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.
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.
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.
Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 Calls On NSAC to Adopt MMA “Bill of Rights”
February 23, 2012
In yesterday’s Nevada State Athletic Commission hearing, the Culinary Workers Union – who have long apposed the anti-union stance from Zuffa and Station Casino owner’s Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta – proposed the MMA “Bill of Rights” to the commission.
Here is the press release sent out yesterday after the hearing:
Today, the Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 called on the Nevada Athletic Commission to adopt and enforce a “Bill of Rights for Professional Mixed-Martial Artists,” as a vital step toward protecting these athletes from abusive business practices and coercive contracts.
“Many athletes who compete in the sport of mixed-martial arts are subject to coercive contracts and exploitative business practices that are not allowed in professional boxing,” said Chris Serres, a research analyst with the Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, an affiliate of UNITE HERE. “We call on the Nevada Athletic Commission to take a leadership role and push for the adoption of this `Bill of Rights” in every state where it is currently legal to hold mixed-martial arts events. If adopted and enforced, these ten rights would change the sport’s most egregious business practices.”
In testimony today before the Nevada Athletic Commission, the Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 outlined the following exploitative business practices in the sport of mixed-martial arts:
· Long-term , exclusivity contracts that bind athletes to a single promoter, in some cases indefinitely. These contracts make it more difficult for athletes to negotiate higher pay and diminish the incentive of smaller promoters to bid for talented fighters
· Limited control over image and likeness rights. Professional mixed-martial arts fighters must frequently forfeit future revenue streams from DVD sales, video games, clothing and other merchandise, even after retirement.
· Lack of financial transparency. Under the federal Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (Ali Act), business promoters are required to make extensive financial disclosures to state athletic commissions. No such requirements govern MMA. As a result, fighters often have to negotiate in the dark and are unsure if they are being compensated fairly.
The “Bill of Rights for Professional Mixed Martial Artists” would grant mixed-martial artists similar protections currently afforded to professional boxers, who are already protected by a boxers’ Bill of Rights and the Ali Act. “There is no compelling reason why boxers are protected from exploitation, while mixed-martial arts athletes are not,” Serres said.
The Bill of Rights was inspired by conversations the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 has had with more than 50 mixed-martial arts athletes, and their agents, across North America.
The Culinary Union’s testimony before the Nevada Athletic Commission is available online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82443511/Culinary-Workers-Union-Local-226-testimony-before-the-Nevada-Athletic-Commission
A copy of the “Bill of Rights for Professional Mixed Martial Artists” is also available online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/82245038/MMA-Bill-of-Rights
Payout Perspective:
Some interesting thoughts here, especially bringing up the highly debated Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act (Ali Act) and how that would impact MMA if ever adopted. Others in MMA have pushed for similar rights, but none have succeeded thus far.
Whether some points are credible or not, you have to wonder how effective the Culinary Union’s efforts have been in the past few months, repeatedly targeting the UFC. If you recall, the union sent an email to the FTC supporting an investigation against the UFC and their business practices after they purchased Strikeforce from Silcon Valley Sports & Entertainment early in 2011. The FTC investigation was recently closed after determining no wrong-doing on the UFC’s part.
NSAC revokes Silva’s license and imposes fine
April 8, 2011
UFC Light Heavyweight Thiago Silva waived his right to an attorney yesterday and decided to accept his fate after admitting to altering his post-UFC 125 drug test. The NSAC revoked his license for 12 months, took a percentage of his purse and rendered his fight with Brandon Vera a no contest.
MMA Junkie reports that the NSAC reduced its original punishment due to Silva’s “candor and honesty”. Silva admitted to using a “urine adulterant” when giving a sample to the NSAC officials. Apparently, owning up to his wrongdoing has granted him some leniency with the NSAC.
Via MMA Weekly:
Silva issued a statement through his camp at American Top Team explaining the situation, and apologizing for his misdeeds.
“We make decisions every day of our lives. Some are good and some are bad. When you make a bad decision, you can either make the situation worse by trying to cover it up or lie about it or just stick your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge it even happened or you can own up to it with an honest explanation, accept the consequences of your actions, apologize to the people affected by it, learn from it and move on. I’m choosing the second option,” Silva wrote.
Via MMA Junkie:
NSAC commissioners originally recommended a fine of one-third of Silva’s “show” purse, as well as his entire win bonus, but citing the Brazilian’s “candor and honesty” eventually settled on 25-percent of his purse ($13,750) and $20,000 of the win bonus for a total fine of $33,750.
Silva dodged a bit of a bullet with his suspension, as NSAC executive director Keith Kizer recommended the 12-month suspension begin with Thursday’s hearing rather than the more traditional procedure of backdating the first day of the suspension to the date of the fight in question.
Kizer cited Silva’s reluctance to fess up to the charges until his “B” sample returned with the same findings as the first test. However, the commissioners instead elected to reward Silva for his belated admissions and chose to stick with the traditional routine. Silva is eligible to reapply for a license on Jan. 2, 2012, and he will have to provide a drug-free (and authentic) urine sample.
