Nevada State Athletic Commission and recently in front of the California State Athletic Commission.
In terms of the labor union’s efforts against the UFC owners, this week has been a rewarding one. The letters to UFC sponsors and multiple anti abuse and violence groups has increased the awareness of lack of etiquette it has haunted the UFC in the past, when they just weren’t quite mainstream enough for anyone to care. Landing the recent FOX deal and essentially putting all their main competitors out of business in recent years has caught the attention of mainstream groups in the last year. Earlier this week, the proposed Bill of Rights hearing in Sacramento (AB2100) passed committee on a 5-3 vote. This bill would essential give fighters rights – many derived up from the Ali Act in boxing – which the UFC greatly apposes. UFC representatives essentially told the committee that if the bill passed, it would essentially drive the UFC away from California, which would have a great economic impact on not only the fighters, but also on the state. It would also cause a heavy burden and expense on the CSAC, which they are not equipped to handle.
List of parties who are in favor and against AB2100 amendments:
Support: American Rights at Work, Arete Agency. California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union. California Conference of Machinists. California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. California Police Activities League. California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. Engineers & Scientists of California, IFPTE Local 20. Fighters Online, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Jockey’s Guild, Mixed Martial Arts Fighters Association, Patient Networks, Professional & Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21, United Food & Commercial, Workers Western States Council, UNITE-HERE, AFL-CIO, Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132, two private citizens (Eddie Goldman & Juanito Ibarra)
Opposition: Goossen Tutor Promotions, Honda Center, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, HP Pavilion at San Jose, Ultimate Fighting Championship
…
Notice the opposition here.
- UFC is a given.
- Notice HP Pavilion in San Jose. Last year, the UFC’s purchased Strikeforce, which at the time was it’s main competitor, from the Silicon Valley Sports & Entertainment based out of San Jose, who also owns the San Jose Sharks and manages the HP Pavilion. The problem with owning Strikeforce was that it kept UFC out of San Jose, a hotbed for MMA at the time, due to the nature of being competitors. Part of the deal to sell Strikeforce to Zuffa was for the UFC to put on several shows at the HP Pavilion per year. Since the purchase, Zuffa has visited San Jose for UFC 139 late last year and is currently scheduled for the Strikeforce HW GP finale on May 19th. Another date for a smaller UFC show was discussed for July and another big UFC numbered event is in talks before the end of the year. A bill which would would drive the UFC away and it’s now close ties to the promotion would obviously be bad business for the San Jose based venue.
- The Honda Center is the other California venue listed as opposition. Interestingly enough, that’s the UFC’s preferred venue when visiting Southern California, where they can heavily push and market towards the Hispanic demographic as they did for Cain Velasquez against Brock Lesnar and most recently on their FOX debut against Junior Dos Santos. UFC’s plan was to host another big event at the Honda Center by the end of the year.
- The other is Goossen Tutor Promotions, which is partly ran by Dan Goossen, a boxing promoter and the manager of ex-boxing champ James Toney, who previously fought for the the UFC back in 2010 against Randy Couture back in 2010. Goossen negotiated Toney’s contract to fight in the UFC at the time. Goossen also wanted to do James Toney vs Tito Ortiz even further back in 2003-2004 and a previous Toney vs Couture bout about five years ago.
***
Looking at the Culinary Union’s efforts the past few years, it’s apparent that their efforts have focused on keeping the UFC out of New York, trying to do the same in California (one of their biggest current markets within the US), and impacting the relationship between their major blue chip sponsors is quite the strategic plan. All would impact the UFC’s bottom line. I’m not sure the labor union can continue to be successful and continue to lobby against the UFC for years to come, but they are doing something most other groups have failed to do in a very long time, and that’s pose a challenge. If they weren’t taken seriously before, I can assure you no one from Zuffa is laughing at their efforts now. At the very least, it causes a few annoying and pesky headaches here and there for the Fertitta brothers in hopes that one day both sides can come to an agreement. Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that a compromise will be reached anytime soon.
UFC lends support to International MMA Federation
April 12, 2012
The UFC announced Thursday that it is supporting the creation of the International Mixed Martial Arts Federation. The agency will seek to provide MMA with unified rules, regulations and safety procedures with the eventual goal of having MMA as an Olympic sport.
Via UFC press release:
UFC Chairman and CEO Lorenzo Fertitta, who has helped lead the global growth of the UFC, feels that the timing is perfect. “In order to maintain the successful growth of our sport, it is important to invest in resources that will develop and cultivate it at an amateur level. Having an umbrella organization that will oversee and help build the sport on a global level will not only provide advanced and ever-improving safety standards but will also create a unified global model to help introduce the sport to new markets. It is our hope that it will also take us one step closer to witnessing the inclusion of the sport of MMA on the Olympic programme.”
