…and we specifically asked for AquaDeco to go with those brown M&Ms!
Well, that didn’t take long.
After appearing genuinely humbled after losing the second round his middleweight title fight against Anderson Silva at UFC 148, none of us were buying the idea that Chael Sonnen had been humbled by the loss and accepted the outcome. For starters, we literally saw the exact same thing happen after UFC 117. On top of that, since Saturday night there have been countless debates both on and offline over vaseline, shorts-grabbing and ‘illegal’ knees that potentially cost Chael P. Sonnen a victory against Anderson Silva. In other words, if Chael Sonnen could come up with excuses to justify his “victory” over Anderson Silva at UFC 117, it was obvious that he would have an excuse for his loss in the rematch now that there’s actually some kind of controversy surrounding the fight.
Earlier today, it was reported that Chael Sonnen’s camp filed an appeal with the Nevada Athletic Commission to overturn the result of the his bout against Anderson Silva at UFC 148 to a no-contest. As first reported by Jonathan Snowden on The MMA Show:
“Scott McQuarry, the head coach of Chael Sonnen, says they’ve started the process to file an appeal with Keith Kizer and the Nevada Athletic Commission. They believe the knee Anderson Silva threw was illegal, that the intent was to knee the face, that it did it in fact strike Chael in the face, that he got eight stitches and that he bit his tongue. They also say Anderson grabbed the cage at the point of impact. They are intending to appeal and have the fight ruled a no contest.”
…and we specifically asked for AquaDeco to go with those brown M&Ms!
Well, that didn’t take long.
After appearing genuinely humbled after losing the second round his middleweight title fight against Anderson Silva at UFC 148, none of us were buying the idea that Chael Sonnen had been humbled by the loss and accepted the outcome. For starters, we literally saw the exact same thing happen after UFC 117. On top of that, since Saturday night there have been countless debates both on and offline over vaseline, shorts-grabbing and ‘illegal’ knees that potentially cost Chael P. Sonnen a victory against Anderson Silva. In other words, if Chael Sonnen could come up with excuses to justify his “victory” over Anderson Silva at UFC 117, it was obvious that he would have an excuse for his loss in the rematch now that there’s actually some kind of controversy surrounding the fight.
Earlier today, it was reported that Chael Sonnen’s camp filed an appeal with the Nevada Athletic Commission to overturn the result of the his bout against Anderson Silva at UFC 148 to a no-contest. As first reported by Jonathan Snowden on The MMA Show:
“Scott McQuarry, the head coach of Chael Sonnen, says they’ve started the process to file an appeal with Keith Kizer and the Nevada Athletic Commission. They believe the knee Anderson Silva threw was illegal, that the intent was to knee the face, that it did it in fact strike Chael in the face, that he got eight stitches and that he bit his tongue. They also say Anderson grabbed the cage at the point of impact. They are intending to appeal and have the fight ruled a no contest.”
Back to Illegal-Kneegate: The perceived illegal intent of the knee in question is not in any way, shape or form relevant, so let’s not even have that debate. The vaseline (that was wiped off of Silva immediately, mind you) didn’t seem to prevent Sonnen from taking down Silva in the first round, so how about we end that debate too? As for the shorts-grabbing, Silva was warned about it during the fight and Sonnen admitted after the fight to grabbing Silva’s shorts as well. If you wanted Yves Lavigne to separate the fighters and deduct a point from Silva, then kindly refrain from explaining how that would have prevented Chael Sonnen’s boneheaded decision to attempt a spinning backfist, allowing Anderson Silva the opportunity to finish “The America Gangster.”
As numerous fans, pundits and members of our comments section have already pointed out, this is just another instance of Chael Sonnen being his own worst enemy. He has now lost two fights against Anderson Silva due to monumental lapses in judgment, and is clinging to the idea that he is the victim of a series of illegal tactics. If Sonnen is ever going to hold a belt in the UFC – at any weight class – he needs to stop making excuses and avoid the mental breakdowns he’s been having during title fights. Also, if Sonnen’s endgame is establishing a reason for an immediate rematch, I highly doubt that the UFC will want to taint the reputation of its most dominant champion by implying that he cheated during their fight Saturday night.
