|
Regs Back on Track for November Approval By Loretta Hunt The pendulum swung back yesterday in downtown Los Angeles, as the California State Athletic Commission voted not to adopt three PRIDE-requested modifications they had previously decided to add to the Golden state's yet-to-approved mixed martial arts regulations at an August 2nd meeting. With a vote of 4-1, proposed Section 512 allowing for a 10-5-5 minute round format was denied; while Section 513, which would allow for optional fighter equipment such as wrestling shoes and gis, fell with a vote of 3-2. Of the five members to vote at the proceedings (two of which were new to the Commission and were absent from past informational meetings relevant to the proposals), none would make a motion to either support or reject proposed Section 523, which would have allowed for the use of a PRIDE-designed ring in MMA events conducted in California. With no motion introduced, this third proposal was also shot down. The Commission's August 2nd ruling to allow for these three alternative additions had essentially "pulled back" already (Commission) passed regulations from the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), its final step in getting final approval within the state government. Now that the modifications have been dropped, MMA regulations will begin their trek again through the lawmaking process, leaving the Commission unaltered on route back to the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). "Director Zettel has already signed the regulations, so there's no reason to suspect there will be any delay," DCA Deputy Director told FCF following the proceedings. "Once the regulations are signed-off by the State Secretary, who also approved them on their last trip through, Hall says she has no indication of foreseeable problems once they reach the OAL for review. With this new timeline, the regulations could achieve final approval with the State in an estimated 30 to 45 days. Following a requisite 30-day wait period, the first sanctioned MMA event in California could take place as early as November. As with August 2nd's meeting, over two hours of sometimes heated, yet informative testimony lead up to the vote, with testimony coming mostly from Zuffa LLC, promoters of the UFC, and PRIDE owners Dream Stage Entertainment. In attendance for PRIDE, U.S. representative Turi Altavilla was joined by attorney Robert Philobosian. Due to its industrious PRIDE Grand Prix finals held this past weekend in Toyko, Japan, Altavilla and counsel were the only two identified attendees for the Japanese-based promotion. For the UFC, owner Lorenzo Fertitta and COO Kirk Hendrick attended, along with matchmaker Joe Silva, head referee John McCarthy and political lobbyist Tim Lynch. COO Hendrick was the first to approach the podium, where his opening comments again stressed "unification" as his organization's major thrust and tried to create a parallel between PRIDE's requested modifications and the earliest days of the sport in America. "Some of these eleventh hour proposals were exactly the same things that were being done back when Ultimate Fighting Championship started twelve years ago," Hendricks told the Commission. "It started out as what was called a no-holds-barred sport. It wasn't even a sport. It was indeed a spectacle." Addressing the three modifications individually, Hendrick then provided a video presentation collaging various clips from past fights that contained participants falling out of a ring, as well as wrestling shoe and gi choke utilization in fights. These clips included Justin Eilers falling out of the ring during his bout with Mikhail Bogdanov at MFC 1, Bas Rutten's extraction in a past Pancrase fight, Kerry Schall's fall at a Superbrawl event, SHOOTO and IVC footage, Royce Gracie's utilization of a gi choke at UFC 2, as well as the use of wrestling shoes for sustained kicking at an additional event. Throughout this presentation, PRIDE representative Turi Altavilla would chime in from the audience "That is not our ring," or "That is not our event." (Although not announced at the time, the UFC later clarified with FCF that they did not utilize PRIDE events to illustrate their points due to copyright issues.) At this time, PRIDE attorney Philobosian reminded the Commission that the modifications under consideration contained verbiage for a PRIDE ring, which included a 5-rope system and a substantial lip surrounding, and that the footage provided did not reflect this apparatus. "It is undeniable that people fall out of rings when they're used for mixed martial arts events," Hendrick repeatedly noted during his allotted time, however, when asked to provide specific statistics regarding injuries from the use of the ring, as well as with the use of the gi and wrestling shoes, he could not provide any. Hendrick did note of two instances in which a PRIDE competitor had been ejected from its ring—a 2001 bout between Diajiro Matsui and Ebenezer Braga and last Saturday's Final Conflict event, where Fedor Emelianenko fell out of the ring during his fight with Mirko Filopovic. When questioned later, PRIDE's Altavilla described Emelianenko's ejection as an example of PRIDE's successful safety measures, pointing out that the fighter was unharmed because he fell on the ring lip, and not the floor, and that additional referees were in place where they should be to assist him. With regards to the proposed acceptance of gis and wrestling shoes, Altavilla utilized much of his allotted time to emphasize their safety, as well as their acceptance in the sport. In addition to providing the Commission with a packet that contained pictures of the gi, wrestling shoes, and the PRIDE ring, Altavilla also presented two of these three items in person, which Commissioners inspected themselves. Altavilla reminded officials that the gi knot would be taped down during competition. Altavilla also produced a picture of John McCarthy refereeing a gi-clad Royce Gracie and popular sumo fighter Akebono in a ring at 2004's New Year's Eve K-1 event in Japan. Discussing the proposed 10-5-5 minute round format, it was Hendrick who stated the 10-point