Fact or Fiction: Drug Testing and UFC
It is time for another edition of Coors Light Cold Hard Facts (because Bud Light doesn't pay me). Past discussions of Facts (not actual facts) and Fictions (more predictions and speculation, really), concerned UFC's business decline in mid-2014 (boy, was I wrong on that one) and cable & satellite providers' distaste for WWE Network (three out of four correct; much better). The discussion centers on UFC again, but this time to discuss a topic that bridges business and competition: UFC fighters failing drug tests.
Fact or Fiction: UFC business is being hurt by recent drug test failures
Fiction. (At least for now.)
There are two angles for looking at the effect of drug test failures on UFC business: losing fights and alienating fans. They obviously haven't lost any fights yet. (Though World Series of Fighting -- and has there ever been a successful sports venture besides baseball [and poker is not a sport] to use "World Series" in its name? -- lost a Jon Fitch fight recently.) But have they alienated fans? Fat chance. These drug test failures haven't alienated a dang thing.
Of course the stories about coke and dope positives grab eyeballs. It's gossip and gossip is a guilty pleasure. But is anyone boycotting pay-per-view? Not likely, since Diaz vs. Silva drew a great number even though it had a shoddy undercard. Is it hurting viewership? Hard to tell, with Fox Sports 1's total viewership more or less being within the standard deviation of a real network's numbers, but it doesn't look like it. Are sponsors staying away? Not yet, though this is the one most likely to be affected if anyone does start to care about PED pops.
For the time being, UFC business looks OK even after going through drug use is on the rise. Or is it...?
Fact or Fiction: Drug use in UFC is on the rise
Fiction.
Let's keep it real here: PED use has been prevalent in MMA/UFC for a long time. It's an individual sport. It relies on strength, quickness and reflexes. Injuries routinely happen in practice. These are things that make PED use more likely than not.
We've known what was going on, even if the test results weren't there. It's not yours truly's place to name names that have been heard in conversation or make Bleacher Report style lists (sorry, Jonathan Snowden) of "Top Ten UFC Fighter Bodies That Were Probably On PEDs", but it's been happening for a while.
There are surely clean fighters today, just as Dan Severn existed yesterday. But Don Frye's famous quote in response to Severn's proposal for a clean MMA competition over a decade ago ("What, does Dan want to win by default?") likely doesn't apply any more today than it did back then.
Fact or Fiction: UFC fighters want more stringent drug testing
Fact. Or Fiction. Or Fact in some ways, but really Fiction. It's nuanced.
Fighters want PEDs out of the sport (when they're young), but they want to be able to use PEDs (when they're old). Fighters don't mind year-round drug testing (in theory), but don't want to be tested (when it applies to them). Fighters hate that the media harps on drug use (when it's about them or their friends), but wants the media to expose drug users (when it's the phonies that they hate). So, it's tricky.
The most honest, fair and measured answer is that fighters are like anyone else in any other competitive area of life: they want to eliminate cheating, but they also think that there should be exceptions when recovering from injury. But then there's loopholes and enforcement difficulties and shady doctors and ill-informed commissioners and... Well, it's complicated. But on the whole I think that they'd like a little bit more cup-peeing, as long as it doesn't get too intrusive.
Fact or Fiction: UFC should implement year-round testing for all contracted fighters
Fact. (But the testing should be fictional.)
What is the danger, vis-a-vis drugs, to UFC?
Scandal? Maybe. Maybe the general public cares enough about PEDs to abandon the sport if they perceive it to be dirty. I doubt it, but maybe.
Fighter health? Please. Puh-lease. I'm sure that UFC management wants to see its fighters live healthy, successful lives after their fighting careers end, but this is fighting. Coming in, you know you're gonna get F'd up. Excessive drug use is gonna mess someone up, but so will excessive jogging. (OK, maybe by "someone" I mean me. I am tall and I have weak ankles from playing too much basketball.)
Also, there is an argument to be made that moderate drug use will help an aging fighter's health. I don't believe that argument, but this is medicine. In medicine, nobody knows anything until a hundred years after the fact.