And on that note, I offer one final picture of the knee. You may now resume your debate. Keep it civil, you guys.
(“I feel bad for the fighters and the judges for being a part of perceived controversy, and I feel bad for Arum being falsely accused…but I’m glad there are passionate fans out there.”)
The June 9th boxing title fight in Las Vegas between Manny Pacquiao and Tim Bradley ended in controversy after Bradley was awarded a split decision despite being routed in nearly every round. Last Saturday many more fans got to see the fight when it was replayed for free on HBO. The sanctioning body for the match’s title belt, the WBO, has announced that they are reviewing the fight, and promoter Bob Arumcalled for the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) to be investigated after he himself was accused of somehow being involved in corrupting the judges decision.
Basically, it’s another mess for boxing and its beleaguered fans to sort through. We thought it would be a good time to check in with the Executive Director of the NSAC, Keith Kizer, to discuss judging in boxing, the controversial decision itself, how he saw the fight and what, if anything, the state commission is doing to review the fight.
– Elias Cepeda
CagePotato: Thanks for taking time to discuss judging in the Manny Pacquiao vs. Tim Bradley bout. Before we get into that fight specifically, let’s set up some general context. Can you describe how judges are selected in Nevada? Not for specific assignments but overall. How does someone become a judge in Nevada?
Keith Kizer: There are three different ways, basically. Sometimes we bring in outside judges for events. For example, on that very card we had several judges from California. What happens in those instances is I’ll call [California State Athletic Commission Head] George Dodd and ask him to give me a couple names of great judges. He is really good about doing that for us. So what happens after that is I have those judges included on the list that I give to the sanctioning bodies and fighter camps, as I did with this event.
But we also have a regular roster of judges. Another way that people can become Nevada judges is when there might be somebody who is a world class judge but lived elsewhere and moved to Nevada. That doesn’t guarantee that they would be added to our roster, but when there is an opening sometimes they are chosen.
(“I feel bad for the fighters and the judges for being a part of perceived controversy, and I feel bad for Arum being falsely accused…but I’m glad there are passionate fans out there.”)
The June 9th boxing title fight in Las Vegas between Manny Pacquiao and Tim Bradley ended in controversy after Bradley was awarded a split decision despite being routed in nearly every round. Last Saturday many more fans got to see the fight when it was replayed for free on HBO. The sanctioning body for the match’s title belt, the WBO, has announced that they are reviewing the fight, and promoter Bob Arumcalled for the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) to be investigated after he himself was accused of somehow being involved in corrupting the judges decision.
Basically, it’s another mess for boxing and its beleaguered fans to sort through. We thought it would be a good time to check in with the Executive Director of the NSAC, Keith Kizer, to discuss judging in boxing, the controversial decision itself, how he saw the fight and what, if anything, the state commission is doing to review the fight.
– Elias Cepeda
CagePotato: Thanks for taking time to discuss judging in the Manny Pacquiao vs. Tim Bradley bout. Before we get into that fight specifically, let’s set up some general context. Can you describe how judges are selected in Nevada? Not for specific assignments but overall. How does someone become a judge in Nevada?
Keith Kizer: There are three different ways, basically. Sometimes we bring in outside judges for events. For example, on that very card we had several judges from California. What happens in those instances is I’ll call [California State Athletic Commission Head] George Dodd and ask him to give me a couple names of great judges. He is really good about doing that for us. So what happens after that is I have those judges included on the list that I give to the sanctioning bodies and fighter camps, as I did with this event.
But we also have a regular roster of judges. Another way that people can become Nevada judges is when there might be somebody who is a world class judge but lived elsewhere and moved to Nevada. That doesn’t guarantee that they would be added to our roster, but when there is an opening sometimes they are chosen.
