« New round of beta testing | Home | CBS Sportsline article: MMA’s drug culture, part two »
Dana White talks about fighters using steroids
By Zach Arnold | July 31, 2007
By Zach Arnold
First, Kalib Starnes comments on marijuana and steroids.
For a perfect summation of my feelings about MMA’s drug culture, read Fightlinker’s entry today. My argument has never been one about morality (athletes are athletes — they are always looking for an edge), but rather about the health of the fighters. Time in and time in, too many wrestlers have died due to a lethal combination of steroids or growth hormone and prescription pills. It’s a nasty cocktail that has killed a lot of professional wrestlers.
Dana White today responded to charges by various MMA writers that UFC is not doing enough to combat the drug problem in MMA. Dana always manages something interesting to say and usually leaves himself open to questioning with at least one comment per interview.
Like this comment:
ESPN The Magazine: But what is the punishment? What are you going to do?
White: They’re not going to get paid. I take care of all of my guys. If you fight your ass off for me, you’ll get paid. But what I’m going to do is: I’m going to wait and see if they pass their drug tests. If they don’t, you’re going to get paid what’s in your contract and that’s it.
ESPN The Magazine: So you’re going to pay the guaranteed money but any fight bonuses would be withheld? That’s not a slap on the wrist.
White: No, that’s a kick in the nuts, and they know that.
First, we’ve had fighters like Josh Barnett publicly claim that UFC pays fighters more than the salaries stated by the various athletic commissions. I’m sure the IRS (web site) loves to hear this information. Second, White is basically sending a message to the public that the fighters are underpaid and hence must depend on bonuses or else it’s “a kick in the nuts.” People who I talk with in boxing all the time are in shock at how little the purses are for many of the MMA fighters who fight on UFC PPVs. Economics aside, it’s a losing PR message that UFC is sending to the public.
Next, Dana White touches upon a point that Luke Thomas has been making about fighters feeling pressured into taking steroids to heal up quicker from injuries because a promoter tells them to fight on a certain date or else risk losing a title shot. Karo Parisyan never got his title shot in UFC, so naturally other UFC fighters look at that and see what the political landscape might be. Or so goes the argument that Luke makes. Dana responds to that line of thinking this way:
ESPN The Magazine: One of the things Hermes Franca hinted at was that he was forced to take steroids because he had an injury but he had to fight.
White: That’s one of the dumbest things ever said. He said he twisted his ankle. It happens all the time. He called us and said he was hurt. Two days later, he said he could fight. Nobody is ever forced to fight. I can go down the list and tell you 50 guys who’ve pulled out of fights because of an injury.
White is technically right. Nobody is ever forced to fight. However, the precedent in UFC was unofficially set when Parisyan got injured and never got his title shot against Matt Hughes. Parisyan continues to be an exciting, crowd-pleasing fighter but is unlikely to get a title shot any time soon. Now, put these two factors together for Hermes Franca – the 7/7 match against Sean Sherk was his one and only title shot and he was not getting paid very much money to fight (the CSAC reported his salary at $14,000 USD).
When asked by ESPN if UFC can do more than what the athletic commissions are currently doing for punishment of fighters who fail drug tests, White’s response sounds very Gary Shaw-esque:
ESPN The Magazine: And the biggest thing the UFC plans to do is withhold any extra contract money?
White: What else am I going to do? Kick these guys’ asses? You want to drag these guys and their families into the center of town and stone them? What else can you do?
In other words, put the onus on the athletic commissions to dole out 100% of the punishment (time of suspension, fine). As a promoter, that makes sense — except for the fact that the promoter also has the option of taking further action, which would certainly be a major deterrent against cheating.
Like stripping the title from a champion if he fails a drug test.
Finally, the UFC President finishes off with quite the amazing comment to ESPN:
ESPN The Magazine: How would you rate the UFC’s steroid testing?
White: Combat sports — MMA and boxing — really have the best steroids testing in sports. Every time we compete, we’re tested by the government. You can’t get more serious about it than that.
Before I comment on White’s statement, let me first state that I respect the job that the drug testers associated with the CSAC are doing. They are catching a lot of guys, but one of the factors in catching so many guys is that there are so many MMA shows happening in the state.
With that stated, the T/E ratio for a CSAC test is 6:1 (and if they’re using the same lab as the NSAC, then it will be the same T/E ratio standard). Meaning, a fighter can have six times the level of testosterone compared to epitestosterone in his body. The average human has a 1:1 ratio. 6:1 is a pretty incredibly high number for an athlete to have and not fail a drug test.
Now, compare that 6:1 ratio to other drug testing in sports. WADA uses a 4:1 T/E ratio standard. If you fail a drug the first time, you’re suspended for two years. Fail the second time, you’re banned for life. The NFL, NBA, and MLB also use a 4:1 T/E ratio for their testing.
Despite the CSAC (and perhaps NSAC’s) generous 6:1 T/E ratio, four of the nine fighters who failed a CSAC drug test in Q2 2007 due to steroids were also over the 6:1 T/E ratio.
