Friend of our site

MMA Headlines


MMA Fighting

MMA Torch

MMA Weekly

Sherdog (News)

Sherdog (Articles)

MMA Junkie

MMA Mania

Bloody Elbow

MMA Ratings

Rating Fights

Yahoo MMA Blog

Search this site

Latest Articles

News Corner

MMA Rising

Audio Corner


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."

UFC called sleazy & embarrassing for moving Jon Jones fight to California (Andy Foster) after Nevada drug test

By Zach Arnold | December 24, 2018

I want to congratulate Jon Jones, attorney Howard Jacobs, and the rest of Jon’s representatives for completely humiliating and embarassing the biggest power brokers in Mixed Martial Arts. In the process of highlighting the legal sketchiness and authority presented under color of law, the biggest-name regulators in combat sports have been absolutely exposed.

Two weeks after the California State Athletic Commission granted Jon Jones a new license after failing a USADA drug test, the same Athletic Commission attempted to use their governmental authority to make Jones enter into business with a private third party entity. Jones and his team wisely rebuffed this administrative demand and called the bluff. It worked.


Update: Dave Meltzer reports Jon Jones has agreed to third-party drug testing. I understand why Team Jones would give in on this given the completely one-sided leverage here and the impromptu fight in California, but it is horribly depressing to see a governmental body violate the law without any consequences whatsoever.


Days later, Nevada said a Jon Jones drug test raised issues and that they wouldn’t license him to fight NYE weekend.

Rather than continue with the Las Vegas card, UFC packed its bags and requested their number one agent Andy Foster (California State Athletic Commission) for permission to run the Forum in Inglewood. He full-throatedly agreed. Nothing illegal about the action but the sleazy treatment of fans and fighters by UFC has created quite a fury.

If there is one lesson I have learned over the years when covering regulators… that lesson is that the public does not care one bit about a regulatory scandal until their ox gets gored. Until fans and fighters lose money, nobody cares about illegalities. Nobody cares about mistakes. Under normal circumstances, Andy Foster and his right-hand man Mark Relyea would have been fired for exposing veteran referee Marcos Rosales to a fighter who supposedly tested positive for HIV.

Nothing has changed (publicly). Nobody has been suspended. Mark Relyea is apparently still on track for getting promoted. He hasn’t had to publicly testify about what happened. His friends and family continue receiving bookings as athletic inspectors for television events. He continues to draw a paycheck of over $40,000 a year.

Things that matter don’t matter to the public until fans start losing money. That is currently happening as we speak. However, in the grand scheme of things, UFC moving the Jon Jones fight to Inglewood won’t hurt them.

What I am significantly more interested in seeing play out is the now public war between California, Nevada, and the other big boy athletic commissions. Nevada finds itself facing some isolation under new UFC ownership. Things were a lot friendlier and cozier under Frank & Lorenzo Fertitta’s control.

Topics: CSAC, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 5 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

California State Athletic Commission doctors meeting over “unwarranted invasion of privacy” of fighter

By Zach Arnold | November 7, 2018

Andy Foster’s right hand man, Mark Relyea

On October 6th, 2018, we published our official letter to the California State Athletic Commission regarding referee Marcos Rosales claiming exposure to an HIV-positive fighter by athletic inspector Mark Relyea and Executive Officer Andy Foster.

When we sent the letter to board members of the Athletic Commission, we were hoping for some sort of response. Private, public, formal, informal. We got no response. Our two month investigation into this story produced documentation that led to us to ask some very serious questions.

At no time have we ever identified the name of the GLORY kickboxer who tested positive for HIV in California. We did this on purpose. While others might be worried about various legal issues in disclosing the fighter’s name, we were and remain more than prepared to fight off any cause of action related to invasion of privacy.

There’s a very important reason we have not disclosed the HIV-positive fighter’s name: the fighter is not our target. The fighter plays a pivotal role in the story but our target are the regulators who allowed a fighter the state of California classified as HIV-positive to compete in GLORY on March 31st.

Our instincts over decades of media experience taught us to immediately expect a re-framing of chief athletic inspector Mark Relyea’s alleged mistake(s) into a media strategy attacking us for victim shaming a fighter.

Four weeks after board members and doctors affiliated with the California State Athletic Commission were mailed our letter on this story, the Sacramento front office posted an official agenda for a November 10th (Saturday) doctors meeting in Los Angeles. Someone at either the Athletic Commission or their bosses at the Department of Consumer Affairs thought the following would be a productive message to send:


13. Pursuant to Government Code Section 11126(c)(2) the Committee will discuss matters that constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual licensee or applicant.

Unless there has been another incident involving an exposure of HIV or Hepatitis that we don’t know about, there is good reason to believe that this is all about what happened on March 31st at the GLORY event in Long Beach.

The choice of wording here reflects very poorly on whoever made this announcement. Either: a) the doctors are the ones being accused of an “unwarranted” invasion of privacy or b) the doctors are discussing what to do because of the damages claim filed by Marcos Rosales and our subsequent letter addressing what we discovered through public records is now being characterized as an “unwarranted” invasion of privacy.

