UFC 200: The Rotten Core of MMA

For a sport on the rise, a bit of scandal can sometimes be a good thing. However, if there is anything we have learnt from the Olympics/Russia debacle, allegations of doping from the elite level athletes is certainly not one of them.

So for those of you not familiar (but if you're not, I'm not entirely sure you're reading the right article), the UFC, the dominant mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion in the world, is celebrating its 200th edition with a truly stacked card. WWE and ex-UFC superstar Brock Lesnar is back after a four year hiatus from the MMA world to fight a true knockout artist in Mark Hunt, there are two title fights, as well as the return of Cain Velasquez. That's before we even get to the headliner: the second instalment of a fierce and bitter rivalry between light-heavyweight champ Daniel Cormier and the nominally unbeaten Jon Jones, widely regarded the number one pound for pound fighter in the world.

However, that headliner was rocked earlier today with the announcement that Jones, so outspoken in his condemnation of drug cheats, had failed a pre-fight screening. While the exact substance has not been announced as yet, Jones was unceremoniously dropped from the card, with the Lesnar/Hunt bout promoted to the main event. Cue a tearful Jones in a press conference, sending heartfelt apologies and denying that he was aware of taking anything unlawful.

While many, including myself, will lament the removal of what would in all likelihood have been an incredible fight, this hides an issue that has for so long gone relatively unchecked, and remains a serious problem in the sport. Doping, and more accurately, steroid or hormone abuse, has plagued the sport from its inception, with so many of its most high profile individuals accused, or even convicted, of previous offences. I won't go into detail on all the cases, but below are just a handful of the very top names that have been convicted of doping, with most continuing to fight despite this:

• Anderson Silva - convicted of steroid use in 2015
• Chael Sonnen - convicted of TRT supplement use in 2010 and steroid use in 2014
• Nate Marquardt - convicted of steroid use in 2005 and TRT supplement use in 2011
• Royce Gracie - convicted of steroid use in 2007
• Tim Sylvia - convicted of steroid use in 2003
• Cris 'Cyborg' Santos - convicted of steroid use in 2012
• Alistair Overeem - convicted of TRT supplement use in 2012
• Vitor Belfort - convicted of TRT supplement use in 2006 and 2014
• Josh Barnett - convicted of steroid use in 2002 and 2009
• Ken Shamrock - convicted of three counts of steroid use in 2009
• BJ Penn - convicted of TRT supplement use in 2016

This list is by no means exhaustive, but still includes the two standout fighters from the very first UFC tournament, as well as two UFC heavyweight champions, a UFC light-heavyweight champion, a UFC middleweight champion, a UFC heavyweight title challenger, a UFC light-heavyweight title challenger, three UFC middleweight title challenges, the most dominant female fighter of all time, and the greatest MMA fighter of all time. Hardly slim pickings!

There are also stories of fighters going to great lengths to avoid drug tests, highlighting further instances of guilt. My favourite is Wanderlei Silva, who practically fled the country when a sample collector turned up at his gym!

Bearing in mind that this is a sport in existence since 1993, there has until recently been a worrying lack of emphasis placed on tackling drug abuse by the UFC and the various athletic commissions that have sanctioned the events. This gets worse, however. Following UFC 182, which saw Jones defeat Cormier to retain his title, it emerged that Jones had tested positive for cocaine in a pre-fight test - a fact which was buried by the UFC. Similarly, since Vitor Belfort's UFC 152 title fight with Jones, evidence has been unsurfaced that the UFC knew of the Brazilian's TRT positive test, while it is widely accepted that many of UFC middleweight champion Michael Bisping's UFC losses have come at the hands of people using performance enhancing drugs.

So for those to suggest that this is an isolated incident, or even that UFC fighters are a class above boxers in terms of fair play, is simply idiotic. This is a pandemic. Anything you can use to gain a competitive advantage, people will use, and that includes drugs. For Dana White to suggest that steroid use isn't that bad is at best naive and wishful thinking, and at worse flat out lies. Fighters aren't going to stop taking drugs of their own volition or moral compass, so you have to make them.

