Friend of our site


MMA Headlines


UFC HP


Bleacher Report


MMA Fighting


MMA Torch


MMA Weekly


Sherdog (News)


Sherdog (Articles)


Liver Kick


MMA Junkie


MMA Mania


MMA Ratings


Rating Fights


Yahoo MMA Blog


MMA Betting


Search this site



Latest Articles


News Corner


MMA Rising


Audio Corner


Oddscast


Sherdog Radio


Video Corner


Fight Hub


Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index


To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site


Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback


Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

The nanny state of California

By Zach Arnold | June 21, 2007

Print Friendly and PDF

What can you say about this quote?

Armando Garcia was very careful in explaining what wouldn’t be allowed, including swearing, lewd gestures, antagonizing T-shirts and hats, face paint in the ring (not a problem here since Warpath isn’t on the show), carrying an opponent and entertaining the crowd or anything that isn’t a 100% in earnest effort to win at all times.

More thoughts at The Flying Triangle.

I think a good lawyer would perhaps be successful against Armando Garcia in a court of law on the issue of banning certain types of free speech and freedom of expression. His job is to make sure events run smoothly and that the state collects its money from the event.

The job isn’t about making sure that you make fighters behave in a certain manner that’s good for ‘the kids.’ This is exactly the kind of attitude that breeds, in my opinion, an environment that people will start comparing to a nanny-state of affairs. On Sherdog radio, Mr. Garcia made the argument that MMA-related business continues to pour into California under his watch. That is a fair assertion to make because a) the population of California is anywhere from 35-to-38 million people and b) there are a lot of event promoters living in the state. However, I feel that it is a reasonable belief to have that pattern of business could certainly change based on the commissioner’s behavior.

Let me state upfront that I understand that there are a fair amount of knucklehead fighters in the MMA business, if not more than the professional wrestling industry (which has an endless supply of them).

Mr. Garcia is the commissioner of the state of California, not the commissioner of the FCC (which regulates American public airwaves). He’s a Governmental employee that runs a state agency. Trying to enforce codes of personal conduct similar to how private sports institutions like the NFL is doing now is curious. You enforce the rules on the books in as fair of a manner as possible. Until there is a law in the state of California banning profanity or lewd gestures, suspensions related to this matters should be squashed in a court of law. Provision #24 in the Unified rules regarding profane behavior is designed for the discretion of the referee *during* a fight.

So why won’t fighters challenge Mr. Garcia in court? First, money. Not enough money to pay for a protracted and lengthy court battle. Two, my viewpoint is that there is a feeling of fear from fighters that if they anger Mr. Garcia that they will never be able to fight again or get licensed. If a fighter does want to challenge the commission in court over a suspension, then likely the only way they could afford legal representation is if a lawyer agreed to do work pro-bono.

I have talked with Mr. Garcia on the phone before, and he was probably nicer to me than I expected. However, my major concern is that his actions could and will make him a political liability.

The main line of defense brought up to support the commissioner’s actions is to claim that he’s trying to limit as much liability as possible for the state of California (in case a riot or a major incident occurs). Do you buy it?

The next scheduled meeting for the California SAC is on Monday, June 25th at 400 R Street at the Sacramento River Room (1st floor) in Sacramento, California. It will take place from 10 AM to 4 PM. The commission’s phone number is 916-263-2195. If you show up for the meeting, you are allowed to speak directly to the commission as a citizen.

If you cannot make the Monday meeting, you can file a complaint against the commission if you are a citizen of California and disagree with the way things are proceeding with enforcement of MMA rules in the state.

Topics: Media, MMA, Zach Arnold | 19 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

19 Responses to “The nanny state of California”

  1. D. Capitated says:

    Carrying fighters should be illegal. I don’t even know why that would be an issue that’s comparable to the rest.