This happens with refs as well. This is what happened with Joe Cortez and Tony Weeks. But what usually happens is that people work the amateur ranks as judges here, similar to how people work the minor leagues before moving on to Major League Baseball. They can work the amateurs for years and when it gets to the point where we need to expand the pool, someone is shown the door, someone dies, or we are just getting more fights than there have been, I ask Don Barry, who is the head of amateurs here, to give me the names of his top three judges, in terms of skill and professionalism, and I meet with them, look at their resumes and might have them shadow for several fights.
I’ll have them score the fights they watch while shadowing and give me their scorecards at the end of the night, compare with the official scorecards see if there is anything they messed up. At that time, let’s say someone has proven themselves and it is time to expand, I’ll get with a chairman, have a chairman probably interview that person as well and then put them on the agenda of a meeting like we do with fighters. There, they discuss what they’ve done, question them and have the commission decide whether or not to license them.
CP: You mentioned “skill and professionalism,” as necessary characteristics for judges. We’ll get into skill a bit later, but I want to talk about the professionalism piece. One of your judges who scored the fight for Bradley, Judge Ford, said in an interview that Bradley gave Pacquiao a “boxing lesson.” It is one thing to explain your reasoning for judging the fight a certain way, but that read a bit excessive. Was that an professional thing for him to say?
Kizer: If you read the full quote, Judge Ford was saying that in the rounds he gave to Bradley, Bradley out-boxed Pacquiao, not that Pacquiao was dominated. And he felt that Bradley won more of those rounds than Pacquiao won. In Duane’s opinion Bradley out-boxed Pacquiao. That was probably a loaded term he used but if you look at the full context, it makes sense, if that’s what he saw.
CP: So you don’t think that he was being unprofessional in saying that Bradley gave Pacquiao a “boxing lesson?”
Kizer: I think it’s a loaded term that he shouldn’t have used, but with the whole context of what he says it makes sense. If that is what he saw, then it makes sense. And a lot of other people saw it that way, too. Thomas Hauser, Brian Kenny, Jake Donavan and others all scored it for Bradley as well. This is a situation, I believe, where if Harold Lederman hadn’t scored it so wide then there wouldn’t be as much outrage as there is.
CP: The WBO announced that they are reviewing the fight. What can and what is the Nevada State Athletic Commission doing in regards to reviewing the fight?
Kizer: As you know, there’s no ability to overturn a fight. The judges’ decision is final. So there is no formal review process. That being said, the officials themselves [the judges] review it, especially when there’s a controversial split decision. They review the film and see why they disagree with their colleagues and they plan to do that. I kind of jumped on the train and told them that I want to be a part of that when they review it as well.
CP: So it won’t be a review with any potential teeth to overturn or anything like that, it is more of professional development?
Kizer: Yeah.
CP: Can judges be penalized or fired or anything like that for doing a poor job?
Kizer: Oh sure. They are licensed like anyone else so those licenses can be taken away. Judges could all be subject to suspension. You might have seen some of them judging here in Nevada years ago and now you don’t see them anymore. Sometimes they see the writing on the wall or I show them the writing on the wall and they move on. With referees, they sometimes see the writing pretty well but for some reason judges sometimes need a push out the door and I’ve had to do that about a dozen times in the six years I’ve been the director.
Judges are not evaluated by any single fight. Let’s say there’s a big fight and a judge doesn’t do that well, maybe we move them to the undercard because they need time to hopefully bounce back and they are not going to do that with some big-time fight. In those cases, I’ll watch them very closely. If it is still the case, that’s it. That process, from start to finish could be months or it could be weeks.
CP: It doesn’t sound like any of the judges who scored the fight for Bradley will be punished, though. It doesn’t sound like you have an issue with their scores, is that correct?