Payout Perspective:
The UFC’s blessing for the IMMAF is a positive for the organization to move forward with its efforts to provide uniformity to the sport of MMA. We will see whether other organizations and countries will follow suit in providing it with its support. IMMAF head August Wallén indicated to Sherdog that the process for MMA to be an Olympic sport would take a long time. The process would include making sure that national federations governing the sport could come together so that international competitions could take place. This process may take time considering the political hurdles and differences that organizations may have with the sport. Nonetheless, it’s a first step and with the UFC’s backing, it should help with having some national federations fall in line.
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.
Wyoming creates MMA board
March 13, 2012
UFC.com announced via twitter that Wyoming became the 45th state to legalize MMA. The state announced that it has created an MMA governing board to oversee regulation which may hurt more than help local MMA.
Wyoming focused on legislation that specifically addressed regulating mixed martial arts as previous efforts to re-establish the defunct office of the boxing commissioner were negated. The office would have regulated MMA in addition to boxing.
WY politicians celebrating state regulation
One of the reasons behind regulating MMA would be to attract the UFC to hold a show in the state – not a PPV but maybe a UFC on FX show. A UFC event would draw fans from the state as well as nearby Colorado.
The MMA board, which goes into effect July 1, would consist of an appointed board of three individuals. The board would draft new rules and regulations for MMA and work with other state commissions to see how they operate.
But establishing a board would hurt local MMA.
Via the Rapid City Journal:
The MMA board will be paid for by taking 5 percent of the gross receipts from each MMA fight in the state. Some fight organizers said that could lead some promoters in the state to stop holding events.
Stephen Alley, an MMA promoter who has held fights in Casper since 2006, said attendance at those fights has declined in recent years to the point
that an additional fee would be devastating.
Payout Perspective:
The good news is that the state of Wyoming is regulating MMA which legitimizes the sport as well as provides safety guidelines for the fighters. The bad news is that by establishing an MMA board, it is indirectly hurting local MMA promoters. Its an unfortunate twist that to promote the sport, the state is hurting it. We shall see if Wyoming can find a solution to the problem.
Picture via UFC.com twitter
New York files its Reply Brief in Zuffa lawsuit
March 4, 2012
The New York District Attorney and Attorney General have filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss two counts of Zuffa’s lawsuit against New York. MMA Payout takes a look at some of the arguments rebutting Zuffa’s opposition.
If you’ve been following the lawsuit, the New York was given the opportunity to file a limited motion to dismiss on the issues of Equal Protection and Due Process.
New York contends that Zuffa’s argument that courts have considered post-legislation changed circumstances fails because facts still exist which address the reasons for the law.
New York addresses Zuffa’s opposition brief in which, among its arguments, relied on the fact that courts have looked to changed circumstances when conducting a review of a law. New York makes the argument that post-legislation changed circumstances cannot destroy a law’s rational basis since such circumstances would not have affected the law’s rational basis in the first place. In fact, New York argues that courts have more freedom to consider post-legislation circumstances to uphold a law than to overturn it.
Another interesting argument used by New York to rebut Zuffa’s contention that MMA is safer now than when the MMA Ban was enacted is that Zuffa points out to safety regulations and precautions it has enacted and only vaguely refers to other MMA organizations. As such, New York contends that there is still “‘a reasonable conceivable state of facts’ that might warrant the prohibitions of the 1997 legislation.” Basically, New York argues that while the UFC may have enacted safety changes, it cannot support its argument with facts from other organizations.
New York actually turns Zuffa’s safety reforms on its head citing the fact that Zuffa admits its a combat sport with risk and that its mandatory waiting period for concussions and insurance reflect the fact that the sport includes risk. Thus, New York argues that the 1997 legislation banning MMA might be a rational response to these safety issues. As a result, New York contends that regardless of the changed circumstances that have occurred since the law was enacted in New York, the state had a rational reason to enact the law.
In response to Zuffa’s claims that either amateur MMA is not regulated and the fact that other perceived dangerous sports are not regulated, New York rebuts these concerns by pointing to the legislative branch as the authority to either regulate or amend a law if it flaws are found in the law.
Notably in footnote 3 of its reply brief it makes the argument (which one might add may beyond the scope of the motion) that the First Amendment does not apply to mixed martial arts citing Courts have been unwilling to extend free speech protection to sports or athletics.
(H/t: Fight Lawyer Blog for the Reply Brief)
MMA Payout will continue to follow the proceedings and report on the Court ruling when it occurs.
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.
