MMA IS Sacred: There Is a Reason For The Scrutiny of Georges St Pierre

I want to come clean about greasegate. I'm making this a bit of a crusade and here's why: I love MMA. Its the only sport I care about at all and in these dark economic times it actually gives my life a little bit of meaning and pleasure.
I've been meaning to write a series of essays called "MMA IS Sacred" for a little while now and I guess this incident will finally get me off my ass.
MMA is sacred because it's dangerous. Face it, injuries happen all the time and even death is a possibility in the cage. Like cliff diving, cave exploring, mountain climbing, football or parachuting, MMA is a sport that balances the possibility of awful risk against the possibility of great triumph.
MMA is sacred because it's clear. In a complicated world where we know we're getting screwed by somebody, but we can never quite figure out by whom, in MMA everyone knows what they're facing -- across the cage or ring is a very dangerous human being, intent on doing their worst. The pitfalls and triumphs of the fighters lets all of us who are trapped in more complicated circumstances against more nebulous foes live vicariously in a world where things are clear and make sense.
MMA is sacred because it has limitless possibilities. Its often said that MMA is to other combat sports as the great Chinese strategy game Go is to chess. While IBM computers can beat the best human chess players, they have yet to even be able to touch mediocre Go players. The complexity difference is that stark. Same thing with MMA. Fighters have to be prepared to face any technique from any sporting martial art. In the 16 years I've been watching this sport I've seen it evolve beyond anything I could have imagined and the reason I still love it is that its still evolving. Fighters like Lyoto Machida and Jon Jones, Shinya Aoki and Jorge Santiago, promising talents like Robert Drysdale and champions like Anderson Silva are all pushing the bounds of what even the most knowledgeable fan thought was possible. And yes, I'd include Georges St Pierre in that list, which is why I'm so bummed right now.
This doesn't have to do with B.J. Penn. This is about Georges St Pierre and Greg Jackson and the future of the sport.
I doubt many of you remember the dark ages of the UFC, back when Pat Militech was the lightweight champion.
I hated Pat Militech.
I respect him now for his contributions to the sport, but back in the day I booed my head off everytime he got near the cage.
Why?
Because his fights were utterly, painfully boring.
Pat is a master tactician and he wrung every advantage. He cut huge amounts of weight in an era when many fighters did not cut at all. He fought conservative gameplans, relying on his excellent wrestling to keep the fight standing and rarely taking the risks to go for a KO finish.
But one other thing really made me dislike Pat Militech: persistent rumors that he slathered himself in grease before and during fights.
And that's why I hate greasing. It ruins fights.
And if everyone does it we won't have MMA anymore, we'll have bad kickboxing.
I don't expect GSP and Greg Jackson and Phil Nurse to be punished for what they were caught doing by the NSAC.
I do expect that they be scrutinized heavily for what they've done in future fights because I don't want them to ever consider doing it again.
Georges St Pierre is a beautiful fighter. His skills, his willingness to learn, his strategies are things of beauty. But this taints him in my eyes. And that makes me sad. I've had a rough couple of years and watching GSP blossom has been a real bright spot in my life. No more.
As my colleague Brent Brookhouse IM'd me earlier (quoted with permission):
The thing that sucks is that a rematch does nothing. so there is no win here. Penn got his ass kicked and would have grease or not. GSP whopped that ass...but has the taint of the grease now. it is actually the one outcome that ruins the historic nature of that fight. which I almost wrote about but I just have no inspiration to write more about that situation
I saw a commenter earlier in one of our many threads on the topic say he didn't want to watch UFCs anymore after this. That the controversy had killed the high he felt Saturday. That's what cheating in a sacred arena like the octagon does, it kills the magic.
If we care about this sport, we have to be vigilant and ensure that no more great, epic, historical matchups are ruined by this kind of flagrant cheating.
As Ivan Trembow said:
Although the outcome of the fight would have likely been the same even if St. Pierre did have an advantage in Round 2, that does not make this a non-story. It has been amazing to see some people saying, "It didn’t affect the outcome of the fight, so it’s a non-issue that we should all stop talking about!" That is such backwards logic.
They are two different situations, but the stand-up agreement in the fight between Seth Petruzelli and Kimbo Slice didn’t affect the outcome of that fight because Petruzelli won by knockout anyway in 14 seconds. Were people saying after that fight, "It didn’t affect the outcome of the fight, so it’s a non-issue that we should all stop talking about"?
The role of the MMA blogosphere is to police the sport. We did a good job in StandGate and got Gary Shaw and $kala out of MMA. This is the same deal. Our goal: get vaseline out of the octagon.
Clearly we need rules changes. The rules we have now were largely written for boxing, that needs to change. Vaseline should probably only be applied to the eyebrows and to cuts, only in regulated amounts and only by cutmen working for the athletic commission.
Update: This unintentionally insightful quote from Cage Potato strikes me:
In order to believe that GSP has been greasing for the last three or four years -- against everyone from Matt Serra to Jason Miller -- you either have to believe that his trainers are some of the sneakiest Vaseline-applying jokers in the world (and they aren’t, obviously), or that the athletic commissions have been grossly incompetent in detecting it, if not downright complicit in allowing it.
Those explanations seem far-fetched, and yet the accusations keep coming. Somebody better go ask Pete Spratt if GSP felt greasy to him, too.
Its amazing to me that in this day and age when we can't trust the FDA, the SEC or the CIA that people are shocked that some state athletic commissions are grossly incompetent. LOL.
The only reason this came to light is because it was so grossly blatant that top UFC stars were outside the Octagon screaming at the commission.
The cumulative locker room talk of many bitter GSP opponents finally caught up with him and he got caught, red handed.
Greg Jackson apologized. So should GSP. But I really don't care if he does or not, as long as he never greases in a fight again.
4 recs |
335 comments
|
Comments
the more i watch these gifs, the more it looks like gsp uses his lower body (his legs and rear end to be specific) to get bj’s legs off of him, not his upperbody
by bdw on Feb 4, 2009 1:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I can tell you from firsthand experience of guys smashing the shit out of me at training then as soon as we are both sweaty, I slip out of EVERYTHING. These gifs simply look like a standard situation at the gym with two sweaty guys. If this was round 1 then I think this would be a better example.
Please show some examples of where BJ’s high guard sticks against someone covered in sweat.
by Benicio on Feb 4, 2009 2:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The above aren't really relevant to the post which is why I put them in the comments
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 12:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
how much of that is...?
I heard some interviews with GSP; some from watching those GIF’s how much of those escapes / control was down to technique? and how much was it down to being greasy?
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Easy to answer if Vaseline hadn't been applied.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am no expert but it looks like GSP reacts pretty much straight away pushing up and over BJ’s head trying to make his legs fall back down. The other BJ looses his grip on his leg going for mission control, and can’t seem to hold on to GSP head too.. I am not making excuses i am just trying to understand better…
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 12:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I could be wrong, but petroleum jelly seems to have a lubricating effect. Makes things slipperier. Add technique to less friction what do you get?
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 12:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I understand that;
What i don’t understand as well is what the correct technique is and if GSP followed that correctly; i am trying to understand all the elements to the situation. I am not defending or trying to lynch GSP i just want to know more.
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is absolutely nothing in any of these gifs that shows any evidence of greasing. There is nothing for BJ’s legs to hold on to. GSP is defending high guard in textbook fashion.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The sad part of this whole story is...
That it always takes something like this to happen in order to get things done. Why the commission has not changed the rules to better suit the current and future sport of MMA from what once was (when the rules were written) the red-headed poor cousin/step child of boxing.