Kizer: With these judges, it is not just about one fight. When the camps and promoter heard they would be the judges, they were all very happy with the referee and the three judges. They have all had stellar careers. We look at this as a whole. These are great judges. That’s why [Top Rank] promoter Bob Arum initially said he was shocked by the decision. Whether or not I scored the fights the same as the judges, that is not the important question to me. I have no issues with the judges. The important question to me is, ‘are they still very good judges?’ To determine that I look at the last year or two overall, for them, not just that individual fight itself. That isn’t to downplay the importance of any one fight, because they are all important. But when we are talking about someone’s professionalism and competence, we need to look at their performance comprehensively.
CP: That seems fair, in terms of evaluating competence and skill but what of the specter of corruption? What would you have to see from a judge in a fight to arose suspicion that there is something more sinister than differences of opinion or competence issues at play?
Kizer: Oh, I don’t know. I have never seen it so I don’t know how to answer that. If you’re asking me what would it take to freak me out, I’ve never freaked out before in this job so I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, a decision where guys like Thomas Hauser, Jake Donanvan and others had it pretty much dead even is not a fight that would concern me. Those are all well-versed guys.
After the fight Bob Arum was complaining about the decision but was still saying that these are good judges and that he was just really shocked at the decision. He scored it for Pacquiao but said that the judges just had an off-night and that there was nothing untoward going on. Then Teddy Atlas went on to say all this stuff that ended up not being the case, about Pacquiao being near the end of his contract with Arum and insinuating that Arum had something to do with the decision to pressure Pacquiao to stay with him. It was only after that that Bob Arum started saying that the commission needed to be investigated and all that. Teddy libeled Bob and his answer was just to libel some other people (laughs). That’s never the answer.
I had the fight scored 7-5 for Pacquiao. I had it 7-2 for Pacquiao after nine and then I thought Bradley won the 10th and 12th and eeked out the 11th. With close fights that I scored differently I’ll often call judges to the side and say, ‘explain to me the way you got that.’ I did it with the Nam Pham vs. Leonard Garcia fight. I had it 3-0 the other way as the result. It wasn’t until later when I started getting letters from knowledgeable writers and observers saying that they had it 2-1 and that it was a lot closer than I had said and thought.
Fights are scored round by round and sometimes a guy can win the rounds he wins by a wide margin but the other guy barely eeks out more total rounds and wins the fight. I think the last time we had this much outcry was with the second Shane Mosley vs. Oscar De La Hoya fight. At the time Arum was calling for the FBI to investigate. But after all these years, no one really talks about that one much and I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who will say that it wasn’t a close fight. De La Hoya clearly won the first part of the fight but Shane rallied and De La Hoya sort of took his foot off the gas.
I really think that if Arum himself hadn’t been accused very poorly by Atlas and then reacted defensively by accusing us, this fight wouldn’t be as much of a controversy as it is.
CP: So is it fair to say, then, that you are not really concerned with the image of the Nevada State Athletic Commission after the judging controversy in the Pacquiao/Bradley fight?
Kizer: I’m always concerned about the image and I feel bad for the fighters and the judges for being a part of perceived controversy, and I feel bad for Arum being falsely accused but I don’t feel bad about people being able to express their passion and yelling ‘robbery.’ I’ve gotten emails from people telling me that they had it even and can’t believe people are doing this, but I’m glad there are passionate fans out there. Sometimes they are rabid and crazy and it’s called slander (laughs), but I’m glad they are passionate. I just think there are a lot of people jumping on in a bandwagon effect.
(Negative side effects of TRT: Bacne. Positive side effects: Falcon Punch.)
My God, today’s NSAC meeting, which determined both Chael Sonnen’s future ability to continue legal injecting steroids testosterone replacement therapy and Nick Diaz’s minimum retirement length was like watching Lawrence of Arabia, twice, minus all of the train explosions and shots of interesting desert landscapes. To describe the six hour hearing in a word: humdrum. Thankfully, we’ll be much briefer in summing up what went down.