What’s an unwarranted invasion of privacy is exposing other licensees to a fighter who you claim is HIV-positive and let fight because of your own internal admission of mishandling of medical records by chief athletic inspector Mark Relyea. The Athletic Commission internal memo threw him under the bus ten days after the GLORY show by requiring all inspectors to check in with the Sacramento office on fighter medicals for approvals without changing statutes or the Code of Regulations.

The hush-hush nature of this story was ridiculous to begin with because it didn’t require naming the HIV-positive fighter in order to address the errors that led to what happened. Instead, it’s been cover-up after cover-up. Now that a damages claim has been filed by Marcos Rosales and members of the Athletic Commission board are officially aware of what happened, suddenly it’s time for Sacramento to reframe the matter by deflecting heat from Mark Relyea and Andy Foster and onto the whistleblowers.

A rather novel strategy if you’re trying to keep things quiet.

Topics: CSAC, Media, Zach Arnold | 1 Comment » | Permalink | Trackback |

Behind-the-scenes drama heading into GLORY kickboxing’s New York show: champion Pavel Zhuravlev’s future

By Zach Arnold | October 26, 2018

Pavel Zhuravlev is GLORY Kickboxing’s Light Heavyweight interim champ. And now, according to GLORY’s web page, he’s gone?

Update: Nope, but just another listing on the fighter roster. Not ranked. What?

Nearly seven months after fighting at GLORY 52 on March 31st, 2018 in Long Beach, Pavel Zhuravlev finds his name – and his career? – erased from some GLORY promotional material.


Update (10/27/2018): Pavel Zhuravlev’s name remains on the site but is not listed in rankings. Why? You have to keep pressing “list more” at least twice to find his name at the bottom of the “All Light Heavyweights” list due to alphabetizing. This is the interim champion and promoted #1 challenger to champion Artem Vakhitov.


Zhuravlev is one of GLORY’s most popular, big name fighters. He’s had over 80 professional bouts. Zhuravlev applied for a new license with the California State Athletic Commission in the middle of March 2018. Here’s a screen shot of his California license application:

Click on image to enlarge

Then, something mysterious happened. A public records request reveals that the Athletic Commission put Zhuravlev on an indefinite medical suspension on April 3rd, 2018. Here’s a screen shot from the Association of Boxing Commissions’ MMA fighter suspension database:

Click on image to enlarge

On June 15th, GLORY Kickboxing published an article on their web site claiming that Zhuravlev had suffered a hand injury. GLORY was building up to a champion vs. champion fight between Pavel Zhuravlev and Artem Vakhitov. The great irony is that Vakhitov had been dealing with his own serious hand injury.

The GLORY article stated that Zhuravlev would return to action in Fall of 2018.

Fast-forward to mid-October 2018. Pavel Zhuravlev’s fighter profile and ranking has been removed from the site’s main page. (still here, though.) No acknowledgement of Zhuravlev as the interim Light Heavyweight kickboxing champion on the site’s main page (but still on his profile).


Update (10/27/2018): Pavel Zhuravlev’s name remains on the site but is not listed in rankings. Why? You have to keep pressing “list more” at least twice to find his name at the bottom of the “All Light Heavyweights” list due to alphabetizing. This is the interim champion and promoted #1 challenger to champion Artem Vakhitov.


What changed between June 15th, 2018 and October 15th, 2018 in the relationship between GLORY kickboxing and Pavel Zhuravlev?

Unless we are not privy to any sort of financial dispute over future bookings… money doesn’t appear to be the main issue.

Unless we are not privy to any sort of matchmaking dispute regarding fights against future opponents… booking doesn’t appear to be the main issue. Zhuravlev has been in 83 fights and won 72 of them. He will fight any challenger.

If money and matchmaking are not the main issues, then why isn’t he fighting Artem Vakhitov in a title match?

This question brings us back to California’s indefinite medical suspension of Pavel Zhuravlev.

On Zhuravlev’s California fighter license application, here is the medical waiver Zhuravlev signed:

I further authorize the Commission or its successors to release any medical or other personal information with respect to my application or licensure to the organizations, individuals or groups listed above as well as additional parties with a vested interest in my current license status with the Commission, including but not limited to my current Manager, a Commission licensed Promoter of an event that I am participating in and to other regulatory bodies. The Commission will release this information only to those individuals, athletic commissions, or similar regulatory bodies that have a need to know, as determined by the Commission. The disclosure of records is required for official use, including investigation of my fitness for licensure by the Commission. I understand that the recipient of my information is not a health plan or health care provider and the released information may no longer be protected by federal privacy regulations.

Not withstanding the many state and Federal legal questions this waiver should naturally illicit…

  1. What has the California State Athletic Commission told GLORY kickboxing about Pavel Zhuravlev’s medical status?
  2. What has Pavel Zhuravlev told GLORY kickboxing about his medical status?

Has somebody been caught deceiving, either through omission of fact or lying about fact(s)?

The bottom line

The promotion is not talking. The California State Athletic Commission is not talking. Pavel Zhuravlev is not talking.

If this was UFC, Top Rank, Golden Boy, Al Haymon, or another major fight promoter, this would be a much bigger story. Instead, the top kickboxing promoter in the world has managed to fly under the radar with this act of revisionist history low-profiling — all while heading into a major New York event.

