|
Final Approval Pushed to November at Earliest By Loretta Hunt A California State Athletic Commission meeting held yesterday in downtown Los Angeles yielded promising developments for Japan's leading mixed martial arts organization PRIDE, yet extended the time in which the sport must take to be legalized in the state by a minimum of 45 to 60 days, pushing a final approval date dangerously close to missing its December 9th fiscal deadline. With a unanimous vote among the four Commissioners in attendance, the CSAC opted to recognize three revisions that Dream Stage Entertainment, promoters of PRIDE, had applied for consideration. They included the option of the use of a ring as opposed to a cage for MMA contests in the state, as well as the utilization of a 10-5-5 minute round format and the approval for fighters to wear gis and wrestling shoes in MMA bouts. In approving these modifications to regulations that were already passed by the Commission this February, the CSAC had essentially voted for the return of the currently circulating regulations that had recently arrived at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on July 27th for their final phase of review. Since their February approval, these regulations had already passed through the legal office of the CSAC, as well as through the Department of Consumer Affairs. If they had stayed their course, final approval for the rules to take effect would have been anticipated for October 7th, with the Commission proposing to hold its first regulated show by mid-October. "If we are inclined as a Commission to permit these additions, then all of this should get done at the same time," CSAC Chairman Chris Mears noted just moments before Commissioner Mike Carona motioned for a vote to accept the three provisions. "I think that if we vote to pull these [regulations] back, make the modifications and resubmit them, then everybody gets in the same boat and everybody rows as hard as they can." Although he had taken an opposite stance a few minutes before to let the regulations continue their course as-is, Commissioner John Frierson seconded Carona's motion. The vote passed unanimously despite the voiced reservations of CSAC counsel Anita Scurry and Executive Director Armando Garcia, as well as Charlene Zettel, Director of Department of Consumer Affairs, who encouraged the Commission to allow the regulations to continue their course and consider revisions at a later time to not risk missing the fiscal deadline. In that scenario, the CSAC would have to begin the MMA regulation process all over again in June 2006. To compound the situation further, it remains to be seen if a Commission will still be in place that time next year to take action with a "sunset" or phase-out campaign currently being expedited by the Department of Consumer Affairs. With this new course of action, final approval can be anticipated for November at the earliest, granted the revised regulations move through each department again without scrutiny, a possibility which seemed highly unlikely given comments made by DCA head Zettel after the vote had transpired. "I would just to tell you in good conscience, that while I've worked diligently to look through those regulations and approve them because I knew how long it had taken them to get to my desk, with the testimony I've heard here with regards to use of a shoe as part of an instrument, I have concerns. I'm not sure that I'd just turn them [the regulations] back around in 24 hours." The vote came on the tail end of two hours of testimony primarily from DSE, as well as the UFC, which was represented by COO Kirk Kendrick, head referee John McCarthy, and lobbyist Tim Lynch, as well as their "triple crown" of champions which included Matt Hughes, Rich Franklin, and Chuck Liddell. For PRIDE, CEO Nobuyuki Sakakibara attended from Japan. He was joined by U.S. PRIDE executives Hideki Yamamoto, Yukino Kanda, and Turi Altavilla, Counsel Robert Philibosicam, as well as fighter and commentator Bas Rutten. Altavilla was the first to speak on the proposed revisions, which notably omitted two provisions the organization had lobbied for in earlier sessions-- kicks and knees to the head of a downed opponent. "Though we feel that through the years statistically we've proven that they're safe, we understand the issue with perception, so we've decided to withdraw those," Altavilla began before quickly moving on to address the three modifications on the table. "We feel that this is mixed martial arts," explained Altavilla of their 10-5-5 minute round format request, "and part of a mixed sport involves not only the traditional striker, which is your kickboxer or boxer, it also involves wrestlers and ground fighters such as jiu-jitsu fighters. The nature of this sport is that it takes longer to set up moves on the ground. We feel that a ten minute first round balances things out between a ground fighter and a striker, not to mention every round starts on the feet so the ground fighter is apparently at a disadvantage to get the other down to get his game going." "When you look at the 10-5-5 round system, the reasons it's that way is they say it's to give an edge to a grappler. Why are they giving an edge to a grappler?" UFC referee John McCarthy would refute later in the hearing. "Why are they giving an edge to anybody? We don't give edges to anybody. We make things equal. That's the way the sport should be." "How do you train your judges to judge a 10-5-5?" UFC head Kirk Kendrick asked the Commission in keeping within the 10 point must system California regulations would prescribe to. Countering Altavilla's support of the gi, McCarthy added, "When it comes to the use of a gi, it needs to be clarified that it's a tool. I'm not saying it's a weapon. It's a tool, and why are we going to give a tool to one fighter when another fighter doesn't have that tool?" "This is not the UFC versus PRIDE. What this about is uniformity, uniformity to create a real and true lasting sport," Kendrick cited in his prior opening statements. "PRIDE will put on a few shows. UFC will put on a few shows, but what you're going to see is an influx of the medium size and the smaller shows. Those will proliferate throughout your state and what's very important for both PRIDE and the UFC is those shows are done healthy, safely, with referees and judges that know what they're doing, and venues know what they're doing, with ambulances, doctors, everything that you would need to put on a world-class boxing match, that's what we would like you to do." In addition to debates over the use of round format and fighter equipment, the proposed utilization of a ring drew many comments from the audience. Helpful to PRIDE's cause, numerous martial arts promoters stood up to voice their support for the ring. "I feel at this time, to give any one entity a year's advantage or a year's jump would be grossly unfair to the other MMA hybrid sport," spoke boxing promoter Roy Englebrecht. "I think both can exist in this state. If all they want to do is tweak a ring, a shoe, let them both be in this state." "When the UFC started, they had a cage because they wanted to build this 'human cockfighting,' added California-licensed Muay Thai promoter Dennis Warner. "That's why the cage was there, otherwise it would have been a ring." Expressing his interest to promote a combination event to include MMA, Warner also encouraged the Commission to allow for promoter's choice between a ring or a cage. "I can see the small shows reason for not wanting cages because they're gonna have to get one, but I've reffed a lot of events," retorted UFC welterweight champion Matt Hughes compellingly. "When I see any type of momentum in a fight, guys going to the ropes, the first thing I have to do is run to the ropes, piece them together so they don't go over or underneath them." Weighing the testimony, Chairman Mears then elicited the panel's response, and the motion and vote followed. Sensitive to the timing of this decision, Chairman Mears then called the next Commission meeting for August 29th, the earliest date the board could schedule it following a mandatory 15 days notice period. At this meeting, adverse comments to the action will be heard, and then the Commission will have the choice to either confirm the adoption of the modified rules or reject them. |
| © All materials contained in the Full Contact Fighter web site are protected by copyright and to be used only for personal and noncommercial uses. Public display or copying for sale or public distribution of any of these materials is strictly prohibited. |