To kick off the afternoon, Sonnen was successful in achieving a therapeutic use exemption for testosterone replacement therapy, and now joins the like of Dan Henderson, Todd Duffee, and Shane Roller in the select group of MMA fighters to receive an exemption from the Nevada State Athletic Commission. As far as interesting developments go, Sonnen admitted that he injected himself with testosterone, stating, “I administer two times a week, every Sunday and Thursday. It’s self-injected intermusculatory and [I] consider it to be a prescription.” When Commissioner Pat Lundvall asked why Sonnen had never listed using testosterone on his medical forms over the past few years, Sonnen stated that he was under the impression that it wasn’t something that needed to be disclosed. He also stated under oath that he “has never taken anabolic steroids.”
In another interesting moment, which took place before the hearing truly began, Keith Kizer likened TRT to “the new Viagra” as doctors continue to push it on the population and that “Therapuetic Use Exemptions do not allow you to test outside of normal ranges. It only allows for presence of synthetics.” Does this make Sonnen TRT’s Smiling Bob? Only time will tell.
(Negative side effects of TRT: Bacne. Positive side effects: Falcon Punch.)
My God, today’s NSAC meeting, which determined both Chael Sonnen’s future ability to continue legal injecting steroids testosterone replacement therapy and Nick Diaz’s minimum retirement length was like watching Lawrence of Arabia, twice, minus all of the train explosions and shots of interesting desert landscapes. To describe the six hour hearing in a word: humdrum. Thankfully, we’ll be much briefer in summing up what went down.
To kick off the afternoon, Sonnen was successful in achieving a therapeutic use exemption for testosterone replacement therapy, and now joins the like of Dan Henderson, Todd Duffee, and Shane Roller in the select group of MMA fighters to receive an exemption from the Nevada State Athletic Commission. As far as interesting developments go, Sonnen admitted that he injected himself with testosterone, stating, ”I administer two times a week, every Sunday and Thursday. It’s self-injected intermusculatory and [I] consider it to be a prescription.” When Commissioner Pat Lundvall asked why Sonnen had never listed using testosterone on his medical forms over the past few years, Sonnen stated that he was under the impression that it wasn’t something that needed to be disclosed. He also stated under oath that he “has never taken anabolic steroids.”
In another interesting moment, which took place before the hearing truly began, Keith Kizer likened TRT to “the new Viagra” as doctors continue to push it on the population and that “Therapuetic Use Exemptions do not allow you to test outside of normal ranges. It only allows for presence of synthetics.” Does this make Sonnen TRT’s Smiling Bob? Only time will tell.
And with that, Sonnen was granted an exemption on the grounds that he will undergo several blood tests both before and after UFC 148 to monitor his injections. The commission then asked if Sonnen would help them as an adviser on TRT in the future, which he gladly accepted.
Let’s move on to Diaz, who, true to form, did not pull any punches when answering his questions. When asked approximately when he began smoking marijuana again after his 2007 hearing with the NSAC, something Diaz swore he would never do again during said hearing, Diaz admitting to smoking weed pretty much immediately afterward upon returning home. Twenty-four year old Dave Chapelle approves. But the main issue was not when exactly Diaz had started dating Mary Jane again, or how early he broke it off with her before his fight with Carlos Condit at UFC 143, but rather why he lied on his pre-fight questionnaire when he stated that he was not taking any prescription or over-the-counter drugs at the time. The argument Diaz and lawyer Les Grossman attempted to make was an old stand-by for Diaz: ignorance.
According to Diaz and Grossman, Diaz was not aware that his marijuana usage did in fact fall under the terms of either prescription or OTC usage, simply because Diaz did not think his medically diagnosed ADHD was serious enough to be listed on the questionnaire. Also, being that Diaz neither obtained his medical marijuana through a prescription or over-the-counter means, but rather through a doctor’s statement, that Diaz should not be held entirely accountable for his actions. Diaz stated that he often obtained his medical marijuana through other friends who also had physician statements (yeah, same here bro) or at cannabis dispensaries located near his home, whichever was more convenient. Diaz also stated that he was diagnosed with ADHD in the second grade, and that although he began smoking pot for purely recreational purposes, looking back, he considered it more therapeutic than anything.
