« Alistair Overeem: I didn’t fight in Strikeforce the last couple of years because there were no opponents for me to fight | Home | DREAM 5/29 Saitama Super Arena »
Major questions arise from Strikeforce’s “drug testing program”
By Zach Arnold | May 14, 2010
As you’ve read on this site throughout the week, Scott Coker has been pretty vague in interviews about the issue of making drug testing more stringent in Mixed Martial Arts. Give credit where credit is due — Eddie Goldman was the one who put him on the spot. We posted the transcript of Mr. Coker’s comments on the site and the reaction we got was voluminous.
The takeaway from our readership is one of skepticism. Now, to counterbalance that opinion, there is a media report that Strikeforce drug tested their fighters at a St. Louis hotel with a “local independent laboratory” doing the drug testing.
The article raises more questions than it does answers on the issue of drug testing for the promotion.
Why did the promotion suddenly feel the need to do this? The stated reason is “spurred on in part by the Missouri Office of Athletics’ policy of conducting only random testing.”
What? Every state does random testing. In the case of a few states, it’s the main-eventers who get tested. “Only random testing.” What the heck is that about?
The idea of testing all the fighters on a card is good. In fact, I wish all the athletic commissions used that standard. So, on the surface, drug testing all the fighters is a good step forward.
What is the name of this independent drug testing laboratory and why wasn’t it revealed in media reports? What is the laboratory’s reputation? Is the testing standard urine testing? (Addendum: Josh Gross reports that the name of the drug-testing outfit is called Drug Testing Network. Urine-based testing. Here is what DTN claims their urine tests can detect.)
Remember, the discussion about drug testing in the Eddie Goldman interview was about using blood-based Olympic-style drug testing in MMA, similar to what Floyd Mayweather and Shane Mosley used for their May 1st boxing fight. If the drug testing being done here by the promotion is the standard urine-based testing, will it really prevent cheaters from cheating?
Why is this promotion doing their own drug testing program in Missouri but not in other states independently? This gets back to the “random drug testing” question in Missouri. If all states do random drug testing, including California and Nevada, then why is Strikeforce’s drug testing policy only happening in Missouri and not happening in other commission states?
In short, it’s a panic PR move (in my opinion) in response to the unbelievable MMA media swarm on Alistair Overeem. Pure and simple. This move is not about serious, independent drug-testing for all shows — and as stated by Ben Fowlkes, this drug testing policy won’t happen any further after the event. How can people take these drug testing results seriously then?
Where’s SF’s version of Marc Ratner to watch over the testing? UFC uses Quest Diagnostics. Quest is a big name. Who from Strikeforce is in the Marc Ratner role of overseeing this drug testing policy?
Strikeforce’s strange local drug testing procedures won’t answer any questions in regards to the constant media drumbeat about Alistair Overeem. If he passes a urinalysis, then people say he’s using a masking agent. If he fails the test, then he will be called stupid for failing “an IQ test.” Without a blood-based drug testing solution, the criticism will simply continue.
In the Ben Fowlkes article, Coker is quoted as saying that if anyone fails a test that they will be suspended like they would if they failed a drug test in California or Nevada.
First off, how is this promotion going to be able to enforce such a suspension outside of not booking a fighter? If that happens, the fighter could conceivably sue the promotion in court.
Second, how is the promotion going to get all athletic commission to go along with their drug test ruling if the commission didn’t administer the test on their own? Strikeforce matchmaker Rich Chou claims that if a fighter fails a drug test that the Missouri commission will work with them on punishment.
Third, how is this going to stop fighters from taking bookings in other countries if they fail a test and Strikeforce won’t book them in America? (Answer: They can’t. Nick Diaz won’t get booked by Strikeforce due to the Nashville brawl, but he’s fighting in two weeks for DREAM at Saitama Super Arena.)
Finally, take note of this quote from the Ben Fowlkes article:
“It’s just to make it clear to everyone that all the fighters are going to be tested, and I believe they’ll test clean,” Coker said.
How would he know that everyone is clean? Antonio “Bigfoot” Silva already failed a steroid test. Who is to say that fighters on this card aren’t cheating?
Overall, this story raises a lot of red flags to me and could do just as much damage as it could benefit the promotion in a public relations manner. Also, it doesn’t address what Eddie Goldman asked about in the first place, which is the idea of using Olympic-style drug testing to catch up with cheaters who are 8-10 years ahead of the curve.
Topics: Media, MMA, StrikeForce, Zach Arnold | 5 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
It seems as if Strikeforce can’t win in your eyes regardless of what they do. If they don’t do anything, they’re doing nothing, if they do, they’re not doing enough. Could they be doing more? Sure. So could every athletic commission and promotion in the entire world. At the end of the day though unless every single fighter in the world is blood tested every single day of the year, you’re never going to know 100% for sure who is using and who isn’t.
At the end of the day, Strikeforce is a fight promotion. They are not an athletic commission. This country’s laws are such that it is the job of the commission to sufficiently test fighters for performance enhancing substances. If they are not doing that job, it is not Strikeforce’s fault or responsibility. The fact that they are doing what they are doing, whether or not it’s a “panic PR move” or not, is above and beyond what’s necessary and yet you’re portraying it, as per usual, as a negative.
“If the drug testing being done here by the promotion is the standard urine-based testing, will it really prevent cheaters from cheating?”
I think it would help, it would be a step in the right direction!
Thats all it took to catch a nitwit like barnett multiple times!
I realize the conundrum Strikeforce is stuck in here and there are no easy answers. The state isn’t thorough enough (most aren’t) and they have some questionable fighters on the card. However they go about dealing with it could be perceived poorly. I think Coker should simply take the stance that he’s against illegal drug usage but he can’t override the commision, and leave it at that.
Personally, I am of the ‘Jordan Breen’ stance that the hypocrisy with what is deemed unacceptable enhancements against the multiple ridiculous amounts of acceptable paraphenelia. Like all sports, fans demand the extraordinary physical specimens, unending high-level performances and frequency in appearances. All of these things are extremely difficult to acheive -with or without ‘enhancements’, so why is it an issue.
I see ZERO difference in Sean Sherk downing 70+ variances of supplements twice a day and Sean Sherk sticking a needle full of hormones in his circulatory system (ALLEGEDLY, of course). Because it is marketed and labeled loudly as “CHEATING” is the only reason some fans pay attention to it. I know it doesn’t matter but the record would reflect that fighters on ‘enhancing drugs’ have not been successful; the benefits don’t actually help in the quest to ‘cheat’ in the actual fight.
Maybe we should drug test Truckers and students for awareness enhancing drugs. Or even myself, for cold medications – after all, it does enhance my job performance when I’m able to work without feeling aches and pains. Is that fair to my co-workers?
For a writer/journalist, I understand the story is hot button. But in reality it simply is not an issue. I would rather see energy and heat be directed towards athletic commissions and officiating. There is no greater issue that effects the sport on every level.
I think more drug testing is always good, but I find it funny that Strikeforce is doing this so recently after Coker’s fanboyish response that Mayweather should let the commissions make the rules for drug testing and just fight.
If what the commission says is ok for Floyd, why is it not OK for Strikeforce?
[…] to dive deep into this story, may I suggest reading Fight Opinion’s Zach Arnold’s story here, who does a great job analyzing this whole […]