I hope this really is a catalyst for change. This sports deserves better then to have something like this take away from how great of a sport it really is. I can only wish that People have the same reaction next time someone gets busted for PED’s and demand random drug tests all year round.
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 12:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Nice write up.
What bothers me is the fact that GSP would be able to target the thoracic cage much easier if BJ’s legs are slipping off attempting high guard. That happened in the second round, after Nurse slicked him up, but before the commission guys were able to try and swipe off the grease starting after this round.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 12:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sorry you lost me – when GSP was targeting BJ’s thoracic cage didn’t that have to do with his knee strikes when he gained side control? I’m not entirely sure if GSP actually went for a thoracic cage strike immediately after BJ’s legs slipped off the shoulders attempting high guard, but correct me if I’m wrong
by Noc on Feb 4, 2009 3:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He struck BJ in the body repeatedly from top position. BJ attempted high guard, slipped off, Georges raised up and struck down at his chest repeatedly.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 3:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Georges St Pierre is a beautiful fighter. His skills, his willingness to learn, his strategies are things of beauty. But this taints him in my eyes. And that makes me sad. I’ve had a rough couple of years and watching GSP blossom has been a real bright spot in my life. No more.
Clearly we need rules changes. The rules we have now were largely written for boxing, that needs to change. Vaseline should probably only be applied to the eyebrows and to cuts, only in regulated amounts and only by cutmen working for the athletic commission.
It strikes me that you’re conflating two issues here. Either GSP and co. are cheaters, and the rules are fine, or GSP is not a cheater, and we need to adjust the rules to better represent what the sport should be about. GSP can’t both be a cheater and the rules need to change to reflect that. I don’t see why you feel this taints his win and his skills and strategies. I don’t want Nurse and Jackson to grease him up anymore, but this is an issue with the rules and regulations of the sport, not the individuals.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 12:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I don't give two shits about the letter of the NSAC regulations
I care about the spirit of the sport.
GSP broke covenant with that.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bah to the spirit of the sport. The spirit of the sport is fair competition as laid out by specific rules. You think its fair to grapplers that fighters have gloves? Or to wrestlers they can’t headbutt and fight on a soft mat? Or to strikers that. . . forget strikers.
No breaking the rules, no breaking the spirit. Though I agree they should ban vaseline entirely. Don’t want to get cut, don’t get hit.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL at your logic. GSP didn’t break any covenant of the sport. The miniscule amount of vaseline transferred to his body is in no way any more significant than vaseline transferred from fighter to fighter during the natural course of a fight.
This is neither an issue as it pertains to the actual NSAC rules, nor is it an issue in practicality of fighting considering the presence of vaseline on fighters to begin with.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 9:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i agee. take vaseline out of mma, that way no fighter will have an excuse after gsp kicks their ass.
by bdw on Feb 4, 2009 12:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
here! here!
that’s what I’m talking about.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 12:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s “hear! hear!” Short for “hear him.”
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Feb 4, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I did learn from his posts! Its an mostly useless post, but I’m glad he shared!
I don’t mind Vaseline in better regulation. Before the fight and to head cuts only.
by natyong on Feb 4, 2009 2:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vaseline is needed...
for the face…getting rid of it is only going to lead to a crapload of cut stoppages going forward
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed.
it should be limited though to the absolute minimum.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 9:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think there needs to be any change to the amount used on the face. The refs routinely ask for excessive amounts (globs hanging off the face) to be wiped off. The rules need to be made clear that A) no amount of vaseline on the body is legal and B) only independent cutmen may handle vaseline in the corner.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 9:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Very thoughtful write up.
Thank you. This whole affair has not killed the magic of MMA for me personally. I agree that GSP is a beautiful fighter. I think the solution that you present is reasonable. No vaseline except for the cut man. But I like Machida’s approach; Don’t let it get to the second round and vaseline is a non-issue. : )
"Stop smiling you are about to be punched in the face !"
by Warhand on Feb 4, 2009 12:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Indeed!
Very well written article!
I wonder how much outrage there would be if it wasn’t GSP who was the one with Vaseline on his back. What if it was, say, Rashad Evans? What if it were Machida? B.J.? Brock Lesnar? The very fact that it was GSP — the humble, quiet French Canadian who slaves away in the gym — and not some brash, loud-mouthed fighter may have blinded a few people, I think.
Regardless of the fact that GSP was pounding B.J. into oblivion anyway, it’s such a shame that many people will look back and only remember the fact that GSP had Vaseline on his back.
by Randomus on Feb 4, 2009 12:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
This is something I was talking to Nate about over IMs.
The MMA media pounced on StandGate because they wanted the company to fail whether they wanted to admit it or not. But with GSP, you have a fighter who has crossover potential. A fighter with exceptional well-rounded skills. An athletic freak. It’s hard not to like the guy. So, it’s understandable that those in the position to bring him down would be wary to taint his image.
Even I find myself not wanting to tear him down off the pedestal. And I’m not even that huge of a GSP fan.
by Mike Fagan on Feb 4, 2009 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Adversely, Tall Poppy syndrome is also applicable.
by Benicio on Feb 4, 2009 2:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing that is so upsetting to me is that everyone is saying these things months or years after George beat them…and badly…if it is cheating, they should have said something during the fight…it just seems ridiculous to me that they are all coming out now…say it when it happened or shut up…it makes them sound bitter…and I don’t think it’s fair to talk about GSP like he disgraced the sport…we don’t even know for sure if there was definitely grease on or not..it’s a he said he said thing. Greg Jackson never apologized for greasing…he said he didn’t think they did it at all and I think this whole thing has gotten WAY out of hand.
by jwolf5554 on Feb 4, 2009 12:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
that’s a canard. Look at the reaction against B.J. — and that was AFTER the commission charged into the octagon in mid-fight, Dana White said the cornerman should never corner again and Chuck Liddell was seen screaming at the side of the Octagon.
If you lost a fight without all of that why on Earth would you come out and say anything?
They’re saying something now and that’s all we have to go on.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 12:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
and i think it’s all the better if they do something about vaseline in the octagon and all. But while BJ received a lot of hate (i know i do hate his camp a lot), the same goes for GSP who is now being accused without any real proof or evidence. People are assuming A LOT of things at this point. It’s frustrating for everyone.
by NinjaCodah on Feb 4, 2009 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think if the rules were explicit then this would be a non issue; the problem comes that the rules are so fuzzy that it leaves room for this sort of thing to come up.
I guess it could be argued that as cornermen GSP’s team were doing their job giving their fighter every advantage within the rules as they understood them.
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 12:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed completely. I find it hypocritical nonsense to give a fuzzy set of rules that are largely arbitrary in the first place, expect fighters to push themselves to the limit to win under the skillset, then act all high-and-mighty when the fuzziness of the rules results in actions that don’t seem to fit the “spirit of the sport.” The spirit of the sport is raw competition, pure and unadulterated. The onus lies first on the rules to be clear, then on the fighter to follow the rules. When the rules aren’t clear, the fighter should be absolved.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 12:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Keith Kizer has stated pretty clearly that the actions were illegal.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 12:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I’ve seen in other threads that there are no rules that specifically and clearly state what the legality of using vaseline, beyond “not too much” or something like that.