  2. HudsonMMA says:

    It seems to me, and I am admittedly very new to the sport, that MMA has been having the sport vs spectacle battle within its own ranks for a while now. Perhaps Garcia is a bit paternalistic in his oversight but it seems he’s merely demanding sportsmanlike conduct from athletes. Would Michael Jordan command the respect he does if he wore a shirt saying “Patrick Ewing is my b*tch” on a basketball court? Personally, I think it’s unfortunate that grown men need to be told how to conduct themselves in a professional setting.

  3. Body_Shots says:

    This guy is just out of control.

  4. D. Capitated says:

    Yeah, its crazy. He’s the commissioner of sports in a state and trying to make sure that MMA is a legitimate contest, and he should just let the guys who want to go in and play fight for awhile do whatever they want. Maybe Armando Garcia needs to read up on Meltzer’s lessons of 2006.

  5. Zach Arnold says:

    Personally, I think it’s unfortunate that grown men need to be told how to conduct themselves in a professional setting.

    Whether you respect an athlete or not based on their behavior is one issue. The more important issue at hand is trying to regulate the behavior of athletes when the commissioner likely does not have the power to do so. Just because you perform a certain action doesn’t mean that you’re backed legally to do so.

    There’s no law stating that someone licensed in the state of California can’t swear. Until the commissioner passes a law and it’s in legal writing that a fighter cannot swear or else get their license revoked, then the issue of regulating fighter behavior is totally unconstitutional.

  6. HudsonMMA says:

    But don’t the unified rules prohibit swearing and rude gestures as fouls? And isn’t the Commission charged with making sure the rules are followed? Then the Commission has the authority to punish any and all infractions.

  7. HudsonMMA says:

    There are laws and there are rules. Both need to be followed.

  8. Zach Arnold says:

    http://boxing.nv.gov/docs/MMA%20RULES%20Expained.pdf

    24. Using abusive language in the ring or fenced area.
    Fighters shall not entice their opponent with abusive language during the ring introductions or during the actual contest. The referee shall give (1) warning to the violating fighter and then issue a foul for every infraction there after.

    Armando Garcia has suspended Josh Thomson in the past for having an offensive shirt that he wore. The rule you refer to applies to what happens in an actual fight.

    What other state has tried to enforce this provision in the rule as hard as the California SAC boss has?

    The rule states that the referee gives a warning the first time and then can take it further if the fighter doesn’t stop.

  9. HudsonMMA says:

    That fact that other states selectively enforce the rules does not obligate the CSAC to do the same. What purpose does the Commission serve? Does their mandate only extend to drug testing?

    The referree and the Commission have separate authorities. The ref does his job during the fight. The reach of the Commission extends to before, during, and after the fight. The Commission can punish a fighter for not making weight, which is also not against the law. And one would think a person’s weight falls squarely within the domain of personal freedoms.

  10. Zach Arnold says:

    You sign a contract as a fighter to fight at a certain weight. The promoter agrees to work with the commission for them to have jurisdiction on that issue.

    That’s all covered under the law.

    Suspending and fining fighters for speech or expression is not. The provision in the Unified rules is a) during a fight and b) for a referee to determine.

  11. HudsonMMA says:

    So the promoters get to decide which rules the Commission can enforce? A fighter signs a contract that obligates him to abide by all of the rules. Many institutions can punish an athlete for “unsportsmanlike conduct.” Nevada denied Gilbert Yvel a license for poor conduct in previous fights.

    You make an exception for speech or expression. But governance of expression has been codified in regards to MMA. And every fighter knows what’s required of him in order to compete.

    Furthermore, there are exceptions to free speech even as defined under the constitution. The idea that anyone can say anything, anywhere, at anytime has not been upheld by the courts. Speech can be regulated.

    For instance, actors can only say certain words in a movie with a certain rating. If your movie is PG, there are some things you just can’t say. While fighters can wear whatever shirt they like, walking down the street, they can’t wear the shirt in a cage or ring.

  12. Zach Arnold says:

    There is no law that prohibits freedom of speech or freedom of expression outside of the ring/cage. The determination on this issue should be made by the referee during a fight. That’s it.