It’s time for members of the fight media and for other GLORY fighters to start asking questions as to the promotion’s handling of relations with Pavel Zhuravlev and what impact it will have on their own careers.

Topics: CSAC, Media, Zach Arnold | 5 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

The “you cannot trash a religion, a nation” edition of UFC 229 brutalized Disney Dana White

By Zach Arnold | October 7, 2018

Dana White wasn’t speaking to me or you in his post-fight UFC 229 presser. The new Disney Dana was busy trying to say the right things to his new bosses at ESPN while throwing a few swear words to keep the street cred up.

And you better know that Dana isn’t a hypocrite when he says he could continue using footage of Conor McGregor attacking other fighters in a bus because, hey, “it’s part of the story.”

Energy is everything in combat sports. It’s a messy business. What’s old becomes new fast and what’s new becomes old even faster. Dana White is moldy, stale bread. He act is beyond tired. Even the sycophantic writers, including Kevin “please text me!” Iole last night, were pointing out Dana’s hypocrisy between the celebration of Conor Debauchery and condemnation of Khabib Khaos.

Khabib Nurmagomedov is as real as it gets. Disney Dana can’t control that in 2018.

Nurmagomedov had his fight purse frozen by the no-longer-special Nevada State Athletic Commission. Bob Bennett is a punching bag. FBI-level integrity for you. Now the cost for upkeep of that FBI-level integrity will be a massive confiscation of cash due to the Athletic Commission no longer being tethered to the state’s general fund.

And to top it all off, since Disney Dana made it a point that Governor Brian Sandoval is mad, Khabib is going to learn that it would be a shame to lose his visa and career… unless, of course, he decides to have a rematch in Las Vegas again.

UFC, at its genuine and deepest core, is crass. Derrick Lewis talking about hot balls and Joe Rogan saying “I understand.” Joe Rogan has supplanted Howard Stern for the career-making and career-killing interview. Ask Elon Musk.

Khabib railing against UFC’s exploitation of racism, religion, and nationalism was as great of a condemnation as it was a fart on America’s First Amendment. I loved the authenticity.

The greatest part of UFC 229 is that even the announcing team of Jon Anik, Joe Rogan, and Dominick Cruz scoffed at the idea of a rematch between Khabib Nurmagomedov and Conor McGregor being competitive. UFC had to leave that hard sell up to Michael Bisping, whose soliloquy on the toughness and integrity of American immigration policy was as close to an old-school 1980s Mid-South “daddy’s going to deport those evil Russians!” promo as you could get.

Khabib Nurmagomedov isn’t the Putin-communicating champion that the UFC deserves. He would have been an even-better fit in the classic Japanese MMA scene.

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 11 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Referee Marcos Rosales claims exposure to HIV-positive fighter by athletic inspector Mark Relyea & California boss Andy Foster

By Zach Arnold | October 6, 2018

On October 2nd, we wrote a formal letter to the California State Athletic Commission. View the three-page printer-friendly graphical version here.

Boss of California athletic inspectors & Andy Foster right-hand man Mark Relyea

This letter is in response to our multi-month investigation regarding a damages claim by veteran boxing referee/judge Marcos Rosales. Mr. Rosales claims that fight celebrity/athletic inspector Mark Relyea & California State Athletic Commission Executive Officer Andy Foster exposed him to an HIV-positive fighter at the March 31st, 2018 GLORY Kickboxing event in Long Beach, California. Mr. Rosales claims that the exposure came as a result of Mr. Relyea not properly handling medicals (blood paperwork from an accredited lab).

Last August, we launched an investigation. Our focus? Obtain as many documents as possible and construct a real chain of evidence.

Through a series of records requests, we requested documents on:

  • fighter suspension records
  • licensing applications
  • general test results regarding how many fighters in 2018 have tested positive for HIV/Hepatitis C
  • policy & procedures manual
  • Who’s Who sheets detailing which records the Sacramento front office needed before a fighter could be cleared to fight

These records, in combination with a review of the state’s Business and Professions Code, would tell us a lot.

In the end, we received partial records. Key information was redacted or censored based on disputable claims of invasion of privacy. Our October 2nd letter was in direct response to the redactions and what legal options can be utilized next.

Our letter to the Athletic Commission members is considered protected speech under California Civil Code of Procedure 425.16 (anti-SLAPP). Here is the text of the October 2nd letter.


October 2, 2018

Dear Chairman Carvelli, Vice Chairwoman Lehman, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Wallace:

The exposure of boxing referee Marcos Rosales to an HIV-positive fighter is one of the gravest errors a regulatory body could commit. The gamesmanship displayed by both legal counsel and DCA in the aftermath has been counterproductive. The California State Athletic Commission has repeatedly expressed health and safety as the top priority. However, the actions on March 31st and the public cover-up afterwards are inconsistent with the commission’s stated values.