Having taken his head out of the sand following those comments over steroids, Dana White unveiled a new partnership with the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA) in July 2015, designed to cut down, and ultimately eliminate the use of performance enhancing drugs in MMA. Some may say 22 years too late, but better late than never, I guess!

As part of the new regulations, athletes must be available for random drug testing up to four months before any fight, at any time in any place. While cheaters will still find some ways around this system, it is about as robust as it is possible to be, and will undoubtedly help the UFC become much more clean.

That is, as long as Zuffa (the company behind the UFC) doesn't put its commercial interests ahead of the sport (ironically something Dana White has accused rival promotions like Strikeforce, Elite XC and Bellator of doing). Having set up these robust rules, the UFC found itself in somewhat of a quandary when global superstar Conor McGregor pulled out of plans for UFC 200 in April. Needing to find a suitable replacement, they turned to the man responsible for the most pay-per-view buys in history: Brock Lesnar. However, a deal for Lesnar to return was not officially in place until 6 June, just one month before the fight date. Or more importantly, three months too late for USADA. What were the UFC to do?

Fortunately, there had been some very careful loopholes put in place for such a scenario. You know, the same kind of loopholes that politicians put in the tax system so they can adequately exploit them to their own advantage. In the event of a retired fighter, who had left the company before the introduction of USADA, rejoining the UFC, a special exemption could be granted to enable them to fight. Seemingly custom-built for Brock Lesnar - is anyone else more than a little suspicious? Now don't get me wrong, I am a massive fan of Brock Lesnar's, and I can't wait to see that fight with Mark Hunt, but it is more important that the integrity of the sport remains unquestionably intact.

Another aspect to USADA that confused me today was the handling of the Jones drug screening that cost us the main event. When the news came out that there was not enough time to re-test the sample that Jones tested positive on, I had assumed that it was taken in the days immediately preceding the fight. It came as a great surprise, then, to find out that the sample had actually been taken on 16 June, nearly a month before the event. How was it that it took so long to reveal it was positive? And if they knew ahead of time, why could we not have retested the sample to check whether the cancellation of the bout was necessary? Everyone makes mistakes, and if it turns out to be a false positive, we may have been robbed of the icing on top of the cake: one of the best main events in the history of the UFC.

This episode enables us to draw some conclusions. Put simply, if you want to make MMA a legitimate sport, and not just a business for profit, you need to eradicate doping. That means removing all loopholes, and imposing an inescapable system of screening. This process should be as transparent as possible, to remove any confusion or doubt, and all test results should be given a publication date and published publicly.

USADA is certainly a step in the right direction, but this must only be the start. There are a number of niggles with the current system, which must be ironed out to ensure fair competition. Finally, in my opinion, a real deterrent has to be put in place to prevent drug cheats, and that means life bans. Obviously, in the case of false positives or legitimate medications (e.g. Bigfoot Silva's gigantism meds), this can be rescinded, but this must be the penalty.

MMA and the UFC will not be fully legitimised, and the incredible athletes at the heart of the sport will not be recognised until we remove the rotten core. The message to Dana White and the Fertitta brothers is simple: it may not be best for your wallet in the short term, but it will be best for the sport in the long.

Bitesize Rants #1: The Respect Campaign and Football Hooliganism

In my day job (I know, can you believe that being a keyboard warrior on inconsequential topics isn't a full-time role?!), I was recently given the task of being more succinct. As some of you may have noticed, I have a tendency to use 10 words when one will do. So, I thought I'd challenge myself in a new segment I've called 'Bitesize Rants'. The premise is simple - the same level of anger and outrage, neatly fit into just 400 words.

The attack made on Manchester United’s team bus before their crucial must win game against West Ham highlights something that we’ve known for some time – football hooliganism is far from dead.

This is not my forum for attacking West Ham fans, as I want to focus on the clearly dramatic impact that the much discussed Respect campaign has had.