Although the commission wasn’t exactly out to make Diaz look like a fool, and seemed more than willing to hear his argument, their deliberation was so short that I could barely step outside to help cure my own self-diagnosed eating disorder, if you know what I mean, before the ruling had been handed down.
12 months, and thirty percent of Diaz’s UFC 143 purse and bonus.
Combine that with Grossman’s substantial fees, and that sure doesn’t leave him a whole lot to retire on, so expect to see Diaz back in the octagon once his suspension is up. Hopefully he’ll show up for the fight this time.
“They’ve asked for no additional testing ,” Kizer told CagePotato.com. “I have talked with Overeem’s attorney and that issue has not been raised.”
“He has not indicated what [Overeem’s] defense will be, but he has not said to me, as I’m sure he would have if he was using it, that [Overeem] is on TRT,” Kizer continued. “That is not to say that they could not still make that case and ask for a therapeutic use exemption for TRT, but if they do, I’d be as shocked as the next person. We’ll all see what they do when April 24th comes around.”
When Overeem’s hearing does take place in one week, Kizer anticipates that the fighter will not have an easy road to getting licensed again. “It is going to be a very tough hearing for Mr. Overeem, to say the least,” Kizer said.
A week before he Alistair Overeem Gets April 24th NSAC Hearing” href=”http://www.cagepotato.com/alistair-overeem-gets-april-24th-nsac-hearing/” target=”_blank”>will appear before the Nevada State Athletic Commission for a hearing regarding his failed March drug test and to request a license to fight Junior Dos Santos at UFC 146, the NSAC’s Executive Director Keith Kizer says that Alistair Overeem’s legal team has yet to request additional sample tests or to indicate that they will apply for a therapeutic use exemption for testosterone replacement therapy.
“They’ve asked for no additional testing ,” Kizer told CagePotato.com. “I have talked with Overeem’s attorney and that issue has not been raised.”
“He has not indicated what [Overeem’s] defense will be, but he has not said to me, as I’m sure he would have if he was using it, that [Overeem] is on TRT,” Kizer continued. “That is not to say that they could not still make that case and ask for a therapeutic use exemption for TRT, but if they do, I’d be as shocked as the next person. We’ll all see what they do when April 24th comes around.”
When Overeem’s hearing does take place in one week, Kizer anticipates that the fighter will not have an easy road to getting licensed again. “It is going to be a very tough hearing for Mr. Overeem, to say the least,” Kizer said.
The fact that Overeem previously failed to hand in samples for testing to the commission on time, will be relevant in the coming hearing, Kizer says.
“This is a lot different and a lot tougher [than Overeem’s last licensing hearing] come April 24th,” Kizer said. “What happened [before] is going to be very relevant. But the biggest relevancy to the commission’s decision this time will be what happened in March.”
A urine sample collected by the NSAC from Overeem on March 27th came back showing a testosterone to epitestosterone ratio of 14:1, in excess of the 6:1 ration that the state commission allows. That test counted as one of the two surprise tests Overeem had agreed to be subjected to by the NSAC in a six-month period as a part of a conditional license he was issued to fight Brock Lesnar in late December after the Dutch fighter tested and turned in a sample for testing weeks late.
Overeem’s conditional license expired after 2011. In order to obtain another license in Nevada to fight in his schedule title bout against Dos Santos, he has to appear before the NSAC on April 24th. The commission cannot suspend an unlicensed fighter for a failed drug test, but they can take into account Overeem’s recent screening results in deciding whether or not to issue a license to him.
Overeem’s failed test was of his ‘A’ sample. He has the right to ask the commission to test the ‘B’ sample he provided in March. Because Nevada does sometimes issue therapeutic use exemptions to some fighters to allow them to use otherwise banned substances and treatments (like testosterone replacement therapy) which could potentially alter a fighter’s testosterone levels and testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratios, it has been speculated that Overeem might apply for a TRT therapeutic use exemption with the commission, claiming a medical need for the therapy. As of now, that doesn’t seem to be the approach that Overeem will take while defending himself and re-applying for licensure next week.