    Issues regarding weight classes, fouls, rings, etc. are all agreed upon and can be legally defined. When you get into the area of controlling speech or expression as a Government entity (rather than a private one), then you’re reaching treacherous waters in my opinion.

    Gilbert Yvel was rejected a license by the NSAC because he physically attacked a referee. Mike Kyle was suspended by the CSAC because he used illegal knees and seriously hurt his opponents. These are actions that are a) taking place in a ring and b) about physical contact.

  13. chairibofjustice says:

    Not surprised at all, this guy is a bureaucrat to the bone. It seems MMA has their own version of Alberto Gonzales or maybe Augusto Pinochet is the proper analogy.

  14. HudsonMMA says:

    Not prohibit. Limit. Like limiting “hate speech.”

    Banning swearing in the ring is akin to a high school prohibiting foul language in class.

    And why should the referee have the right to address this issue, and not the Commission?

  15. D.Capitated says:

    Suspending and fining fighters for speech or expression is not. The provision in the Unified rules is a) during a fight and b) for a referee to determine.

    Introductions are not “during the fight”, and the referee is an agent of the athletic commission. That other athletic commissions operate in a different manner than the CSAC does not make them right. Tennessee doesn’t test fighters for drugs, doesn’t require MRIs ever, and when audited by a state commission, were found to be horribly corrupt. But hey, no one can get suspended for marijuana use there, and they can allow knees to the head in North/South should a promoter want. Clearly, that’s what the CSAC should be like.

  16. D.Capitated says:

    Not prohibit. Limit. Like limiting “hate speech.”

    Banning swearing in the ring is akin to a high school prohibiting foul language in class.

    And why should the referee have the right to address this issue, and not the Commission?

    If you really want to get into the legalities of it, using incendiary language with drink people and pro fighters and trainers is a great way to start a riot. But given the pro wrestling leans of some people here, a Golota/Bowe situation would probably equal replay buys in their minds, and be okay.

  17. Jeremy (not that Jeremy) says:

    Hudson, I’d say it’s more akin to swearing at work. The ring, the venue, the parking lot, the tour bus, they’re all part of the workplace. The employer and the body regulating that employer have certain standards that they want to enforce. You can play along or you can find another job.

  18. Ultimo Santa says:

    Did I read that correctly, or did that REALLY say “no entertaining the crowd”?

    So Genki Sudo would be automatically banned for life from fighting in Nevada?

  19. Stevie J says:

    Mr. Garcia continues to perplex me. I’ve listened to him on Sherdog and get the impression he’s an intelligent, articulate man who knows the sport he’s regulating very well. He even made the statement that more MMA is better, said his regulatory process was completely transparent and that any organization wishing to run MMA in California would have his full support and be walked through the procedures for certification by him and his staff step by step. That being said it’s hard to reconcile the concept of Garcia as a fair and reasonable man with the actual actions of the CSAC, including nullifying fights and banning fighters for being TOO ENTERTAINING. You can argue that he’s taking a page from David Stern and Roger Goodell, but they’re wrong too. People don’t watch sports strictly for the pure athletic competition and never have. They want to see characters, personalities, and huge egos in conflict. Wrestling became a work because people inherently want to see David beat up Goliath. MMA rose in the 90’s for the same reason – Royce Gracie beating men twice his size. Arguably those kinds of lopsided no weight class matches are a thing of the past but you can’t change the emotions of the spectators no matter how much you regulate the sport. It’s okay to find showboating professional athletes obnoxious, because disliking someone is as strong a reason for watching a sport as is liking someone. How many people passionately hate one NFL team as much as they love another – I think you get the idea. Garcia should stop trying to regulate the fun out of MMA and let fighters like Josh Barnett and Jason ‘Mayhem’ Miller be the whacky goofballs that they are, and if somebody wears a t-shirt that says “so and so is my bitch” it’s not a crime – it’s good for the sport.

Comments

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-spam image