As a child watching football, I was all too familiar with the sight of players surrounding and berating the referee, with Roy Keane and Patrick Vieira sticking in my memory as the worst examples. As a teenager, I experienced this first-hand from parents of under-11s games, with some of the abuse received frankly shocking. To combat this, and the continual threat of off-field violence, the FA introduced the Respect campaign, an umbrella for anti-racism and pro-fairness in football. This was also designed to paint football to kids as a friendly and respectful sport, and give them role models they can look up to.

Has it made a difference? Clearly not as much as they’d hope, if Tuesday’s events are anything to go by. It’s certainly true that referees are not as bombarded by people after every decision, but the abuse from both the players and the fans continues to be prevalent at every level. Just read Wayne Rooney’s lips when the camera pans to him, and you’ll learn some new vocabulary you didn’t want! It also sets a worrying double standard, as some offences are punished and others simply aren’t!

It certainly doesn’t help that footballers don’t paint themselves in a good and respectful light as role models for kids. For every Vincent Kompany there is a Joey Barton, and every Claudio Ranieri has a Neil Warnock. The very fact that proven racists Jamie Vardy, Luis Suarez and John Terry are so revered among sections of football fans is alarming, and highlights the scale of the problem remaining.

So while West Ham have reacted quickly to the whole bus incident, the events should act as a warning shot across the bows of the FA. The Respect campaign is not hard-hitting enough, and for the sake of thousands of Sunday League referees across the country, football’s governing body needs to have a rethink. Try coming down hard on every type of disrespect, and not set a loophole for poor role models by letting some players get away with it.

Why Is The Footballing World Not 'Right Behind Gay Footballers'?

                         The 21st century has seen football as a sport attempt to clean up its image, with anti-social behaviour and racism being stamped down upon by clubs, both on the pitch and in the stands. However, strangely, clubs do not seem as willing to support the Right Behind Gay Footballers campaign, which is indicated by the reluctance of many of the Premier League clubs to wear the rainbow laces that symbolise the campaign. Despite it being another form of discrimination, similar to racism, football seems unwilling to give it the same treatment. This post will examine the scale of the problem, before suggesting potential reasons behind the clubs' decisions not to don the striking rainbow laces for this week's fixtures.

                            Whilst racism often, and quite rightly, takes the headlines, with sagas like that of John Terry and Luis Suarez a couple of examples in recent years, homophobia often goes under the radar. Having attended many games over the years, I can recall several examples of homophobic abuse from the sidelines. Whilst there are perhaps not as many examples of on-field homophobic abuse, this does not mean there is not a issue within the game. Discrimination against gay sportsmen is not simply isolated to football, however. In almost every sport the statistics are striking. Despite an approximate of 10% of the population being gay, there are hardly any examples of gay sportsmen. Now, either this is an incredibly unlikely set of circumstances, or there is something that is forcing gay footballers to hide their sexuality. The perception of football dressing rooms and stadia as 'laddish enviroments' often means that those gay footballers believe that they will not be as readily accepted as they are in the rest of society, and this is unfortunate. I am certain that these worries are sometimes unnecessary, as many dressing rooms would be perfectly accepting of gay team mates. However, I am equally certain that there are dressing rooms that would not take as kindly to it, and would treat the player differently as a result. Also, players will suffer abuse for being different in any way, and being gay would immediately make the player a target for homophobic supporters. Neither of these scenarios are very pleasant, and many stories from ex-professionals have indicated how hard it is to be a gay man in sport.

                              Two examples spring instantly to mind. Ex-Welsh rugby union captain Gareth Thomas, who became the first openly gay rugby union player in 2009, has since explained the months and years of emotional turmoil at the thought of coming out to his fellow rugby players, and feared being abused by the crowd. This is actually a fantastic success story, as his fears were unfounded, his colleagues accepted him with open arms, and he has since gone on to become a gay icon for sportsmen worldwide. Others were not as fortunate. The first example of an openly gay British footballer ended in tragedy. Justin Fashanu, the ex-Norwich, Nottingham Forest, Manchester City and West Ham United player was subjected to abuse, both inside and outside the dressing room. Eventually, after a brief career state-side, he was accused of sexual assault by a seventeen year old, a charge he always claimed was unfounded. Sadly, this led to his suicide in 1998. The fact that in 10 years the feeling has changed is positive, however the problem of homophobic abuse still remains, otherwise we would have expected to see many more players come out. In recent years, American football Robbie Rogers, who plied his trade at Leeds United, came out and immediately retired, citing his homosexuality as the reason behind his decision. This, coupled with the decision not to wear the rainbow laces, implies that there is still some work to do to kick homophobic abuse out of football.