Business and Professions Code 18712 establishes statutory authority for lead athletic inspectors to properly collect and review lab paperwork. California Code of Regulations 546 requires lead athletic inspectors to review an original or copy of the blood work. A decade ago, case law established liability for the Athletic Commission regarding 18712. Fighting is legally classified as ultrahazardous. The California Judicial Council details two causes of action: Public Entity Liability for Failure to Perform Mandatory Duty and Strict Liability for Ultrahazardous Activities.

The failure of lead athletic inspector Mark Relyea in properly handling a fighter’s medicals resulted in a fighter, corner staff, and referee Marcos Rosales being exposed to an HIV-positive fighter. Since the March 31st, 2018 incident, there has been a push to get the State Personnel Board to re-establish the Chief Athletic Inspector position. The last time there was a rush to hire someone for CAI, Ernest Che Guevara was promoted under dubious circumstances after Antonio Margarito’s illegal hand wraps. Mark Relyea’s critical error, as addressed by Executive Officer Andy Foster internally 10 days after the HIV exposure, should result in mandatory public testimony under oath to the board about the procedures or lack of procedures that led to this HIV exposure. If Mr. Relyea will not publicly testify under oath, the board should consider disqualifying him from future promotion.

Our multi-month investigation has uncovered many facts that have not been disclosed publicly or fully in private to members of the Athletic Commission as a body. Consumer Affairs has pertinent case information available at any time for disclosure. For example, state agencies have a single Policy & Procedures Manual that all employees can reference. The Athletic Commission, however, produced 14 different manuals in a formal records request.

Just as with the discrimination claim filed by various boxing referees, legal counsel denied any sort of existence of a damages claim filed by Marcos Rosales despite admission on the meeting agenda of closed session to discuss pending litigation. What is being hidden from you? Faulty handling of medical records has been addressed in writing. (Memo enclosed).

Regrettably, legal counsel has censored public documents in records requests. Inspectors, promoters, and matchmakers receive detailed Who’s Who sheets before weigh-ins showing which fighters need which records to be produced for clearance. It is a simple yes/no box with the word NEED. There is no detailed medical information about individual fighters. Since both matchmakers and promoters receive Who’s Who sheets, there is no legal basis for an invasion of privacy claim to hide documentation from public viewing.

As a result of redactions in the Who’s Who records request, I have 30 days to file for a writ of mandate in Sacramento Superior Court. Such a request would not only cost me money but would cost the Athletic Commission money in both attorney fees for the Commission and, upon a court victory, my attorney fees.

There are many lessons to be learned from what happened to Marcos Rosales. Censorship and gamesmanship are not the right lessons. Since intentional transmission of HIV is no longer a felony in California, it is vital that Consumer Affairs informs all members of the California State Athletic Commission the truth regarding what happened and what the plans are for future implementation of policy & procedures to prevent future HIV exposure.

You deserve all of the information in this matter. The public also has a right to know. It would be better for that information to come from you rather than the public seeing it in the media.


Zach Arnold |

Topics: All Topics, CSAC, Media, Zach Arnold | 8 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Is Jon Jones publicly screwing up his “USADA snitching” defense or is he playing dumb to cover up secret testimony?

By Zach Arnold | October 5, 2018

“Jon Jones denies snitching on anybody in MMA”

A trained attorney would parse that wording as Jon Jones saying that if he snitched on anyone to USADA, it wasn’t MMA fighters but perhaps someone on the periphery.

I’m not willing to give him that much credit. He’s just clumsy and obtuse when it counts the most in mounting any sort of public defense about his character. This is why you hire trained professionals like Howard Jacobs.

Jon Jones has to down play the snitching clause he took advantage of to get a reduced USADA sentence. There are serious issues of civil, let alone possible criminal liability involved. Jeff Novitzky made his bones as a Federal agent weaponing governmental agencies. His fiancee is currently a Federal agent. He has access to individuals who can get the ball rolling at any time for a grand jury. Grand juries can get whatever evidence they want and indict individuals at any time under a cloak of investigational secrecy.

Would you trust risking your personal freedoms in exchange for associating with Jon Jones because of a paycheck?

How much really is at stake

“I definitely didn’t give up any information on anyone in the sport, nor do I know of anybody who’s doing these things in the sport.”

In order to use the USADA snitching clause, Iain Kidd at Bloody Elbow detailed what is required under the “substantial assistance” clause.

If Jon Jones is telling the truth, he’s taking a public dump on Jeff Novitzky and USADA. He’s dumping on their credibility and on the legal viability of private contracts being enforced. Jon Jones has made many dumb decisions but I don’t think he’s dumb enough to fight Jeff Novitzky given that man’s vast Federal resources.

Take note of what “substantial assistance” means:

where the Athlete or other Person has provided Substantial Assistance to USADA or another Anti-Doping Organization, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body

“Criminal authority.”

A criminal authority like a grand jury. Like the DEA. Like Homeland Security. Like the IRS. Guess who investigated steroid pushing while at the IRS? Jeff Novitzky.

“Professional disciplinary body.”

Like an Athletic Commission.

This is what should worry people in the MMA business. You can either lose your freedom or your money. Jon Jones can’t afford to lose either. Which means he is playing a high stakes game of chicken with USADA.

The protected speech loophole

Earlier, I said that I don’t give Jon Jones a lot of credit for how he publicly defends himself. However, he is occasionally smart enough to hire someone like Howard Jacobs to navigate troubled waters.