Therefore, to make the statement that the athletic commissions are using the most stringest drug testing in sports is laughable. This is not a knock per se on the commissions, but rather on White’s claim. The Tour de France has had numerous cyclists busted with their aggressive drug testing and they’ve caught many cheaters. The lazy media, however, has somehow managed to turn around the TDF’s successful drug testing policy into a negative by proclaiming the ‘end’ of the TDF. In fact, it should be the opposite. People should have more confidence in the drug testers associated with the TDF because they’re catching so many guys.
The athletic commissions in America test fighters before and after a fight at the shows. They do not stalk the various team gyms and conduct police raids. They do not stalk fighters when they go on vacation. There is no such anti-doping law in the States like there is in Italy in which an athlete can go to jail for doping violations.
One thing that I do want to make personally clear to everyone is that many of the MMA writers who are vocal about the steroids situation often come from different sports that have enormous drug testing problems. Steve Sievert of The Houston Chronicle covered both track & field and cycling for many years. I spent my life covering a king of all modern sports drug cultures, professional wrestling. Just because some of the MMA writers are vocal about MMA’s drug culture does not mean that the criticism is a cheap ploy by said writers to garner reader feedback. There are plenty of people covering MMA who understand the negative impacts of a rampant drug culture on a sport.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said in the past — I am bullish that in the long-term, the sport will clean itself up. It’s a young industry and there’s a lot of history to be written. However, promoters cannot simply pass the back onto athletic commissions and let the commissions single-handedly deal with the problem. Any sort of multi-tiered solution to the drug culture must involve the participation of everyone in the industry – the commissions, the promoters, the fighters, and the fans who pay to watch the shows.
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 25 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
I agree with Zach that the quoted statement is ridiculous. One could almost call it McDevitt-esque. First of all, the fact that it’s the government has no bearing on anything. In most cases they’re sending it to the same Quest Diagnostics or equivalent lab as any other drug testing program.
Then there’s the fact that MMA events where all the fighters are drug tested (like UFC 73) are far outnumbered by events where 4 out of 16 fighters are tested, or 6 out of 18 are tested, or zero fighters are tested (as with UFC 69 and UFC 70).
However, even if every fighter on every card were tested on the day of the fight, it would still lag far behind every other major sport’s drug testing program in arguably the most important area. Besides the fact that you’ll never hear of an NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, or Olympic athlete going an entire season without being tested once (whereas an MMA fighter not being tested a single time in a year would not be uncommon), the most important factor is that athletes in the other major sports have to deal with out-of-competition testing. There’s a lot more of it in the NFL than there is in Major League Baseball, and Olympic athletes can be compelled to take a drug test anywhere at any time during the year. Mixed martial artists, on the other hand, have no out-of-competition drug testing. They know exactly when they’re going to be tested: on the day of the fight.
There’s a reason for the saying that if an athlete knows in advance when they have to take the test, it’s more of an IQ test than anything else. The reason is that it’s far from impossible to beat a drug test under those circumstances. I’m certainly not saying a drug test can’t be beaten if you have no idea when you’ll be taking the test, but it’s a heck of a lot harder when you don’t know the date ahead of time.
That is the first, fundamental requirement of any comprehensive drug testing program: Random, out-of-competition testing that can happen at any time with no advance warning for the athlete. That’s what all the other aforementioned sports have that MMA doesn’t.
I thought this was the most interesting quote:
What Dana is saying is totally contradictory to what Keith Kizer (NSAC) and Armando Garcia (CSAC) have been saying. Read this interview with Kizer:
So why is Dana covering for Sherk? (and pissing on Hermes at the same time)
[White is technically right. Nobody is ever forced to fight. However, the precedent in UFC was unofficially set when Parisyan got injured and never got his title shot against Matt Hughes.]
Georges St-Pierre pulled out of a September title bout with Matt Hughes due to injury and fought for the title in November of the same year, I wouldn’t call it a precedent.
The changing landscape of the WW division is why Karo hasn’t got a title shot, it also should be noted that he was put in a number 1 contendership fight against Sanchez and lost.
Sanchez-Parisyan wasn’t a #1 contender fight. It may or may not have been called that at the time, but so are lots of fights in boxing and MMA that aren’t actually #1 contender fights. Sanchez won that fight in August 2006, and even if he had beaten Koscheck two fights later and then beaten St. Pierre in the slot that Koscheck now has, the earliest he could possibly get a title shot is early-to-mid 2008.
I call bullshit. Just a few paragraphs above that you quoted him saying that UFC would withhold non-basic payments, and now you are saying he’s putting the onus 100% on the comissions…bullshit.
Chuck Liddell, just to put up the top example, gets reportedly paid what? 200k per fight or so? Either Dana or Chuck himself said in an interview (it’s way too late for me to do research at this hour) that Chuck made over 7 million bucks last year…he fought what? 3 times? 2? Something like that.
So…let’s say 3 fights, which’d mean that he made a bit over 2.3 million bucks per fight…which means that if he had tested positive on any of those fights, with Dana’s new policies, Chuck would have lost 2.1 million bucks…don’t you think that’s good enough punishment?? Come on, be serious.