                                So what is the 'Right Behind Gay Footballers' campaign? Gay rights group Stonewall, created in 1989 after the infamous Stonewall riots, launched the Right Behind campaign earlier this week. Designed to back gay players and unite against homophobia within sport, the British based group sent rainbow laces to each of the 92 Football League clubs this week, in the hope that they would wear them, symbolising football's unity against discrimination. After a successful Twitter campaign, which saw the hashtag #RBGF trending nationwide, it was expected that the majority of football clubs would support the motion. However, the campaign initially went down like a lead balloon within the clubs, with only Everton from England's top flight openly stating that they would wear them. Neither Norwich nor Aston Villa in Saturday's early fixture donned the laces, sending the initial message that football is not whole-heartedly behind the campaign.

                                  But why could that be? As much as football detractors will be writing the sport off as discriminatory and homophobic, I refuse to accept that the vast majority of footballers, chairmen and fans are not wholly supportive of gay rights in everyday life, and therefore we would expect football to be no different. Perhaps it would be more worth looking at the campaign itself, and the way that it has conducted itself over the last week. Here we can see a good idea of why football clubs, and gay footballers in general, would be less willing to get involved. There have been many incidents of crass behaviour by those running the campaign, with many of the supportive slogans and adverts getting dangerously close to the knuckle. Even the title of the campaign, 'Right Behind Gay Footballers', is intended to be a play on an old homophobic joke. Whilst the intentions behind the campaign are undoubtedly good, much of the execution is not serious enough for the footballing world to consider it as a significant problem. To trivialise the problem means that the footballing world will fail to take the message of the campaign seriously. In fact, we could even say that it is counter-productive, as it actually reinforces the bigoted stereotypes that are consistently screamed at them from the terraces. From this perspective it is easy to see why many of those involved in the game would not want to be associated with such a poorly executed campaign.

                                     This certainly goes some way to explaining the reluctance of many of the football clubs in wearing the rainbow laces associated with the RBGF campaign. However, my personal opinion remains that they should all still be wearing them. Yes, the campaign is flawed, but the message behind it remains the same: that there is no place in football for homophobic abuse or discrimination. The people designing the campaign and the advertisers have been extremely silly, but the motion is positive. There is no guarantee that this subject will come up again for a while, so even if it means supporting a flawed campaign, it is always good to indicate how united football is against a topic. I can, however, understand the reluctance of many gay footballers to want to wear something that appears to worsen the stereotypes that they have been verbally battered with for so many years.

The B*****d in Black: Should We Do More To Protect Referees?

                      The announcement of Howard Webb as the referee of this weekend's Manchester derby caused many groups of City fans to take to social media and call fix, at times abusing the policeman from the North East. This all comes after a statement last week from former referee Mark Halsey, who has said that without further support for the officials, we will soon see a referee becoming so under pressure they may consider taking their own life. Whilst this claim may appear dramatic on the surface, there is much in the way of evidence to support it. This post will look at recent examples of top class referees being put under intense pressure, before examining the potential fixes to this problem.

                        In terms of examples, I can recall three in recent years of referees receiving threats against his person, or even his life. The one I will start with is Tom Henning Ovrebo, whose name will be all too familiar with Chelsea fans. In the 2009 UEFA Champions League semi final, the Norwegian had a shocking evening, refusing to grant Chelsea two stonewall penalties, and potentially even a third, and debatably dismissing Eric Abidal. However, the final two penalty claims, which came after Andres Iniesta's dramatic late equaliser, sent many of the Chelsea players into a rage, surrounding the referee in complaint. The Norwegian left the field to a chorus of boos. Had that been the end of the story, it would have been acceptable, as the crowd has every right to voice their displeasure. What they do not have the right to do is send the referee threatening messages, both through the post and over social networking sites. This is what happened to Ovrebo, with threats against his life common in the following fortnight.