Any attorney worth their salt would advise a client caught in the USADA bear trap to not utilize the snitching clause without some sort of protection. Why? Because any accusations made directly to USADA or a private entity regarding drug trafficking or usage is not legally protected speech. There’s no litigation privilege whatsoever. Which means you are devastatingly vulnerable to defamation lawsuits, even in states with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Since you’re accusing someone of involvement with drugs not to a public agency, your affirmative defenses shrink.

But read what USADA’s “substantial assistance” clause says. If Jon Jones gives testimony to a Federal prosecutor, a grand jury, or an athletic commission, his speech is suddenly legally protected and any defamation lawsuits against him can be stricken. The whole point of anti-SLAPP motions in states like Oregon, California, Nevada, and Texas is to give the public freedom to contact governmental authorities without fear of losing everything.

If Jon Jones is cooperating with USADA with testimony to an entity like a grand jury, he has to play dumb publicly. He can’t admit what his testimony is or who he gave it to.

Bottom line: Here is our hypothesis. I’m willing to give Jon Jones just enough credit to not be stupid to take USADA head-on publicly and put that entity in a position to lose their entire credibility over the utilization of the “snitching” clause. I’m also willing to give Jon Jones’ legal representation enough credit to advise their client not to give any testimony that isn’t legally protected speech.

Which means, in our hypothetical, that the only “safe” avenue for Jon Jones to rat out anyone over drugs in MMA without facing serious legal consequences is through a governmental agency. His speech would be legally protected from civil suits. And the Feds only want the goods. They don’t want their time being wasted. The same with USADA.

Topics: All Topics | 3 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

California State Athletic Commission has the power to suspend Victor Ortiz after rape arrest, so will they?

By Zach Arnold | September 25, 2018

Victor Ortiz was arrested on three counts of rape. Bail was set for $100,000.

Ortiz was scheduled to fight John Molina Jr. this Sunday for a Al Haymon show on Fox Sports 1 in Ontario, California.

The situation is a complete and total loss at this point. For all parties involved, having the fight proceed as planned would create an enormous amount of negative publicity. The problem is that fighters fight in order to get paid. Who’s going to make whom whole?

The biggest loser in this situation is the California State Athletic Commission. They really can’t afford to let Sunday’s fight happen. If Ortiz and his camp don’t back down, then Andy Foster will have no choice but to force a showdown. That showdown is thanks to Business and Professions Code 18842:

The commission, the executive officer and other employees duly authorized by the executive officer, shall have the power to suspend temporarily, any license until final determination by the commission when, in his or her opinion, the action is necessary to protect the public welfare or is in the best interest of boxing or martial arts.

The suspension may be without advance hearing, but the suspended licensee may apply to the commission for a hearing on the matter to determine if the suspension should be modified or set aside. The application for a hearing shall be in writing and shall be received by the commission within 30 days after the date of suspension. Upon receipt of such written request, the commission shall set the matter for hearing within 30 days.

“The best interest in boxing or martial arts” is as close to weasel-wording for a moral turpitude licensee clause as you can get. I would expect the Athletic Commission to enforce 18842 to prevent Sunday’s fight from happening.

Topics: Boxing, Media, Zach Arnold | No Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

After Jon Jones agreed to “snitch” for less punishment, is USADA aiming to investigate Greg Jackson?

By Zach Arnold | September 23, 2018

USADA’s drug testing schedule and… creative… due process has created a riveting incentive for MMA fighters looking to make a living outside of UFC.

For UFC fighters caught in the USADA dragnet, blame-shifting and excuse-making is the only way to prolong your career. Ask Jon Jones.

Jon Jones has been given chance after chance to return to UFC after monumentally screwing up. He’s worth money to the right individuals. In the process of saving your bacon, people will get hurt. Iain Kidd at Bloody Elbow explains how the ‘Snitching’ clause led to UFC star Jon Jones’ significantly reduced USADA suspension.

“Snitching” on other fighters makes for good gossip but that vision is too limited in scope. Go for the gold by “snitching” on top MMA trainers and gym owners. That’s how you stroke the id of someone like former FDA and IRS agent Jeff Novitzky.

With UFC having its own Performance Institute, there’s an economic conflict of interest to be aggressive against veteran MMA trainers and gym rats. The potential for abusing USADA’s arbitrary and capricious process to target gyms is ripe. With Jeff Novitzky in charge, he has a mountain of Federal contacts he can contact at any time. His fiancee is currently a Federal agent. Novitzky is in a position of persuasiveness to get the ball rolling for a criminal indictment. Or if he’s charitable, at a minimum contact athletic commissions for a discussion or two.

If you’re currently a high profile MMA trainer and you have clients in the UFC, you are at risk of rightfully or wrongfully getting dragged in the mud at any time. USADA can target fighters in clusters at certain gyms whenever they want. That’s as good as attacking a trainer’s primary source of income. You’re at their mercy.

As Iain Kidd noted at Bloody Elbow:

The clause specifically states the reduction is given when the information results in USADA or another body discovering or bringing forward an offense/violation, so Jones just saying he heard this guy does steroids wouldn’t cut it. It almost certainly involved specific, detailed information about the use or supply of drugs.