Future lawsuits? Maybe. It'd take a healthy amount of chutzpah for a lawyer to sue UFC because his ex-fighter client has brain damage from banging with doped up fighter. But this is America. We have lawyers with chutzpah.
Cancelled fights? Yes. Definitely. This is the big one. The Jones/Cormier and Diaz/Silva buyrates reinforced two things that we have known for years: UFC fans want to see stars fight and UFC fans tend to like the upper (185 lb. and higher) weight classes. Vigilant testing harms both of those things. It makes it less likely that naturally smaller guys will bulk up to fight large (probably a good thing for fighters' health, but we are talking about business at the moment) and it will increase the possibility of fight cancellations.
Both of the big business fights of the past couple of months saw fighters pop for drugs in the weeks leading up to the fight. The cancellation of those two fights (and, granted, popping for cocaine -- which was the only drug positive found in the pre-fight testing for Jones vs. Cormier -- is not grounds for canceling a fight under the current rules) would have been very harmful to UFC's business. In fact, whatever negative press UFC is getting now is less damaging than an actual cancellation of the Diaz vs. Silva fight would have been.
UFC aught to recognize this danger and take control. But they should do it in a way that places emphasis on public relations over sport. Essentially, UFC should make their testing similar to the NFL's PED testing. The testing should be internal; not under the control of an independent third party. Knowledge amongst athletes on how to use drugs without testing positive should be widespread. Penalties for test failures should be revealed to the public with the public's perception of the sport in mind. In essence, a UFC drug test should be beatable. Rampant drug use should be curbed, but the company should make use of its power to protect its fighters from looking bad.
There would certainly be complaints if UFC took testing internal. If UFC started avoiding states that do commission-based out of competition testing, there would be blowback. Many journalists would complain, and a few fans might even care as well. But the NFL teaches an important lesson: fans care about cheating, not drug use. Compare the amount of coverage the New England Patriots' litany of cheating has gotten to the amount of coverage the Seattle Seahawks' many drug test failures have gotten. The Patriots' scandals win and it's not even close. And if UFC can properly give the perception that they care about catching cheaters, then ultimately the public won't care if there's a little bit of drug use here and there.
Fact or Fiction: UFC business is being hurt by recent drug test failures
Fiction. (At least for now.)
There are two angles for looking at the effect of drug test failures on UFC business: losing fights and alienating fans. They obviously haven't lost any fights yet. (Though World Series of Fighting -- and has there ever been a successful sports venture besides baseball [and poker is not a sport] to use "World Series" in its name? -- lost a Jon Fitch fight recently.) But have they alienated fans? Fat chance. These drug test failures haven't alienated a dang thing.
Of course the stories about coke and dope positives grab eyeballs. It's gossip and gossip is a guilty pleasure. But is anyone boycotting pay-per-view? Not likely, since Diaz vs. Silva drew a great number even though it had a shoddy undercard. Is it hurting viewership? Hard to tell, with Fox Sports 1's total viewership more or less being within the standard deviation of a real network's numbers, but it doesn't look like it. Are sponsors staying away? Not yet, though this is the one most likely to be affected if anyone does start to care about PED pops.
For the time being, UFC business looks OK even after going through drug use is on the rise. Or is it...?
Fact or Fiction: Drug use in UFC is on the rise
Fiction.
Let's keep it real here: PED use has been prevalent in MMA/UFC for a long time. It's an individual sport. It relies on strength, quickness and reflexes. Injuries routinely happen in practice. These are things that make PED use more likely than not.
We've known what was going on, even if the test results weren't there. It's not yours truly's place to name names that have been heard in conversation or make Bleacher Report style lists (sorry, Jonathan Snowden) of "Top Ten UFC Fighter Bodies That Were Probably On PEDs", but it's been happening for a while.
There are surely clean fighters today, just as Dan Severn existed yesterday. But Don Frye's famous quote in response to Severn's proposal for a clean MMA competition over a decade ago ("What, does Dan want to win by default?") likely doesn't apply any more today than it did back then.