If there clearly is a very specific rule that shows that what they were doing is illegal, then forget what all I’ve said. But nobody has pulled the rule out. Anything beyond that is “spirit of the sport,” which as I’ve explained is hypocritical nonsense.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or more specifically, getting angry at a fighter for “spirit of the sport” rulebreaking is hypocritical nonsense. If they broke a rule, they broke a rule. If they didn’t break a rule, you can’t get angry at them for doing everything they can to win. Thats the spirit of sports. Pushing yourself to the limit, in every way possible.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kizer said he felt an “avoidable incident” has cast a negative cloud on arguably the biggest night in the sport’s history.
“I think it definitely hurts St. Pierre a little bit because people will always wonder if it had any impact or not,” he said.
“I don’t think it had much of one, but it shouldn’t have happened at all. Obviously it’s illegal and definitely unfortunate to Penn and also unfortunate to St. Pierre.”
http://m.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/feb/03/grease-gate-clouds-st-pierres-dominant-win/
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t go on Kizer’s word. Find the actual rule. Nobody has yet.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The rule uses the word excessive. The commission can determine that any Vaseline applied to the body is excessive.
Kizer is the head of the NSAC, is he not qualified?
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The rule uses the word excessive. The commission can determine that any Vaseline applied to the body is excessive.
What does excessive mean, beyond some arbitrary designation that the commission decides on the spot? If they decide on the spot and clean it off, wheres the rule-breaking?
Kizer is the head of the NSAC, but that doesn’t automatically make him the “God of Rules” or something. As we’ve seen lately, the ACs are hideously corrupt and poorly run.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol
you should be a criminal defense attorney.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL.
My entire family are attorneys, actually.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They were not able to clean it off after Nurse greased him up between rds 1 and 2, after Kizer witnessed that they jumped in after rd 2 and 3. Repeat, GSP entered round 2 with Vaseline from Nurses’ hands without any attempt at “wiping it away”.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Repeat, GSP entered round 2 with Vaseline from Nurses’ hands without any attempt at "wiping it away".
So its now GSP and his crew’s obligation to check with the commission every time they decide to do something?
Its the commission’s obligation to make the rule clear and enforce. They failed. Thats the story coming out of this, to me.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I get your thinking, GSP and his corner applied the grease but the commission failed to stop him, so that means it’s cool.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes it is, because according to your definition, excessive grease is grease that the commission objects to. If the commission doesn’t object, it isn’t excessive. I don’t actually think thats correct, but thats what your own argument leads to.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think excessive grease is grease the commission objects to, also excessive grease can judged to have occurred whether or not the fighter was stopped before entering the bout or round. Evidence gathered and investigated at a later time can be determinative. ie video tape or video file.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think excessive grease is grease the commission objects to,
But if the commission is the one that decides, then excessive is only determined when the decision is made. Its been a little while since I’ve taken any legal class, but my understanding is that there are extremely few laws, or perhaps none at all, that are used to retroactively make a person guilty of a crime.
As that applies to this case, if the commission decides afterward that it was too much vaseline, it doesn’t matter at all. It wasn’t too much vaseline until the commission decided it was and made their opininion known, which was after round 2. Not before.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it would be very wise
for the UFC / GSP and Co to lobby the commission to change the rules them selves; it would pretty much make this issue go away.
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 1:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think they should lobby for the rule to be “clarified,” thats the exact term they should use. It makes it look like the greasing was the result of not understanding unclear rules, which to a degree it was by definition.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah ^^ what you said..
I couldn’t remember the correct term for it…
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
except that they have pretty clearly stated that what they did was a “mistake”, that they did not do it intentionally 3 rounds in a row.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You really expect them to say “yeah, we did it, and fuck all of you guys who think that was bad! Yeah, thats right! Fuck you!”
Its damage control, which has little bearing on what they actually did.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s actually what I’ve been saying.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That what they have been saying is damage control.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 2:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“Kizer said that the amount of Vaseline he saw applied didn’t seem terribly excessive but that no amount of the substance should have ever been used on the fighter’s body.”
It can’t be illegal if the NSAC rules state it’s only illegal if it’s excessive…Kizer’s contradicting himself.
And yes, remove vaseline entirely or just give it to cutmen
by Noc on Feb 4, 2009 3:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t mind things that make the sport more fun to watch.
Shinya Aoki pants for example, no problem.
greasing kills the fun.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 1:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
so does getting kicked in the balls.
eyepokes, etc…
by NinjaCodah on Feb 4, 2009 1:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Weight-cutting killed the fun, until everybody started cutting weight. The sport adapts. If everybody were greased up, it’d be kickboxing, but thats also a sport that people like. If you don’t want people to grease, make the rule damn clear, don’t get pissy at people who do what they can to win under the existing rules. Nobody called Machida a cheater for running like crazy, they just yelled at him to start fighting.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and that's what i'm doing
I’m yelling at GSP to stop greasing and to the commissions to clarify the rules.
Ultimately Kizer is the rules decider, he said it was illegal.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ultimately Kizer is the rules decider, he said it was illegal.
Thats nonsense and you know it. If Kizer decides afterwards “hey! That was illegal!” then they shouldn’t do it again. But prior to the action, the behavior is determined by what the rules say, not by whats going on in Kizer’s head.
I’m yelling at GSP to stop greasing and to the commissions to clarify the rules.
I’m all for the rules being changed. But this moral highground regarding GSP’s actions is nonsense.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point is the rules as guidelines fail completely; If the commission takes any action it wouldn’t make it through a court the rules provide no structure to use if someone has greased.
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with this. Its a huge failure of the commissions, and I find it objectionable to get angry at the fighters for the failures of the commission. Its the fighter’s job to win, its the commission’s job to establish rules and see to it they are followed.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Assumptions
Everybody is making the assumption that the corners had never been told before hand that it was excessive. A bunch of fighters knew it ways wrong, Dana says it was wrong, the AC says it was wrong, etc. Who in the sport didn’t know that using vasoline on places other than cuts, eyebrows, ears and (gray area) the face is illegal.
These are professional LICENSED cornerman. The commission informs the fighters and cornermen of these things in rules meetings and in referee instructions before the fight.
Does everything have to be in the rules in black and white? MMA is dynamic that’s why I enjoy it. Is a mouthguard in the rules? What if you have no teeth. Do you even need one? Can you still lose points for it coming out?
I haven’t seen any fighters, corners, Promoters, and regulators making this argument. Has Phil Nurse or Greg Jackson made this arguement? It seems from the article of Sherdog that even Greg Jackson would be upset if someone greased a back intentionally.
by natyong on Feb 4, 2009 3:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn’t shock me if Jackson would be. Yes, everything has to be written in black and white.
I don’t personally think one way or another whether or not Jackson or Nurse or GSP had intent or knowledge, nor do I have any idea what was the actual amount used.
I’m just pointing out the complete and total hypocrisy of loving a sport of men competing under a specific set of rules that are basically arbitrary, then getting pissy because of the possibility the fighter might have bent the rule a little bit. Its not the fighter’s job to interpret fuzzy rules or determine what exactly is ok to do based on some hazy notion of what’s legal. Its the fighter’s job to do the absolute best job he can based on clearly delineated rules and obligations.
Let me ask you this. We ALL can see what happened: Nurse rubbed vaseline on GSP’s face, then proceeded to move downward to rub GSP’s body. It seems likely that there may have been vaseline on Nurse’s hands when he rubbed GSP’s shoulders, though we aren’t certain.
We ALL can see thats what happened. If thats illegal, why hasn’t anything happened yet?
Answer: because theres nothing in writing, which means all the implicit claims about whats legal and what is not is just a bunch of bullshit. These issues came up because the commission has done a shit job.
It really isn’t rocket science, either. Ban vaseline entirely, or only allow cutmen to use it. We came up with those quick, easy solutions to the problem within a space of about a day. So why haven’t they been implemented, years ago?