Jones is required to continue to provide this information, or his suspension will be reinstated.

Jon Jones is a congenital bridge burner. His behavior will never change because there’s always someone willing to jump on the bandwagon to get a cut of a future UFC pay day. If Jon Jones makes allegations of drug usage by other fighters he’s associated with, USADA’s spotlight will focus on where Jon Jones has been training and who he has been training with.

Within this context, it is relevant to highlight Donald Cerrone’s recent claim to Joe Rogan that a wrestling coach at Greg Jackson’s gym used to sell steroids while working for a college. These remarks, truthful or not, create an avenue of investigation for USADA. Combine this development along with “substantial assistance” from Jon Jones and Greg Jackson becomes an investigative target. Cerrone’s comments are catnip to a former Federal investigator like Jeff Novitzky.

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical and wary about USADA targeting Greg Jackson for investigation. With Jon Jones reportedly utilizing USADA’s “snitching” clause, we will find out how far he’s willing to go to save his ass. Thanks to Jeff Novitzky’s tangled web of contacts with Federal agents & investigators, we will also find out how much of Jones’s claims to USADA end up being creatively protected by “litigation privilege” in order to kill defamation lawsuits from being filed against “snitchers.”

Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 5 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

The death of Norifumi “Kid” Yamamoto at age 41

By Zach Arnold | September 17, 2018

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kid Yamamoto original (@kid_yamamoto) on

Cancer has killed one of the biggest Japanese fight sport attractions of all time.

If you only knew of Norifumi “Kid” Yamamoto from his UFC stint, you missed what made him such a special fighter and icon in Japan. He was great and had a lot of heart.

Kid Yamamoto headlined fights that drew tens of millions of television viewers. His family is considered wrestling royalty. When K-1 went to war with PRIDE after the 2003 New Year’s Eve battle, they created HERO’s. HERO’s was Kid Yamamoto and Kazushi Sakuraba. You can’t tell the story of PRIDE’s death without talking about New Year’s Eve 2003 and the implosion of PRIDE.

For many years, the dream fight was Kid Yamamoto vs. Urijah Faber. HERO’s vs. WEC/UFC. UFC already played the political game with PRIDE and bought the PRIDE assets. The rest is history.

When Kid Yamamoto left K-1, K-1 struggled to hit double-digit TV ratings.

Kid Yamamoto will forever be linked with kickboxing icon MASATO. Remember the ratings for Cain Velasquez vs. Junior dos Santos on Fox? Kid Yamamoto vs. MASATO in a kickboxing match drew four times the ratings on broadcast television.

The UFC stint for Kid Yamamoto was regrettable. UFC wasn’t going to change their matchmaking philosophy and adopt a Japanese-style marketing plan to get a last round with Yamamoto as an ace. Predictably, Yamamoto’s career in UFC went as expected. The company booked Yamamoto against Vaughan Lee at Saitama Super Arena in a decision I will never comprehend. Yamamoto lost. UFC’s ambition to utilize the required business tactics to grow business in Japan diminished.

Fortunately, Yamamoto’s 2012 UFC Saitama appearance didn’t diminish the legacy he created in Japan or his business accomplishments. There was a final Masato/Kid Yamamoto reunion on New Year’s Eve 2015 — and it managed to draw bigger ratings than Nobuyuki Sakakibara’s event.

What made Kid Yamamoto fascinating is that he didn’t fit the classic, traditional conservative image of a Japanese fighter. Shukan Gendai went after Kid Yamamoto for “marijuana parties.” There was so much media scrutiny linking Kid Yamamoto to Enson Inoue’s behavior.

Ten years ago, Enson was arrested for possession of marijuana. Trying to explain the stigma of marijuana usage in Japan to outsiders, especially Americans, is impossible. It’s the same deal with tattoos and how any non-covered up tattooed person on broadcast television is viewed as associated with organized crime.

Kid Yamamoto never changed. He stayed true to himself. He didn’t conform. What worked for him wouldn’t have worked for other Japanese icons.

Topics: Japan, K-1, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 5 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

How do you write about the history of Japanese MMA and PRIDE? Now is your chance to help finance and promote this effort

By Zach Arnold | August 25, 2018

Author Lee Daly was crazy enough to write about the history of Japanese MMA

I’m completely bored by American MMA since the corporate takeover of UFC by Ari Emanuel. Arguing over whether UFC is worth $4 billion or now $7 billion USD as Dana White claims after the new ESPN TV deal really doesn’t move my spiritual needle.

If you grew up as a fan when modern Mixed Martial Arts was boom, you appreciate how much of a drought there currently is when it comes to real human characters in the sport. I’m not talking about the overly tattooed, Neo Nazi types either.

I’ve kept my eyes and ear open about what is happening in the Japanese scene. One FC just announced an entry into the Japanese marketplace on March 31st, 2019 in Tokyo at Ryogoku Kokugikan. I expect 2019 to be a relatively strong growth campaign for One FC. They have been slowly inching closer towards filling up the vacuum in Japan that has been left over since the death of PRIDE.

