This is a subject I’ve wanted to write about for sometime now and as it happens, UFC 94 provided the proper timing and context for me to do so. The following is an article I wrote for maximumfighting.com earlier this week:
The fight between Georges St-Pierre and BJ Penn this past weekend was many things to many people. It was seen as the biggest fight in MMA history; it represented the ultimate showdown between two of the best, ever, still in their primes; and in doing so, it represented another one of MMA’s triumphs over boxing.
Then came the Vaseline and with it some very unfortunate controversy.
With the assumption that the aftermath of rounds one and two were likely the same, let’s take a look at what happened:
- Corner man and muay thai coach, Phil Nurse, applied Vaseline to St-Pierre’s eyebrows, nose, and chin.
- Then, Nurse passed down St-Pierre’s chest with his hands.
- Nurse re-applied a little more Vaseline onto St-Pierre’s face before rubbing his temples, passing over his shoulders, and then rubbing the middle of his back and chest with two-finger point pressure.
As a result, the Penn camp is contemplating whether or not to file an official complaint to the NSAC alleging that St-Pierre’s corner team illegally applied “grease” between early rounds of the fight.
While I’m inclined to believe that any application of Vaseline to the body was purely unintentional, this is none-the-less an unfortunate situation.
The incident casts a shadow over an otherwise brilliant fight, a brilliant performance, and a brilliant night for MMA as a whole. It takes one of the classiest and most well-respected individuals in the sport, Georges St-Pierre, and drags his name through the mud. It also links MMA with some of the under-handed tactics of its sporting cousin – where, to the uninitiated, grease is quite analogous to plaster of Paris.
That’s why the handling of this entire situation is so crucial, regardless of whether an official complaint is filed.
It also begs the question; under what criteria should a decision meet in order to be judged fair and just? Mine are as follows:
- 1. An NSAC decision must take into consideration the severity of the act, the history of the offender, and the overall context of the situation.
- 2. An NSAC decision must establish ample deterrent that will help to ensure that further illegal behaviour, unintentional as it may be, does not re-occur.
- 3. An NSAC decision must fully represent the NSAC’s role as the preeminent watchdog of the sport and fiduciary of public interest in order to produce the fairest outcome for all parties involved.
It would be easy to call the bout a no contest, suspend St-Pierre for six months, and fine him but is that really in the best interest of anyone? Certainly, it would deter even unintentional illegal acts, but there are ways to achieve deterrence without brute force or heavy-handedness.
In my opinion, the best way to handle the situation is to keep things simple: start by revoking the corner license of Phil Nurse (who applied the Vaseline) and then fine St-Pierre $60, 000, which amounts to approximately 15% of his reported base pay.
My reasoning is simple. The fact that this incident happened and is now public knowledge is enough to increase awareness moving forward – it’s enough to send the message that everyone must be more careful.
Similarly, revoking the corner license and fining the fighter serve as additional deterrents to commit illegalities and ample incentives for corner people to pay more attention to exactly what they’re doing.
Lastly, it’s the least disruptive to the sport and takes into consideration the severity of the incident in addition to the upstanding track record of St-Pierre and his corner.