Despite a lackluster performance, the UFC reinstated Brandon Vera due to the questions concerning Silva’s drug test.
Payout Perspective:
Does it makes sense that he was docked only a percentage of his win bonus although the bout was changed to a no contest? Shouldn’t Silva have been stripped of the full win bonus?
Its interesting that the NSAC granted Silva some leniency even though he attempted to cheat the system and then did not admit to wrongdoing until it was apparent that he would be caught. Still, a year out of work and $33K plus in fines is a stiff penalty and serve as some sort of deterrent to those that would follow the same path as Silva. Obviously, this does not help with any of his sponsors. Will they be there when he comes back in 2012? Silva is a good fighter that did not need to cheat to win.
What this means for further drug tests is that the NSAC will have to be more intrusive in watching athletes as they submit the urine sample.
NSAC cuts out of competition drug testing
February 26, 2011
MMA Junkie reports that due to budget cuts, the Nevada State Athletic Commission has eliminated out of competition drug testing. This type of drug testing is thought to be a strong deterrent to performance enhancing drugs in pro competition.
Via MMA Junkie:
With state governments around the country tightening their belts amid a widening recession, the NSAC’s budget for out-of-competition testing was reduced to $12,000 (from $18,000) in fiscal year 2009-2010. Regulators then asked the commission to give back all of the money before the year’s end, (NSAC Executive Director Keith) Kizer said.
In fiscal year 2010-2011, there is no money in the NSAC’s budget for out-of-competition drug testing, though athletes are still tested either the day prior to an event or immediately following it, and sometimes both.
The enforcement gap has nevertheless prompted the commission to get creative in coming up with the money to reinstate the program. One solution expected to be addressed at a meeting early next month is to draw a portion of funds from the amateur combative sports program, which pays for some of the safety and administrative costs associated with amateur boxing, kickboxing and MMA. The program is funded by a “ticket fee” assessed by the NSAC at professional events that is separate from the commission’s live gate fee, which takes a percentage of the money generated by ticket sales. The ticket fee amounts to .50 per ticket with live gates totaling less than $1 million, and $1 per ticket above that figure.
Commissioners will decide during the March meeting whether to lobby legislators on changing the NSAC’s funding statutes for the next state budget, which runs from July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2013. Nevada legislators are working to close a $2.2 billion dollar shortfall in the state’s general fund, which has prompted governor Pete Sandoval to recommend harsh cutbacks in education and government spending in his budget proposal.
Payout Perspective:
The out of competition testing was a way that the commission would keep fighters honest even when not training for an upcoming fight. The elimination of this does not mean that fighters will immediately use PEDs, but it takes away a deterrent. Although I think that the out of competition drug tests are valuable, I do not think the NSAC should shortchange amateur programs to fund this testing. In a time when states are crunching budgets, a lot of tough choices will need to be made.
NSAC head Kizer responds to Rogan
December 7, 2010
Nevada State Athletic Commission Executive Director Keith Kizer responded to comments made by Joe Rogan after the controversial Nam Phan/Leonard Garcia decision. Kizer does not believe that there is a problem with NSAC officials and indicates that Rogan’s on air criticism was not warranted.
After the decision, Rogan aired out his opinion of the judges’ decision:
“You should be able to leave it in the hands of the judges,” Rogan said. “You should be able to just fight. And we should point out that that is the situation because of the Nevada State Athletic Commission. That’s what it is. It has nothing to do with the UFC, and people keep saying the UFC is corrupt. We have no say whatsoever in who judges these fights.
“Keith Kizer has denied that there’s an issue. I think there’s a huge issue, and I think he needs to clean house. There’s a few very good judges surrounded by a bunch of incompetent morons that know absolutely nothing about the sport. And they’ve got to do something about that. Because it’s ruining MMA, and it’s making people think that this sport is corrupt, and it has nothing to do with corruption. It’s sheer, complete, total incompetence.” (h/t MMA Junkie)
In a recent interview, Kizer addressedRogan’s comments. Although shocked by the judges’ decision, Kizer dismisses the argument that he needs to “clean house,” as suggested by Rogan. In his defense, he points out that the UFC continues to use NSAC judges despite the calls for a house cleaning.
In response to Kizer’s comments, Rogan posted a response.
Zach Arnold states that Kizer will lose this PR battle:
This is not a winnable war for Keith Kizer, neither in public nor in private. If the Fertitta family is angry, they have the financial muscle to make a difference. If they’re not happy with the ways things are run in Nevada, they can run shows elsewhere and help other states make money while Nevada is on the sidelines. Don’t think that the local politicians ignore this kind of thing. Commissioners come and go. but UFC and their deep pockets are not going anywhere. If you’re a betting person and had to choose between who’s going to last longer in power, Keith Kizer or the UFC in Nevada, Mr. Kizer’s drawing the short end of that stick.