Which brings us to a new project that Irish author Lee Daly has just finished: Before a Fall: A History of PRIDE.

Lee Daly took risks on multiple levels writing this book. First, he assumed the risk of not doing enough homework to satisfy all types of hardcore MMA fans who still worship at the alter of PRIDE. Second (and more impressively), Lee assumed the financial risk it takes to write such a book given how undefined the marketplace is for this type of writing. To create a turn-key product like this demonstrates a real seriousness.

In order to finance the launch of Before a Fall, Lee is crowdsourcing his efforts on IndieGogo and needs to raise funds in short order. This is your chance to reward someone for doing the right thing and help foster a new era of MMA writing.

The challenge of writing Before A Fall is extremely difficult. I’ve been an active hand in reading the book through its development stages in order to give feedback. I know the history of Japanese fighting and even I am conflicted on how I would have tackled such a project. Lee Daly managed to write a book that educates every kind of MMA fan while in the process being true to the industry’s roots. It’s detailed but not overly intense. Lee tells the history of Japanese MMA in a way from the people who were actually involved in making the history in the first place.

The best way to reward this kind of writing is to show that there is a market for it and you can demonstrate that there is a marketing for smart MMA writing by contributing to Lee Daly’s Before a Fall: A history of PRIDE book.

Topics: Japan, Media, MMA, PRIDE, Zach Arnold | 3 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Boxing refs Wayne Hedgpeth, Raul Caiz Jr. & Sr. file $100M racial discrimination claim against Andy Foster & California State Athletic Commission

By Zach Arnold | July 23, 2018

What is the value of officiating a championship prize fight?

A recent claim letter filed by attorney John E. Sweeney on behalf of boxing referees Raul Caiz Jr. & Sr. along with Wayne Hedgpeth seeks $100 million dollars in damages. The claim letter states that Hedgpeth & Caiz Junior/Senior have been racially discriminated against by California State Athletic Commission Executive Officer Andy Foster and that the beneficiary of the alleged discrimination were white referees — primarily Jack Reiss.

The legalese

State and Federal Government agencies have sovereign immunity. The California Tort Claims Act states that you have to file a damages claim with a state agency and wait 45 days for a response. The agency can either: a) accept the damages request, b) offer a settlement, c) respond with a formal rejection, or d) ignore the claim letter. Not issuing a response is legally deemed as a rejection.

In order for the claim to be within the statute of limitations, the last alleged tort act must take place within 180 days of the claim letter being filed with the state agency.

Demands in the claim letter

Fight Opinion filed a Public Records Act request with the California State Athletic Commission to get a copy of the damages claim. The Athletic Commission immediately responded by stating they had not received a claim letter from attorney John E. Sweeney. The agency’s reply cited Government Code 915, which deals with amended or late claim letters.

The agency claimed that if the letter was filed with the Department of General Services, DGS had not sent the Athletic Commission a copy.

After this response, we were able to independently obtain a copy of the amended damages claim letter. The letter was dated April 27, 2018 and supposedly sent via certified mail with return receipt requested. It was allegedly sent to both the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Athletic Commission’s office.

What the claim letter states

Quoting from the letter:

For the past five (5) years and continuing to date, the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs and the California State Athletic Commission have engaged in a pattern of racial discrimination against the licensed State of California Boxing Offices listed [Hedgpeth, Caiz Jr. & Sr.].

The system used by the California State Athletic Commission in assigning boxing officials, including referees and judges, to championship fights is not based on merit but on the sole discretion of an Executive Officer, Andy Foster.

Of the approximate 47 licensed fight officials in California, 33 are minorites (70.21%). Yet, the majority of championship fights for the period indicated above have been assigned to Caucasian officials.

Even when international boxing sanctioning bodies such as the International Boxing Federation (“IBF”) and both opponent fighters and their representatives have agreed to use certain Claimants, the California State Athletic Commission has refused to honor their request and assigned a Caucasian referee to those fights.

Claimants have suffered general damages and a loss of earnings and earning capacity.

Claimants will bring causes of action in their forthcoming lawsuit for discrimination based on a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code 51), California Government Code Section 11135, California Civil Code Section 43, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other related causes of action.

All of the required elements for each cause of action can be viewed in the 2018 Judicial Council of California jury instructions. Based on the claim letter, it appears any future lawsuit would be filed in state court.

The Los Angeles Sentinel interviewed Mr. Sweeney last week and he commented on what the details of an impending lawsuit would look like.

Topics: Boxing, CSAC, Media, Zach Arnold | 4 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

UFC has never made more money and encountered as much eye-bulging debt as they are right now

By Zach Arnold | July 1, 2018

Forgive me for not getting excited over a fight product that has long surpassed its expiration date.

The Bain Capitalization of UFC by its vulture investors is now complete. John Nash at Bloody Elbow notes a Moody’s report claiming UFC made over $700 million USD of revenue in 2017. The company’s current debt load is allegedly $2 billion USD.

With the new ESPN/Disney TV contracts, UFC is primed within the next five years to get flipped to another owner. Look at this impactful graphic created by Paul Gift regarding UFC’s PPV buys over the last decade:

If you chart stocks, you’ll immediately spot what looks like a “head and shoulders top” pattern. Given the dramatic change in the UFC business model, expect PPV buys to continue decreasing.