Incompetence. Straight up, pure and simple.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 4:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guilty until proven innocent in a Court of Law?
Uhm. The constitution isn’t all black in white. Many things in it were left vague on purpose. Same thing with any rules book. There is a reason that there is a need for a referee, Judges, A commission, a ring doctor, etc.
Do we need a written guideline for a doctor that describe which cuts in length, depth, direction, location, genetics, existing scar tissue, etc. What about all the variations. NO!
We ALL can see thats what happened. If thats illegal, why hasn’t anything happened yet? Uhm, as the title of this post due process? It’s America after all.
It really isn’t rocket science, either. Ban vaseline entirely, or only allow cutmen to use it. We came up with those quick, easy solutions to the problem within a space of about a day. So why haven’t they been implemented, years ago? [sarcasm]Thank God for Keyboard Warrior nation.[/sarcasm]
You do make a good point in your 3rd paragraph, but then what’s different when you expand your arguement to other dynamic and “arbitrary” sports such as Gymnastics, Diving, Ice Skating, Boxing, or any other sport that has multiple judges. Athlete’s that are so concerned with the rules need to find a new sport such as Bocce, Chess, or someone mentioned Go in a latter comment. Athlete’s don’t care about this stuff, keyboard warriors and degenerate gamblers do. I’m in the first group cause I’m broke and can’t afford a bottle of maple syrup.
by natyong on Feb 4, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Moral highgrounding is done whether people like it or not. Fighters and fans seem to be of the same mind that to apply lubricants to your body before a bout or between rounds is “cheating”, otherwise why are there so many defenders of GSP stating that “it was wiped away so it’s not a problem”.
Very few, only the ones who are really willing to publicly admit that GSP had Vaseline on him in the bout are trying this technical argument. My gut tells me that GSP and Jackson will not be publicly trying to make the case that usage of Vaseline is A-OK and they were careful to not use it excessively.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Moral highgrounding is done whether people like it or not.
Still makes it nonsense.
They aren’t going to talk about it publicly because people are freaking out. But its still ridiculous to expect a fighter to do everything they can to win, then get angry when they, you know, do.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I am not really defending GSP; i think it was stupid of his cornermen to be so careless
I am pointing out for muddy this sort of thing can be; if action was taken against GSP i would think it would not be hard to defend in court. If it was illegal it should be an open and shut case.
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mayhem Miller complained in the middle of his fight with GSP, Sherk shortly after his, and Serra gave the BJ camp a heads up before this weekend.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To be honest the discussions of this took more away from MMA than the actual issue did. I agree that something needs to be done and like the idea of only the cut men having access to the Vaseline but what really came tot he forefront for me was that many of the so called “true” fans of the sport are incapable of having an intelligent conversation about something like this without resorting to ugly behavior. It didn’t take away from my enjoyment or MMA at all but it did take away from my want to discuss the sport. All credit to the people running this site for trying to keep discussions civil and logical, your patience and hard work is commendable in the face of this crap storm.
by who me on Feb 4, 2009 12:57 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
This controversy is going to stick around with the hardcore fans forever same as their last split decision and the two disagreeing sides will never see eye to eye on the issue, but this will fade away and the mainstream will soon forget about it.
Everyone talks about how huge GSP vs Alves will be but rarely does anyone bring up that Thiago Alves was overweight for the Hughes fight and didn’t tell Hughes so he had to cut all his weight and also was caught using diuretics help him cut weight a couple of years ago. To me the amount GSP had put on him (before being wiped twice) would’ve affected the match about the same as when a fighter with poor BJJ repeatedly grabs the fence, just enough times to not get penalized, to prevent a good BJJ guy from getting top control. Another example could be Penn grabbing Hughes’ shorts to get back control in their second fight. Could it affect the out come of the fight? Possibly. Is it right? No. Will the commission review it after the fight and change the outcome? No.
I think would be a good idea for cutmen to be in charge of vaseline and Phil Nurse will probably only get a slap on the wrist if there is a complaint made but I don’t see much else happening. If you lose respect for GSP and his abilities and don’t rank him in the elite of MMA I think you will be in the minority. I will still be his fan regardless and this will not stop me from watching MMA in the least.
I will be curious to see what Fitch has to say as he never had his guard passed in the UFC until GSP fought him.
by schwaa on Feb 4, 2009 1:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
No I think it is important that they all said he greased, yet are only NOW saying it…wrong is wrong and if they felt that way they should have acted like MEN and said something…I think this whole thing is insane
by jwolf5554 on Feb 4, 2009 1:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Mayhem wrote a magazine article about it years ago
Sherk complained at the time.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 1:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Grep Jackson and GSP were smart
They would lobby the commission to have the rules changed; it would take tall the steam out of the sails.
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 1:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
THen why didn’t anyone make a big deal about it then? If it’s so awful it was awful then too…so fans think it’s okay until it happens to BJ?
by jwolf5554 on Feb 4, 2009 1:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
lol
you’re missing the point.
GSP got caught red handed by the commission and Dana White.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t understand the position you’re taking where you are assuming this was intentional cheating by GSP. Assuming state of mind is a crazy position.
My position has always been that vaseline should be banned from the Octagon as a result of this. Trying to act like GSP is intentionally cheating is just taking a position you can’t know and assuming it to be true. The focus on trying to blame actually takes away from a rule change, now the meeting will focus on St. Pierre’s intentions under the rules instead of the rules themselves. Of course, we will end with a report saying it’s all inconclusive.
In the end, this is something that will be a complete non-issue to 99% of fans. The idea that GSP is “tainted” is limited to hardcores that believe he cheated, which are a miniscule number that have virtually no effect on the sport.
The only long term effect this story can have is a change in the rules barring vaseline altogether, and probably the end of the breathing technique camp Jackson uses.
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 1:32 AM EST up reply actions 11 recs
The intentions of the fighter are irrelevant, otherwise fighters would just be hiring cornermen and cut men as fall guys.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this is bogus. Every criminal system in the world is based on intent. If we’re going to try to taint a guy and call him a cheater, the intent is paramount to the charge. Similarly, hiring someone to do something on your behalf counts as intent under any criminal law standard.
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 1:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the point, you can’t get into a man’s mind therefore you can’t let the excuse be that “I didn’t know what my corner was doing to me”. Sport regulation 101.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But the rule is spotty. That makes intent paramount.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Think of steroids, a fighter claims he never knowingly took them- he blames his trainer for putting them in his shakes or something. Fighter goes free?
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
God, how many times must you make the fallacy of assuming the mens rea for all crimes is the same?
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
dualdiagnosis
what is it that you want to happen out of this situation. you’ve posted about like a thousand times. do you just simply want vaseline to be banned from the sport, or do you want to find some sort of redemption for bj being dominated. do you want a big heart filled apology from gsp and for him to say that he dint win fair and square. i dont think you’ve ever really said. come clean.
by bdw on Feb 4, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bdw,
On another post, I asked him if he had lost money on the fight and go no reply. Maybe he’s hoping the fight will be declared a no contest and he can get his lunch money back.
by pharmboy on Feb 4, 2009 9:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You keep bandying that about, “intent is paramount to the charge”, as if it were true.
The intent does not come into play at all in cases involving driving while intoxicated, ignorance of the law, driving through a red light, animal abuse, etc etc on adsurdum.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 2:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ll let Rome continue to tear you apart, since he’s actually a law guy. You’re out of your league, though.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ha, you’ve named virtually all the exceptions. In any comparable crime, such as conspiracy, bribery, or any other kind of cheating, knowledge is usually the required mens rea.