On an unrelated note, let us all hope that Paulo Filho vs. Joe Doerksen on August 5th does not go to a judges’ decision. Two of the three judges for the bout will be Glenn Trowbridge and Abe Belardo. All we need now is for Dalby Shirley to be the third judge for the fight!
[Sanchez-Parisyan wasn’t a #1 contender fight.]
Parisyan was told if he beat Sanchez he’d be granted a title shot, I’m sure it was a #1 contender fight to him.
Vox was making the point that Parisyan did in essence receive the title shot that he lost due to his quad injury, in the sense that he got a #1 contender’s fight and he lost it. I was making the point that it wasn’t a #1 contender’s fight and that even the fighter who did win that fight (Sanchez) would be looking at 18-to-24 months later for a title shot even if he hadn’t lost two fights after the “#1 contender’s fight.”
“On an unrelated note, let us all hope that Paulo Filho vs. Joe Doerksen on August 5th does not go to a judges’ decision. Two of the three judges for the bout will be Glenn Trowbridge and Abe Belardo. All we need now is for Dalby Shirley to be the third judge for the fight!È
Trowbridge and Shirley have actually been on the same judging panel for several boxing fights and MMA fights. It’s a scary thought.
However, 99 times out of 100, it’s going to be idiotproof if a Paulo Filho fight goes to the cards.
Sweet jesus Ivan. Stop giving me nightmares.
In the ESPN interview, he clearly states (in regards to Sherk) that if you get suspended for a year by the commission then that’s a harsh enough punishment. White did not indicate once in the interview that UFC would levy an additional punishment (stripping the title, extra time for a suspension) outside of not paying “bonuses,” which is quite the interesting statement to make given the fact that I’m sure the IRS would love to know those figures. 🙂
If Dana White states that he’ll take away the PPV % cuts that the top fighters are making due to failed drug tests, then we’ll have something concrete and written in stone.
Zach, everyone has said that the UFC pays out bonuses by check, not by cash [see: Josh Gross on Beatdown on Monday and countless other examples]. It’s not under-the-table money, it’s just bonuses that aren’t explicitly stated in the contract. If it’s paid by check, it’s being reported to the IRS.
Agree with the above.
Zach, you may want to check into how the IRS and tax laws work.
Give me more credit than that. 🙂
The question is whether or not the bonuses that fighters make in UFC are under-the-table or written into the contracts. What I’m fascinated to see is if UFC would be willing to go after a top star (who fails a drug test) that has a clause in a contract for a cut of the PPV revenue. That is really where a serious portion of the money is being made for the headliners, not the base pay.
I’m looking forward to seeing what else Dana has to say about what types of punishments will be levied on fighters who fail drug tests. In the ESPN interview, Dana would only go so far in saying that he would take away bonuses but not what fighters are contractually scheduled to make.
Dana is not going to give you any more information on any purported policy until he samples the wind, in order to see how his latest comments are taken.
We have a winner. 🙂
Zach, the commissions only test when a fight occurs. The promoters need to be diligent and test between fights. With the high profile of drugs in athletics, the last thing that MMA needs right now is to be dragged into this situation. If the promoter weeds out the bad apples, the athletic commission will validate that the sport is clean and this my friend will increase the credability to the fan base.
One question:
How can you trust the promoters to police themselves? Do you not think promoters would simply ‘misplace’ the results of a big drawing card for the organization (say, Chuck Liddell in the UFC or Frank Shamrock in Elite XC or Strikeforce) or just surpress it if it turned up positive?
There are tests and then there are tests.
Would the promoter simply ask the fighter to send in a urine sample? Would he be required to show up somewhere with the sample, to submit it to a lab?
Zach, you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. Why do you persist in saying that Dana would not levy additional punishment, when he’s already said that not getting the bonuses is a kick in the nuts? And then you change the topic by saying the IRS would be interested in knowing about those bonuses. That may be true, but the topics are unrelated. Dana punishes fighters heavily by withholding bonuses, and that is the truth.
Q: Do you have a gut feeling as to whether we’ll ever see a show conducted under the Pride banner again?
JB: I have heard rumblings and anything is possible. But honestly, no, I don’t really feel that. And even if it was it wouldn’t be Pride so they can call it whatever they want but Pride is gone. Those rules, their image, everything about it, that would be something different. And even if they called it Pride, like I said it just wouldn’t be Pride.
—–Well said Josh.
Also, in addition to all of the other points about the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc., keep in mind that all of those sports have players’ unions that fight hard against any kind of drug testing program, so in some cases even when the organization might want to adopt certain drug testing policies, they can’t if the resistance from the union is strong enough. In MMA, that’s not a factor because the fighters have no union or any collective bargaining of any kind.
[…] relating to credibility, based on statements he made in a recent ESPN The Magazine interview. I posted criticism about White comments and Fightlinker took issue with White’s claims about nandrolone. On […]
[…] links: Criticism of White’s ESPN interview on steroids and Fightlinker on White’s absurd nandrolone […]
Zach, the IRS comment was a cheapshot. You have no reason to indicate that fighters are underreporting their salaries.
Come on man…you’re better than that! You have enough ammo on these guys to avoid the unsubstantiated cheapshots.