I don’t particularly have much interest in UFC at this point outside of the physical & financial health of fighters. On one battle front, fighter Leslie Smith had initially gotten a positive ruling in Philadelphia with a regional section of the National Labor Relations Board. Smith is trying to fight the independent contractor classification that UFC uses for all its talent. However, her case has now been transferred to The Swamp in Washington D.C. for “further review.”

The administrative state giveth and taketh away. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the temperature for action against UFC in DC under Trump given that UFC’s owner was Trump’s former Hollywood agent and Dana White was enthusiastically promoted as a prime guest speaker at the 2016 GOP Convention. Putting Leslie Smith’s case on ice in DC is meant to send a chill.

What does interest me is UFC’s positioning in the macro sports content wars. It’s ESPN (with UFC, Top Rank, and Golden Boy) vs. former ESPN boss John Skipper at DAZN (with Matchroom Boxing & Bellator). Disney is paying a premium to try to thrive in the streaming business. There are no guarantees. It reminds me so much of mainstream American sports media companies throwing tons of cash at the MMA scene a decade ago to hire any and every writer only for everything to blow up in corporate faces. You have to get the money while the getting is good.

The calculation behind the DAZN/Bellator relationship is fascinating. Viacom is in huge turmoil with the Shari Redstone vs. CBS & Les Moonves court battle about the possibility of a remarriage between the two media empires. Using Bellator to test the profit margins in the streaming business is an interesting play for Viacom. Do they eventually cut a deal with Netflix or Amazon and risk their platform business model to become a pure content play? Bellator’s success or lack of success on DAZN will prove to be a worthwhile test case.

Topics: Bellator, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 5 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

ESPN buys the rest of UFC programming and it makes sense if they’re ditching the NFL

By Zach Arnold | May 23, 2018

Both WWE and UFC are filthy rich from new television deals.

RAW is staying on USA Network reportedly at triple the original price and Fox just paid $1 billion dollars for five years of Smackdown.

ESPN and Disney just bought the rights to all UFC programming. $150 million a year for 15 shows and now an additional $300 million a year (for the next five years) to get 27 more shows. 42 shows a year, with a significant portion of events streaming on ESPN+.

The television rights fees being paid to both WWE and UFC are outrageous but also justifiable.

American sports media boss Clay Travis has been screaming that WWE television rights fees have been dramatically undervalued. How many years did television executives suppress the value of WWE content by claiming that WWE’s audience demographics are young but poor? In other words, a bunch of undesirables and deplorables. Now NBC & Fox are paying WWE a premium for a consistent, stable audience. That’s the value of stability in a media landscape with no stability. Timing really is everything.

As for UFC venture capitalists getting $450 million a year from Disney? As we discussed two weeks ago, this fascinating story is all about the survival of ESPN. You can’t say Disney isn’t going all out here. Paying $450 million a year for UFC content is a huge risk. What Fox Sports discovered with UFC is that UFC fans really care about UFC and will watch UFC programming but converting that audience into fans of other Fox Sports programs didn’t pan out. Without UFC, Fox Sports 1 is largely irrelevant in comparison to ESPN. ESPN took out the major cornerstone for FS1’s justification to be carried on major cable providers. Fox had no choice but to go all-in with WWE. WWE will be a big part of Fox Sports 1 moving forward, either through shoulder programming or NXT down the road.

Where does UFC fit into the equation with ESPN?

You don’t pay UFC $450 million dollars a year for a cold product unless you anticipate another shoe dropping. That shoe could very well be the end of ESPN’s relationship with the NFL.

It is very well possible that UFC and Top Rank programming could replace Monday Night Football if the NFL takes their ball and goes elsewhere.

The NFL’s relationship with ESPN is completely dysfunctional. The NFL isn’t even hiding their disdain anymore for ESPN, especially with the multi-channel broadcast of the NFL Draft on Fox. Mel Kiper is practically an American sports institution and the NFL tried to kill that off (but it didn’t work).

The reason for the animosity between the two parties deals with ESPN’s coverage of the NFL regarding political and medical issues. The more talk there is about concussions, doping, and the national anthem, the worse it is for the NFL’s bottom line. It’s worse for the NFL because the team owners are largely clueless on how to react to hot issues.

Now this same poison is ready to surface between ESPN and the UFC. The difference is that Dana White has a couple of decades of experience fighting the media and bullying those who are most critical about him. Given what has happened with the NFL, will new management at ESPN tell its employees to lay off of UFC scandals? Or will we see new conflict at a level Dana White has never had to manage before?

Bottom line? Fox offered $200 million a year to keep the UFC and the venture capitalists found a more desperate customer in ESPN willing to pay the premium. WWE immediately grabbed Fox’s offer and ran with it. In the process, WWE’s stock has tripled over the last year and Vince McMahon has made the kind of money never thought possible in professional wrestling.

Topics: Media, MMA, Pro-Wrestling, UFC, WWE, Zach Arnold | 2 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

« Previous Entries Next Entries »