Fact or Fiction: UFC fighters want more stringent drug testing
Fact. Or Fiction. Or Fact in some ways, but really Fiction. It's nuanced.
Fighters want PEDs out of the sport (when they're young), but they want to be able to use PEDs (when they're old). Fighters don't mind year-round drug testing (in theory), but don't want to be tested (when it applies to them). Fighters hate that the media harps on drug use (when it's about them or their friends), but wants the media to expose drug users (when it's the phonies that they hate). So, it's tricky.
The most honest, fair and measured answer is that fighters are like anyone else in any other competitive area of life: they want to eliminate cheating, but they also think that there should be exceptions when recovering from injury. But then there's loopholes and enforcement difficulties and shady doctors and ill-informed commissioners and... Well, it's complicated. But on the whole I think that they'd like a little bit more cup-peeing, as long as it doesn't get too intrusive.
Fact or Fiction: UFC should implement year-round testing for all contracted fighters
Fact. (But the testing should be fictional.)
What is the danger, vis-a-vis drugs, to UFC?
Scandal? Maybe. Maybe the general public cares enough about PEDs to abandon the sport if they perceive it to be dirty. I doubt it, but maybe.
Fighter health? Please. Puh-lease. I'm sure that UFC management wants to see its fighters live healthy, successful lives after their fighting careers end, but this is fighting. Coming in, you know you're gonna get F'd up. Excessive drug use is gonna mess someone up, but so will excessive jogging. (OK, maybe by "someone" I mean me. I am tall and I have weak ankles from playing too much basketball.)
Also, there is an argument to be made that moderate drug use will help an aging fighter's health. I don't believe that argument, but this is medicine. In medicine, nobody knows anything until a hundred years after the fact.
Future lawsuits? Maybe. It'd take a healthy amount of chutzpah for a lawyer to sue UFC because his ex-fighter client has brain damage from banging with doped up fighter. But this is America. We have lawyers with chutzpah.
Cancelled fights? Yes. Definitely. This is the big one. The Jones/Cormier and Diaz/Silva buyrates reinforced two things that we have known for years: UFC fans want to see stars fight and UFC fans tend to like the upper (185 lb. and higher) weight classes. Vigilant testing harms both of those things. It makes it less likely that naturally smaller guys will bulk up to fight large (probably a good thing for fighters' health, but we are talking about business at the moment) and it will increase the possibility of fight cancellations.
Both of the big business fights of the past couple of months saw fighters pop for drugs in the weeks leading up to the fight. The cancellation of those two fights (and, granted, popping for cocaine -- which was the only drug positive found in the pre-fight testing for Jones vs. Cormier -- is not grounds for canceling a fight under the current rules) would have been very harmful to UFC's business. In fact, whatever negative press UFC is getting now is less damaging than an actual cancellation of the Diaz vs. Silva fight would have been.
UFC aught to recognize this danger and take control. But they should do it in a way that places emphasis on public relations over sport. Essentially, UFC should make their testing similar to the NFL's PED testing. The testing should be internal; not under the control of an independent third party. Knowledge amongst athletes on how to use drugs without testing positive should be widespread. Penalties for test failures should be revealed to the public with the public's perception of the sport in mind. In essence, a UFC drug test should be beatable. Rampant drug use should be curbed, but the company should make use of its power to protect its fighters from looking bad.
There would certainly be complaints if UFC took testing internal. If UFC started avoiding states that do commission-based out of competition testing, there would be blowback. Many journalists would complain, and a few fans might even care as well. But the NFL teaches an important lesson: fans care about cheating, not drug use. Compare the amount of coverage the New England Patriots' litany of cheating has gotten to the amount of coverage the Seattle Seahawks' many drug test failures have gotten. The Patriots' scandals win and it's not even close. And if UFC can properly give the perception that they care about catching cheaters, then ultimately the public won't care if there's a little bit of drug use here and there.
Comments
Post a Comment