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 2:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is pretty basic, but for 99% of crimes you need an actus reus and mens rea to convict. The actus reus is the act, the mens rea is the intent. The level of the intent varies, and usually is laid out in the statute. Here’s a clue: the fact that Kizer says there’s nothing else they can do suggests the mens rea here is “intentional,” and he doesn’t believe that is the case.
There are some exceptions such as parking tickets, running a red light, etc. All for administrative convenience. Here’s another clue: they are all things you do, not things done to you.
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 2:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think I finally have to tap out of this subject. It’s getting exhausting having to explain the basics of the criminal justice system to people intent on having a Saudi-style justice system.
My position is I think the rule was broken, but it was not broken by St. Pierre, it was broken by Greg Jackson and Phil Nurse. This is why Keith Kizer won’t do anything, he doesn’t believe GSP did it on purpose, and the people citing him over and over need to stop being so selective about using him as support.
Since St. Pierre didn’t do it, to try to taint him as some kind of horribly caught cheater you need to have evidence he was involved in a conspiracy to cheat. If you don’t have it, you’re either grasping at straws or an old fan that can’t handle the fact that BJ Penn’s guard got wasted Saturday night. If you do have it, I’d like to see it. As far as I can tell, St. Pierre is a model citizen and good person, and I’m not going to sit here and assume guilt.
In the end we need a rule change. Only cut men should be allowed to have vaseline. By trying to go after St. Pierre’s character, we’re missing the whole point here.
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 2:08 AM EST up reply actions 9 recs
Nice end cap. You might wanna reprint this on the front page, since not everyone will see your comments. I’ll go to sleep wishing for logic and reason to win out over, well, everything else. And good night!
by pud333 on Feb 4, 2009 2:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s great, but this has nothing to do with the American justice system. The NSAC has it’s own rules and regulations separate and apart from the State or Federal system of law, comparing excessive Vaseline to murder or felony assault is ridiculous.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 2:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not always true
Look at assisted suicide. Whether it is for good intentions or not you will be criminally prosecuted.
by zeroword on Feb 4, 2009 8:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Intent is everything. It’s what distinguishes certain crimes from others, and why one crime can carry one penalty and another similar one a completely different one. No one knows GSP’s intent.
by pud333 on Feb 4, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t understand the position you’re taking where you are assuming this was intentional cheating by GSP. Assuming state of mind is a crazy position.
Thank you!
by pud333 on Feb 4, 2009 1:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if i'm playing poker and get caught with four aces up my sleeve
no one asks what my intentions were.
its self-evident what he was doing.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 1:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is like the singapore criminal system version of justice.
In every western criminal system, you need intent for every single crime besides statutory rape. Assuming action = guilt is ridiculous, especially when the action was something done to you by someone else.
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this isn't a criminal matter
it’s a frigging sporting contest.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 9:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And you are impinging on a man’s honor by implying that he knowingly cheated when there is no evidence to prove intent at all.
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yup
My intention is for the level of scrutiny and suspicion on GSP to be so high that he’ll never even consider greasing in future fights.
"the spirit of your average dumbass"
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your statement assumes, again incorrectly, that GSP considered greasing in this fight.
In fact, GSP didn’t even effectively grease in this fight.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Could you put something on your post saying this then?
“I am attacking GSP’s character with no evidence to try and keep the integrity of the sport I love.”
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Really? Statutory rape is the only one? What about manslaughter? Or negligent homicide? And in any case, Nate is right. This isn’t a criminal case.
by FRANKIE on Feb 4, 2009 11:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fighters getting popped for steroids is not criminal and intent is not discussed so why is this any different?
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
by lovingmma25 on Feb 4, 2009 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So are you saying GSP basically told his cornerman to help him cheat in front of everyone, including Jackson?
by pud333 on Feb 4, 2009 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What if someone else put those aces up your sleeve and you were not complicit in it? Better yet, what if the rulebook allowed the use of aces up the sleeve only specifiying it couldn’t be an “excessive amount” of aces?
by ufc4 on Feb 4, 2009 1:44 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
only specifiying it couldn’t be an "excessive amount" of aces?
Awesome.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But it’s a serious question, if that were the rules would it still be considered cheating?
by ufc4 on Feb 4, 2009 1:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is a serious question, and it totally destroys Nate’s argument.
The rule as stated depends on a purely subjective determininant of what is excessive. If a guy coated in oil comes out to the octagon, and he thinks that isn’t excessive, he’s following the rules according to his understanding of them. Its the commission’s obligation to clarify, and in this instance they failed.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, Nate is trying to argue that he knows exactly what GSP and his camp were thinking, that they intentionally broke a rule that doesn’t even exist. Even if they did this intentionally, which we have no way of knowing, he still, technically, did nothing wrong. Does that make it morally right? No, but it also doesn’t mean they can arbitrarily hand out punishments for something that is not against the specific rules of the sport. It just means the rules need to be cleaned up.
by ufc4 on Feb 4, 2009 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what a load of horsepucky
the commission didn’t go charging into the cage in the middle of one of the biggest fights ever because angels were dancing on the head of a pin or lawyers were parsing verbs.
This doesn’t “depend on what the meaning of is is”, this was flagrant bullshit and they got caught.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 9:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The commission seemed to do something akin to that by demanding the vasoline application be stopped immediately and he be wiped off between rounds. Ultimately, they and they alone decide what “excessive” application is of creams, gels, etc. Arguing that it doesn’t meet the criteria for a criminal conviction is a gross misunderstanding of what power the athletic commissions have, much less the rights of professional fighters.
by D.Capitated on Feb 4, 2009 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i was going to type almost the exact same thing. so i guess i agree.
by #5mmafan on Feb 4, 2009 6:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is, I think we probably agree on more than it seems.
It’s fairly clear to me the spirit of the regulation was broken. The thing is, it wasn’t a blatant fence grab, loading a glove, taking steroids, an eyepoke, a low blow, or holding aces up your sleeve. These are all things the contestant or player does himself. The clear distinction here is this is something done to the fighter. In that case, intent means everything, because these are not his actions. I think this is very basic criminal law in terms of principles. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills in a world with people who believe in a justice system where accused can be convicted due to something done to them by someone else when there’s no evidence of intent.
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And this is why I find it offensive to say “GSP was caught red-handed” or he was caught cheating. The rule was probably broken. Taking the former position is making a moral judgment with no proof of intent.
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 1:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I must have got that same prescription. I never realized so many people were mind readers and that in America, it’s guilty until proven innocent. Just astounding.
by pud333 on Feb 4, 2009 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
guilty after being caught in the act
and being condemned by both Kizer and Dana White.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 9:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Caught making a mistake and being careless.
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 10:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as long as he doesn't do it again
"the spirit of your average dumbass"
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Condemned?
By Kizer’s own words, the application wasn’t a violation.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is no “conviction”, though, as there is no trial and no jury to determine this. If the NSAC wanted to press forward and suspend everyone involved, they very well could, using the same logic for doing so as the CSAC would Margarito and the (alleged) loaded hand wraps made by his trainer. The argument that GSP wouldn’t somehow be aware that he’s getting vasoline put all over his body has as much validity as “I didn’t know she was a hooker!” or “How could I have known the car stereo being sold in that box truck was stolen? I just thought it was a good deal!”
by D.Capitated on Feb 4, 2009 8:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
In this country
there are tons of things you can go to jail for regardless of your actual “intent”. Loading a glove could be done by ones corner, so how would the intent fall on the fighter? Oh yeah, because he hires them!