                          Example number two is the referee of the EURO 2004 quarter final between Portugal and England: Urs Meier. The Swiss official generally had a good game, however his performance will be best remembered for a shocking error which cost England their place in the competition. At 2-2, and deep into stoppage time, a Beckham corner was met powerfully by Sol Campbell, thumping the ball into the net. Unbelievably, the referee had blown his whistle for a foul, despite Campbell failing to come into contact with anyone until after he had headed the ball. This effectively denied England a place in the semi-finals, and ultimately eliminated them, as penalties resulted in the inevitable elimination. Meier, like Ovrebo, suffered an influx of death threats, leading to him being given personal security for some time afterwards.

                            The final example is the one referred to by Mark Halsey last week. Mark Clattenburg was relieved of his refereeing duties mid-way through last season, after it emerged that accusations had been made that the official had racially abused Chelsea's John Obi Mikel. In fact, these accusations had been completely fabricated by the Chelsea players, and passed onto Mikel as if fact. This led, understandably, to a very angry Nigerian. However, less acceptable was his reaction. After the game had concluded the midfielder, by all accounts, barged into the referee's dressing room and threatened to break his legs. It has to be said that these rumours were not started by Mikel himself, so it is slightly different to other examples. However, it does indicate just how high passions run on the football field.

                             So what can be done to help referees? Having experienced abuse from the sidelines as a referee first-hand, I can certainly vouch for the argument that the Respect campaign has done next to nothing for the game. People can still lip read what Wayne Rooney says to referees, players continue to get in the faces of referees when a decision goes against them, and I am certain that there are many incidents that go completely unpunished. Any referee that feels threatened is unacceptable, and must be stamped out. What crowds don't understand when they abuse referees is that without one, the game could not begin. It is therefore pointless abusing them, and even more pointless complaining about decisions that have already been made. We will not change our minds!

                              Having said that, recieving abuse from fans during the game is something that a referee has to accept as being part and parcel of the game. When passions run high, sometimes fans will use offensive language towards officials that have made poor decisions. That is not to excuse racist or any other type of discriminatory abuse, as that is certainly the exception to the rule. However, general abuse from the fans is to be expected, and referees have put themselves in the frame for that. The area that football needs to stamp out of the game is the abuse of referees by footballers on the pitch, and the subsequent abuse that referees recieve after the game.

                              In terms of the off-field abuse, which has often resulted in death threats being sent to referees, there is little more the world of football can do other than to appeal to the common sense of the football fans involved. The police must be trusted to act swiftly and harshly against offenders, and football as a sport must punish any person found guilty with lifetime bans. I think the best way to combat the ever declining treatment of officials on the pitch is to go right back to the very grass roots of the game and make more sending-off worthy offences. Attempting the top-down approach, like the Respect, has been proven to be ineffective, so perhaps it is best to concentrate on the next generation of football players. By giving harsher sanctions for dissent and abuse from a very early age, to both the players and the crowd, referees can wrestle back the control from the sidelines, and gain the sort of status that rugby officials enjoy. Whilst not available at the grass roots, video and audio technology could also be used to retrospectively ban players who have been caught abusing referees on camera or microphone. However, one way in which referees can help themselves is by explaining their decisions, and admitting when they have made mistakes. I am a big supporter of referee press conferences, as it gives the officials the chance to explain their actions, and give the situation from their perspective. This would help to clear up much of the debate of the did they/didn't they see it.

                                Nevertheless, even without these press conferences, abuse of any referee is unacceptable. And it does not bode well for the future of the game. Speaking from experience, the abuse that I recieved from parents at youth level as a referee at 14 well and truly put me off from continuing it as a career. If more make the same decision, we could find ourselves with a distinct shortage of top quality referees, which will only anger fans more, as more mistakes will be made. Referees are put under exceptional pressure, and they do an excellent job 99% of the time. And 99% of fans respect that. But we still need to act to prevent that 1% of fans in the 1% of cases ruining football in the present, and the future.