(Overeem, pictured next to a normal-sized human being for comparison.)
File this under “HOLY F*CKING SH*T.”
Nevada State Athletic Commission executive director Keith Kizer has confirmed to CagePotato.com that Alistair Overeem‘s testosterone/epitestosterone ratio registered at 14:1 in his recent failed drug test. Assuming you’re not an expert endocrinologist, we’ll let MMAFighting.com put that number into perspective:
The average male produces a T/E ratio around 1:1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) uses a 4:1 standard for positive tests, and NSAC uses 6:1 as its cutoff, a number used by WADA up until 2006…Overeem’s number is slightly lower than that of Chael Sonnen when he was caught with an elevated level in 2010. Sonnen, who lost to Anderson Silva the day after the test was taken, produced a sample with a 16.9:1 ratio.
(Overeem, pictured next to a normal-sized human being for comparison.)
File this under “HOLY F*CKING SH*T.”
Nevada State Athletic Commission executive director Keith Kizer has confirmed to CagePotato.com that Alistair Overeem‘s testosterone/epitestosterone ratio registered at 14:1 in his recent failed drug test. Assuming you’re not an expert endocrinologist, we’ll let MMAFighting.com put that number into perspective:
The average male produces a T/E ratio around 1:1. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) uses a 4:1 standard for positive tests, and NSAC uses 6:1 as its cutoff, a number used by WADA up until 2006…Overeem’s number is slightly lower than that of Chael Sonnen when he was caught with an elevated level in 2010. Sonnen, who lost to Anderson Silva the day after the test was taken, produced a sample with a 16.9:1 ratio.
While Sonnen quickly threw his own testicles under the bus to hatch up a hypogonadism/TRT defense, a similar excuse from Overeem would seem laughable. [Ed. note: Maybe that’s not fair to say at this point, but just look at the son-of-a-bitch.] As FightOpinion’s Zach Arnold pointed out yesterday, the NSAC’s current 6:1 threshold is already generous to prospective drug cheats — which underscores Overeem’s T/E result as a massive miscalculation of…whatever it was he was trying to do.
We wrote NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer to ask him if he felt Commissioner Pat Lundvall’s line of questioning was offensive, racially or otherwise, or if her questions represented standard procedure in Nevada’s ongoing quest to emphasize fighters taking personal responsibility. Kizer was direct and concise in his response:
We wrote NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer to ask him if he felt that Commissioner Pat Lundvall’s line of questioning was offensive, racially or otherwise, or if her questions represented standard procedure in Nevada’s ongoing quest to emphasize fighters taking personal responsibility. Kizer was direct and concise in his response:
“The questioning was foundational in nature, very common and quite appropriate,” Kizer wrote us back.
During Lawal’s hearing on Tuesday, the accuracy of his pre-fight questionnaire — which asks, among other things, about medications that a fighter may be taking as well as recent and ongoing injuries that he or she may have — was called into question. Discrepancies seemed to arise between what was put down on those forms (and who even filled the forms out) and Lawal’s subsequent claims. During questioning, Lundvall asked Lawal if he understood English, could read English, and a few other condescending questions.
Lawal has since said that he felt insulted for being asked that, considering that he had been speaking to the commission in English for some time at that point and attended college in these United States. The Southern-born wrestler said Lundvall’s line of questioning reminded him of discrimination from his past.
Listen to some audio of Lawal’s hearing below (you can fast forward to around the 6:50 mark to hear Lundvall ask Lawal about understanding English, owning a PC, having an email address and other deadpan gold). There isn’t any particular reason to believe that Commissioner Lundvall’s questioning of Lawal was racially motivated, but it was certainly a dressing-down.
What do you think, nation? Racism, race-baiting or simple misunderstanding among friends?