Payout Perspective:
A tough week for Kizer. Last week, Chael Sonnen suggested that he told Kizer he was taking TRT but Kizer advised he need not disclose the information. Next, he comes under fire by Joe Rogan during a live broadcast for a split decision in favor of Leonard Garcia. In response to Rogan’s on air criticism, Kizer responded in defending the commission.
However, Kizer cannot win this battle. As Arnold points out, Zuffa is major business in Nevada. As we know, Dana White and the Fertittas are tied in politically in the state. They supported Harry Reid this past November. They have the leverage in this situation. I do not believe that the UFC would hold back shows in Nevada because of Kizer, but could make it known of its concern for officiating.
This situation could have been disarmed if Kizer were to have stepped back and reviewed the Phan/Garcia fight, admit that the judges made a mistake (or that the fight was a close call) and ensure that all NSAC officials refresh themselves with the MMA scoring system. Although Rogan’s comments were inflammatory, Kizer could have taken a diplomatic tact in his response as it would be beneficial for him to maintain a working relationship with the UFC.
Jones Loses Hamill Fight Appeal
December 23, 2009
Jeremy Botter of Heavy.com has the latest regarding the Jon Jones appeal with the Nevada State Athletic Commission:
Jon Jones’ appeal to the Nevada State Athletic Commission to overturn referee Steve Mazagatti’s decision in his bout against Matt Hamill earlier this month has been denied. The NSAC stated that they don’t overturn decisions and decided against ruling on the appeal.
Heavy.com confirmed the news with Jason Genet, the manager of Jones, Shane Carwin and other fighters.
Payout Perspective:
The appeal was a long shot to begin with, so the result isn’t necessarily a surprise.
It’s a tough way to lose your first fight, but Jones image and reputation won’t be hurt by this in the least. He was impressive; displaying the type of marked improvement in the Hamill fight that you look for in a young fighter. Now he’s staring at a huge fight against Brandon Vera — the main event of the UFC’s debut on Versus — where he’s got the opportunity to put himself on the map.
Not only can Jones become a contender at 205lbs., but he’s widely being viewed as one of the future stars of the UFC: a young and dynamic fighter with the ability to engage fans in and out of the cage. He’s one of that future crop that the UFC is really hoping to develop.
Jones Seeking Reversal of Hamill Fight Decision
December 17, 2009
Steven Marrocco of MMAWeekly has obtained a copy of the letter issued by the management of Jon Jones that seeks to have Jones’ decision loss to Matt Hamill reversed. Jones and Hamill fought December 5th on The Ultimate Fighter Finale where landed a series of illegal 12-6 elbows from the mount position that served as the impetus for referee Steve Mazzagatti to disqualify Jones and award Hamill the win.
The complaint does not dispute that Jones violated commission statutes by throwing multiple “12 to 6” downward elbows, but claims the blows did not render Hamill unable to continue.
“The criteria that was used to determine whether or not Mr. Hamill could continue was flawed,” the letter states.
The complaint claims Mazzagatti violated a “well-established precedent” to involve ringside physicians in deciding whether Hamill could continue or not.
The letter included a statement from Hamill issued five days after the fight where he said he dislocated his shoulder when Jones tossed him to the ground and, “knew it was probably over at that point.”
“At minimum, Mr. Hamill should have had (an) opportunity to clearly understand what was being asked of him and given the ability to respond,” the letter states. “If allowed this basic right, we believe, based on Mr. Hamill’s own admission, that his shoulder injury would have precluded him from continuing, not the perceived foul.”
Ciatoli and Marino said the vision-blurring cuts were caused by 23 legal elbows that Jones landed from the mount position, not the illegal blows.
The complaint asks the NSAC to schedule a hearing on the matter in the event that the decision is not changed.
Payout Perspective:
The complaint really brings to light the importance of being able to use instant replay correctly. The allegations may or may not come to have any merit, but this should serve as a warning to the MMA community that, just like in any other sport, video replay is a tool only as accurate as its handlers.
In this case it wasn’t necessarily how the tool was used, but the way it may have disrupted the process following the use of illegal blows in a match.
—–
An issue of this ultimately reflects upon the standard of officiating that is set by the sport, which makes it even more confusing as to why an official like “Big” John McCarthy is still not licensed in Nevada or allowed to officiate UFC competitions.
FanHouse recently spoke to Keith Kizer, the executive director of the Nevada State Athletic Commission, about McCarthy’s status in the state, and it appeared as though the commission was in no rush of reinstating arguably one of the greatest referees in MMA history.
“We have him and about 40 other people pending. It’s just a matter of when there’s the next opening and then we look at the applications and go from there,” Kizer said.
“There could be an opening in a month; there could be an opening in about three years.”
McCarthy retired from refereeing in December 2007 to pursue a career in television. During his time away from the cage, he criticized some of the decisions made by the NSAC with regards to judging and officiating, and some believe that is why he has yet to be reinstated by the commission.