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You cannot dismiss
that this may have been done on purpose because you cannot prove it, really? Lets just throw out every story until polygraphs become 100% conclusive.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Question, how close is this comment to fighter bashing?
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No he didn’t…they don’t know…they said it LOOKED like it…that’s the point
by jwolf5554 on Feb 4, 2009 1:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying there was absolutely no grease…it’s the fact that they DON’T know if there was grease applied…hence why he was WIPED DOWN TWICE
by jwolf5554 on Feb 4, 2009 1:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I just think crucifying GSP is going overboard….
by jwolf5554 on Feb 4, 2009 1:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I knew there was some messianic fervor in the defense of this. LOL
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So what are we to take from this? A) GSP cheated. B) The commission is incompetent. C) The rules need to be changed. D) All of the above.
I don’t know. This whole thing just makes me sick. I still don’t think there was any intent to cheat, as Greg Jackson says, it would be really stupid of them to do so with all the cameras around. There are still so many holes on both sides of the argument, cause neither side can prove otherwise. The problem is, the NSAC rules just suck, and when you have a governing body that runs on rules made out of swiss cheese, it means you have inherent, systematic problems that need to be fixed. It’s like a government with a faulty constitution.
by pud333 on Feb 4, 2009 1:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
it means you have inherent, systematic problems that need to be fixed.
Ding ding ding!
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Since everyone was asking
Here is the actual rule in the books:
2. The excessive use of grease or any other foreign substance may not be used on the face or body of an unarmed combatant. The referees or the Commission’s representative in charge shall cause any excessive grease or foreign substance to be removed.
So by this definition, a fighter who comes out with a big glob of vaseline on his face and doesn’t get it wiped off (and who hasn’t seen that) is cheating. There is nothing there that defines “excessive” and therefore there is nothing that can be done. I would go as far as to say it doesn’t even specify that grease can’t be used on the body, just that it can’t be “excessive”. I know that isn’t what they mean but if we are strictly going by the letter of the law he technically did nothing wrong.
by ufc4 on Feb 4, 2009 1:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Now if the rule read :
2. Petroleum jelly may only be applied to the eye brows, nose and cheeks of a fighter at the start of the fight or in between rounds.Grease or any other foreign substance may not be used on the face or body of an unarmed combatant. The commission or referee must supervise all application of petroleum jelly. Excessive grease must be removed before the fight can continue.
That would make the situation a lot clearer…
by Beren on Feb 4, 2009 1:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly, but there’s the problem- it doesn’t say that. Nowhere does it say you can’t have grease on your back or shoulders. If something is not against the rules how can they hand out a punishment for it after the fact?
by ufc4 on Feb 4, 2009 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Or rather, they can’t hand out punishment for it, not without completely going against the soul of the justice system. That won’t necessarily stop them, but the justice system doesn’t do that sort of thing for a damn good reason.
by Michaelthebox on Feb 4, 2009 1:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ive seen this rule posted several times since sat night, on numerous sites, it doesn’t seem to matter to the gsp detractors.
by bdw on Feb 4, 2009 1:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It matters because excessive can be defined as any amount above zero.
by dualdiagnosis on Feb 4, 2009 1:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure it can. But when a statute does not define excessive, as it should, it leaves way too much of an opening. As opposed to: Vaseline may only be applied to the face. Anything else is a rule violation.
by Michael Rome on Feb 4, 2009 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
any amount above zero? where does it say that in the rule? now your’e just making shit up.
by bdw on Feb 4, 2009 1:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“Excessive” is all subjective. This is why it’s such a problem.
by pud333 on Feb 4, 2009 2:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
EXCESSIVE: exceeding what is usual,proper, or normal.
thats the exact definetion of the word, not ANY AMOUNT ABOVE ZERO. so does this define what gsp cornermen did? not imo.
by bdw on Feb 4, 2009 2:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just something I realized...
… Saturday, Sunday, Monday… This is the third late night in a row I’ve spent discussing Grease-gate. This goes beyond the time I spent on Fitch-gate, or Stand-gate. I will never get that part of my life back. My girlfriend is right: I am obsessed.
by pud333 on Feb 4, 2009 1:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
what we need in order to forget this is
to see someone chugging an entire bottle of maple syrup!
by NinjaCodah on Feb 4, 2009 1:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
an EXCESSIVELY large bottle of maple syrup!
by Benicio on Feb 4, 2009 2:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to forget this but...
Where is that video of the maple syrup?
by natyong on Feb 4, 2009 3:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They need to re-define the rule.
1) Vaseline can only be applied by someone outside of the ring.
2) If a fighter requires a “touch up” between round he can go to the side of the ring and have the same person who did it before the fight do it again.
3) Anything but water is banned inside the octagon for a fighters rest period between rounds.
4) No tweaking of the nipples with vaseline as this limits the versatility of the triple decker pecker wrecker.
by DirtyML on Feb 4, 2009 2:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
BE is dangerously close to becoming like Sherdog this week.
10 threads on the same topic all arguing the same point going round in circles.
by Benicio on Feb 4, 2009 2:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
And all because three or four people continue to stir the shit, and for whatever reason people continue to reply to them with the same replies they have the past few days.
by mythbuster on Feb 4, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love you Myth,
but if this was anyone else being accused of this you would be up in arms. You are wrong about letting this go.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You and the three others talk in circles because you can’t stand that you’re wrong.
by mythbuster on Feb 4, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Take off your GSP glasses
& think reasonably.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yup, everyone else is a BJ hater and a GSP lover. Only you three have it right.
by mythbuster on Feb 4, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nate, I love and respect your enthusiasm for the sport, but you way off base here. It seems to me that you are blatantly saying GSP and his corner cheated and you feel his performance is tainted because of the whole grease gate. Why are you not seeing it as an honest yet stupid mistake? When Big Foot Silva was suspended for steroids and presented proof of his innocence, you had previous posts “supporting his innocence” or the “CSAC is screwing him.” Now, I am not saying he is guilty or that the CSAC is need of a major overhaul, I am asking you if you are giving Big Foot the benefit of the doubt, why not GSP, why not see this as an honest mistake? With Big Foot, how do you know he innocent>? He could of probably been juicing and hope it would be out of his system, by the time of his fight. He presented his case to the CSAC, but his suspension. Sean Sherk has at least some credibility because he was reduced to six months. It was not the result he wanted, but he presented strong case where he was overturned (partially) and Big Foot was not.
And, if we are going to taint wins, let’s put an asterisk on Josh Barnett title win over Couture, or Sean Sherks’s win over Florian and his title defense against Franca (well bad example seeing how Franca tested positive too), Brock Lesnar win over Randy, seeing he probably blatantly grabbed cage (I believe it was an accident, but never know).
Zach, over at Fight Opinion should be the last to talk about tainted wins, why does he never discuss his boy Barnett,
by The Bronzeville Bully on Feb 4, 2009 2:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to get reamed for this
but steroids are against the rules and they’re improving the testing procedures. the guys who get caught already get punished AND get crucified by the fans.
I’m just trying to do a little vigilante action here so Jackson and GSP change their ways.
And maybe, just maybe the commissions will change the rules.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 9:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Intent is never in question when a fighter pops for steroids – it’s clear cut – you popped for steroids you get punished, whether you meant to or not.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
by lovingmma25 on Feb 4, 2009 10:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
excellent point
"the spirit of your average dumbass"
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not remotely the same scenario.