must system (a part of the regulations regardless of modification) could not be applied to which Chairman Mears publicly disagreed. "I think that perhaps that the level of concentration might be quite difficult for a judge to sustain it for ten minutes. Other than that, the concept of the 10-point must system I'm sure can be applied [to 10-5-5]," said CSAC Executive Officer Armando Garcia when asked by Mears to disprove Hendrick's statement. "Mr. Garcia, say you had a 10-point must system and we'll say you and I are fighting in that 10 minute round, and the judges give me that round with a 10-9 score," UFC referee McCarthy then illustrated. "Then you go on to win the next two [rounds] as 10-9's. Who won the fight? I beat you for ten minutes. You beat me for ten minutes. Who won the fight?" Unable to provide McCarthy with an answer, Garcia again stated that a high level of judging expertise would be required for such an instance, and that he believed California's current candidates would need additional training to achieve this. (Later, Garcia would recommend the Commission not adopt the 10-minute round in closing statements.) Hendrick's call for the uniformity of the sport also stimulated much Commission dialogue during the meeting, especially from Commissioner Keller, who had ironically been sworn onto the Board only that morning. "Why are you arguing so passionately for the necessity for California's regulations to be uniform with other states? If we're out of uniformity in these three areas, what's the impact of the sport in the United States?" asked Commissioner Keller. "I think the sport doesn't evolve," Hendrick answered. "This is obviously a big state for MMA. If you don't license it and regulate it in a uniform manner, you harm this sport. It doesn't evolve the way it should." "If you play soccer in Uruguay or Europe or Oklahoma City, you're going play the same sport," added Hendrick. "That let's the fans and the athletes no what to expect. If the fans know what they're getting, then they get a fair show when they buy a ticket. If the athlete's know what they're getting, they don't have to be thinking in their minds ‘Can I do this' or ‘Can I do that' during the middle of a fight. That shouldn't happen. That's not a sport." "In our culture, there are different versions of sports we see everyday," Altavilla remarked later during his address. "In major league baseball, we have little differences between the National League and the American League. We see differences in college football and the NFL, pro basketball and collegiate basketball." "If this state goes forward to modify MMA in the ways that are being proposed, aren't the other states likely to fall into line and create uniformity with California's rules?" Chairman Mears then asked Hendrick. "I think you would be on the outside looking in," he answered. "If you pass rules that are not uniform, you would get a lot of promoters trying to do things that would have you constantly policing them." Due to Commissioner Friersen's persistence (often pitting him at odds with Chairman Mears), timing became a hot topic as well, to the point where Chairman Mears created a timetable on the spot, as he had done at the August 2nd meeting, to ensure these modified regulations could make it through the system by the December 9th fiscal deadline. Crunching the numbers, CSAC counsel Anita Scurry accessed the modified rules could move through the system by the last week in November if all reviewing agencies involved utilized their mandated time periods and did not turn the regulations back at any point for clarification or scrutiny. It was at this time that DCA representative Nancy Hall approached the podium. "The regulations that came to Director Zettel's desk were regulations that had been going through the process and that she'd been familiar with," Hall spoke of the non-modified version. "She cautioned against the time frame at the last meeting, not specific to any points of policy, but to the time frame. We have these modifications that are before you today and the Director has not seen or does not know them. These three points have not been reviewed intensely by our office." In addition, Hall pointed out that one step of the approval process had been omitted by Scurry, and that undeterminable amount time must be added to Mear's time frame to allow for a review by the DCA Agency Secretary before it could pass onto the OAL, further jeopardizing its chance of passing through by the December 9th fiscal deadline. Throughout the meeting, Chairman Mear's obvious preference towards adopting the modifications was apparent and he reminded his colleagues that the reason these alterations were being addressed today was because he believed PRIDE had not been given sufficient opportunity to present these requests at previous meetings. In conclusion, he left his fellow Commissioners with this statement before they moved onto the voting. "Not damning Mr. Hendrick or his organization, but their objections, I believe, to these proposed modifications are proprietary," he stated. "Their objection to this is that there is a distinct and separate form of fighting style provided by PRIDE that is different than theirs and provide the consumer and customer with a different experience. The proposed modifications will allow PRIDE and other promoters a slightly different style of fighting that is not the UFC's style of fighting and to that extent, will create an alternative. That, I believe is the crux of the dispute and why we are having all this debate." Mears was the sole Commission member to vote in support of Sections 512 and 513. In his role of Chairman, he was prohibited from beginning a motion for Section 523. "As far as what happened today, it was unfortunate from our perspective," PRIDE's Altavilla commented on the Commission's majority decision to drop the modifications. "It wasn't what we expected, but we are very persistent and we will be bringing our event to California next year." Altavilla clarified that this will happen once their proposed amendments have been approved. |
| © 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. |