Use of vaseline is not prohibited. Use of steroids is prohibited.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Vaseline is allowed to the face only, the rest of the body is prohibited.
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
by lovingmma25 on Feb 4, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No it is not. Do you even know the rule?
Non excessive amounts are allowed to both the face and body. It’s clearly stated in the NSAC rules.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And anything more than none is excessive, as stated by the head of the NSAC.
by FRANKIE on Feb 4, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Kizer said that the amount used was not, in fact, excessive.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can you supply Kizer’s quotes where he said the amount applied was “illegal”.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s all over every thread on this board right now, but I’ll dig it up and post it here.
by FRANKIE on Feb 4, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Although to be fair, I don’t see him use the word “illegal” in there. He does, however, use “improper” and also says if they’re ever caught doing the same thing again they’ll probably be barred from cornering in Nevada.
by FRANKIE on Feb 4, 2009 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right. He didn’t say it was illegal. Improper is not the same as illegal. It’s important to be accurate in relaying what was said.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And I just corrected myself. But did you read the rest of the article?
by FRANKIE on Feb 4, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure I did.
You mistaking improper for illegal was the entire point of my discussion with you.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Okay, take a look at the quotes Brent posted below. Now I know the word “illegal” isn’t in them, but the implication should be entirely clear.
by FRANKIE on Feb 4, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What Kizer implies is different than assessing whether a rule was violated. GSP’s corner made a careless mistake, but even by the rules it isn’t cheating, and isn’t illegal, even by Kizer’s words.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 12:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not even going to comment on this - instead...
Great, now I have to learn how to play Go.
Humans still beat computers at No Limit Texas Hold Em, too
by subo on Feb 4, 2009 2:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Big Blue’s poker face has been found wanting.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Feb 4, 2009 2:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For all those who think greasing is a non-issue and this needs to be swept under the rug:
Go put some Vaseline on your finger then wipe it off with a towel – after a few minutes stick said finger up your girls ass… if it doesn’t just just slide in with ease I’m a monkey’s uncle.
That shit will slide in even after you shower twice.
Now imagine you’re in a sweaty grappling match…
This has little to do with GSP or Penn for that matter – it has everything to do with maintaining the integrity of the sport.
Zuffa has no problem with the complaint being made and actually encourages such things. A little black eye to the sport or the UFC is nothing compared to losing the integrity of the sport.
What the hell are the commissions for?
When shit like this happens it needs to get media and the commissions attention… that’s how its best controlled and mitigated.
You think now it’ll be worth even thinking about greasing? I think they’ll think twice – because the backlash is enough to negate any type of advantage.
But more fighters need to step up and say it if they think their opponent is greasing.
This controversy is not hurting the sport… If this gets swept under the rug – this “practice” will destroy the sport as Kid Nate aptly pointed out.
It’s akin to wearing brass knuckles, or head gear, etc…
by mmalogic on Feb 4, 2009 3:13 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
greasing is like aoki wearing his magic underwear…
by mmalogic on Feb 4, 2009 3:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with the need to make this a serious issue, but there is also the question about how relevant the Vaseline transfer from the fighters’ faces is. I remember noticing Penn’s eyebrows being extremely covered at the start of the fight, to the point of bukakke jokes being bandied about with the friends I was watching with. It seems to me that facial Vaseline was magnitudes larger than the amount that could have ended up on GSP’s body via his corner man, and most likely would have been transfered all over the fighters while they clinched and grappled. That is the bigger issue to me right now, whether Vaseline should even be in the sport.
As for GSP and his corners, until there is evidence of intent shown, I think it is wrong to call him a cheater who got caught red handed. Rather they made some careless mistakes, which should still end up with some sort of disciplinary action taken.
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your point is the one missed in all this absurd discussion.
Vaseline is present all over fighters faces to begin with. That grease is transferred from fighter to fighter during a fight.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve just lost all respect for Kid Nate.
by godzillad on Feb 4, 2009 3:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well, for his MMA commentary at least. I’m sure he’s a nice enough guy when he’s off of his soapbox.
by godzillad on Feb 4, 2009 3:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm pretty much an asshole then too
just so short you can’t see me.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 9:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well if you are an asshole, then shouldn’t you be pro-greasing?
just kidding, trying to get some humor to defuse all the hotheadedness I am starting to feel right now.
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It’s unfortunate that it happened, but there’s no reason why GSP should apologize – he came to fight and that’s all there was to it. GSP is 110% focused whenever he walks into the octagon – maybe he’s different from other fighters who are almost more like entertainers and feed off the aura of their own awesomeness, but you can feel the intensity that GSP has when he’s walking in the octagon.
He doesn’t even know wtf is going on when Nurse is working on him, he’s staring straight ahead and nodding and/or looking over to Jackson and listening.
I don’t disagree that vaseline would make his shoulders potentially harder to grip, but for cryin out loud, have you seen his f’in shoulders?? The man is built like a bodybuilder. His delts and especially his lateral delts are bursting out from the side. They’re physically round and curved significantly more than every other fighter out there. He’s not just ripped, he’s built. Physics alone will tell you that it would be significantly harder for BJ’s slick legs to grip onto GSP’s slick – let’s assume from sweat – shoulders. High guard is not invincible either fyi. And the whole greasing him on the back is wtf ridiculous as BJ doesn’t even touch the square of GSP’s back where you can see Nurse massaging his hands.
And for the record I fully agree vaseline should be removed or at least given only to cutmen for application to the face. And it’s unfortunate that this will taint the victory, but there should be no question that GSP was bulldozing through BJ’s defenses, not because of grease but because the guy is physically stronger and larger and you can see that BJ is exhausted and even in the 2nd last gif at the top, his leg isn’t slipping because somehow GSP’s shoulders are so slick, it’s slipping because – take a look at GSP’s right leg which is forcing itself forward – the guy is physically moving and pushing right through BJ’s guard.
Don’t tell me that’s not possible cause a) you can tell BJ’s leveraged grip isn’t that leveraged as GSP’s arms are slightly bent meaning he can clearly force himself vertically higher (and look at the gif and you will see that he does exactly that); and b) BJ’s arms aren’t even able to hold GSP’s head down before his legs slide – GSP thrusts his head up with his arms and his legs. We all watch a bunch of grown men rub and punch each other, but I’m quite certain most of us can understand the simple physics of a weak grip and a strong force pushing up+forward.
There’s nothing to apologize for from GSP. If anything most of the fighters he’s beaten and who are complaining share a fascinating common trait in that they all like to think of themselves as the top dog. Until GSP came along and handed them their ass. Mayhem, Serra, Hughes, BJ?? You guys are deluding yourselves if you think they have half the insane commitment/motivation that GSP has. The guy’s a workaholic, it shows, and like any occupation, when you think you’re the shit and a smarter, better, more hard-working guy comes along and takes your job, most people aren’t going to sit there and say “Oh clearly I wasn’t working hard enough and he’s better qualified for the job”.
It’s funny because I haven’t heard Fitch come out and talk shit about greasing and he was on the ground a ton during his fight. But surprisingly Fitch is just a farm-bred redneck with no ego and a tough as nails attitude. Meanwhile the egomaniacs are going apeshit. Go figure.
by Noc on Feb 4, 2009 3:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
live with the result folks!!!
I have always respected BJ Penn until this. This is blatent `I can`t eat my words syndrome` and the fact that this is even an issue is mind-boggling. Kid Nate talks about the sacred entity of MMA and yet he has the tone that this is all legitimate scrutiny. I`m afraid not! Your link to `the apology` is Greg Jackson basically saying that there was no greasing and the fact that this thread is now at the top of the heap for bloody elbow pisses me off! BJ has to eat his words and GSP should be allowed a break for a job well done!!! Shame on theis thread!
I'll be back to add more in the next twenty-four...unless, by some mishap, someone K.O s FEDOR.
by prideUFCfan on Feb 4, 2009 4:33 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
lets drop it for 48 hours yeah
and lets all play nice and talk about some of the other good fights that happened on the card. LIke machidas ect. His most awesome performance ever. Lets slip off the vasaline, wait till the smoke clears and see what happens.
There has been so much trash talk its turning me off MMA. Bring some of the happy back ya buggars
by BuDWiZe on Feb 4, 2009 6:34 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
i wonder what percentage of those of claim “GSP cheated” picked BJ Penn to win the fight?
by #5mmafan on Feb 4, 2009 6:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Actually I said I didn’t want to watch any more UFC (I should have said fights actually) for the moment but more because of the controversy shadowing the fight than because I believe GSP or his camp are cheaters. But it makes no difference as it results in disgust anyway. But you’re right saying it’s all tainted now. I thought maybe we could all agree it was an accident but obviously it’s just wishful thinking now that we decided to believe in rumors. I’m gonna be honest I hate you kid nate for this one , but it’s nothing like what I feel for this witch doctor dude.
by spectaa on Feb 4, 2009 7:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The way that fight went down GSP could have covered himself in sandpaper and still quit BJ after the forth. It sucks that the vaseline is completely tarnishing his win in some people’s mind. I still don’t see this as being intentional, and therefore I don’t think GSP himself should be getting a bad name from all of this. If people feel he does deserve a bad name from this then you might as well include Rashad Evans, Jardine, Marqardt, and the many other great fighters under the Jackson Camp, and I don’t think that will happen. This was an accident plain and simple, GSP had a better gameplan, was better prepared physically and mentally and if for some strange reason if there was a re-match, which im sure BJ doesn’t want, then we will see the same results. GSP’s weight was the real problem for BJ, not a small amount of wiped away vaseline! I say now we focus on upcoming cards and start talking about Brock vs Mir, Penn vs KenFlo, GSP vs Alves, and possibiities of UFC 100 and who we would all like to see as the main event!
by AK15 on Feb 4, 2009 8:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Kid Nate: your post are going downhill imo...
The tone of your last few posts motivated me to register to post this. I’ve known Luke for a while now. What I liked about whatever project he was on was he was the perfect mix of “fanboy” and objective journalist. I know BE is a blog, but your posts on this topic have been coming almost completely from the “fanboy” side of things. I come to BE to leave the cess pool that the UG or Sherdog becomes after controversies like this happen. And the tone of your last few posts on this topic has been perfectly aligned with the spirit of your average dumbass on the UG.
What I would like to know why you can’t take GSP’s word on this when he says he acknowledges it happened, he had no prior knowledge that it was to happen, and it won’t happen again. It was a mistake and oversight on Phil Nurse’s part. But your posts on this almost borderline attack GSP and his camp’s integrity. Your comment on the Matt Hughes blog was over the top when someone said how it was funny Matt was cherry picking his fights with Georges when commenting on him being “slippery”. Your response was that is seems he’s gotten better as adding greasing to his repertoire now. It just shows your lack of objectivity in the matter. And that’s fine, you can be a “fanboy” and post. It’s your right to do so. But just realize you can read this kind of dreck on the UG or Sherdog by your average internet dumbass poster.
by gumbaroo on Feb 4, 2009 8:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Why not go after NSAC with the same fervor as you seem to have with GSP? This could all be solved with a quick rule change that the corner man who is applying Vaseline to a fighters face may only touch the fighters face. Failure to comply will result in a DQ or some other penalty. Na, it’s easier to attack a man’s integrity of whom you do not know.
by gumbaroo on Feb 4, 2009 8:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, I love BE and I listen to Luke’s show all the time and when he’s on Big O and Dukes and love his commentary. But now when I log onto this site I feel like im reading a new post on how GSP is the worst athelete in the world and how he is a bigger cheater than he is a true talent. Your attacking GSP like he willingly put vaseline on himself, but understand, Phil Nurse doesn’t always apply the vaseline for GSP, look back at past fights and you will see this, but Phil Nurse ALWAYS does that breathing technique with GSP, so in GSP’s mind, he is getting the same breathing technique he always gets from Phil Nurse, he isn’t worried about who just applied vaseline, it’s the biggest fight of his life, I don’t think GSP was thinking about anything else but Penn as he should be!
by AK15 on Feb 4, 2009 8:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
hey thanks for the feedback
I am a fanboy, this blog is a hobby and MMA is what I enjoy.
I’m not a journalist, a fighter or an MMA insider.
I’m trying to keep the perspective I had when I started watching this sport.
“the spirit of your average dumbass” might just be my new sig line.
thanks!
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 9:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
This is straight up not right at all! You don’t have any proof of ANYTHING, yet you keep calling GSP a cheater and a greaser. It felt like I was reading a fanpost instead of a staff members story. I think you’re probably the only one on any MMA blog or MMA news website to actually say this. Great going…kid.
by xFenixKnightx on Feb 4, 2009 8:37 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Glad to see this isn't being ignored after a few days.
I am very happy to see Bloody Elbow pushing the issue. I would love to see some sort of investigation into this, and probably nothing but a warning to GSP & Co. Sometimes just making a big enough fuss about something serves as consequence enough. MMA fans (not Seth Petruzelli) took down Elite XC… we were the ones outraged, and CBS didn’t want it anymore as we didn’t want that tainted product.
If we continue to make an issue of this, anyone who ever thinks of greasing from here on out will remember GSP vs Penn and all the aftermath…
by MicahW on Feb 4, 2009 9:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m sorry, but this type of hyper-reactionary thinking is making it very difficult for me to continue going to MMA blogs like Bloody Elbow and Cage Potato. You admit (as do others) that it had no impact on the fight, yet you believe the fight was ruined?! That makes absolutely no sense. Yes, there need to be rule changes, but for you to go on some kind of crusade is ridiculous. Honestly, just take off the tinfoil hats, please. I need to get over my addiction for this site because I feel dirty just being here now. People can give up MMA if they want- I would rather give up Bloody Elbow.
by BilboMcFonzie on Feb 4, 2009 9:05 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
come on, no one takes what the blogs have to say that seriously. i’m a devote christian and i still read fightlinker. i’ll read the same story 10 different ways from all different blogs just for everyone’s different spin. so you dont like “greasegate”, it doesnt hurt to see what people are saying or thinking. its a mere difference of opinion, and you should be educated about what the current issues in MMA are.
by MicahW on Feb 4, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bilbo, dont give up BE. This and CagePotato are the best sites out there for MMA. If anything, just stay away from Kid Nates posts on this subject. Other than his view on this subject I like his work. That’s why I’m going to go ahead and take my own advice. :P Adios Amigos! lol
by xFenixKnightx on Feb 4, 2009 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tinfoil hats...
boy we’re hearing that phrase a lot these days. Tinfoil hats are references to conspiracy nuts. There is no implication of a conspiracy here. There are the facts. Something happened that should not have and it does taint the fight..regardless of the outcome. Would Barry Bonds have broken the home run record without steroids? There is a reasonable chance that he would have, but we don’t avoid discussing steroids simply because he may have done it clean.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There is absolutely no comparison to steroid use. There’s not even evidence of rule violation.
Vaseline is not against the rules in non-excessive amounts, on the head or body.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is a failure...
of the wording in the rule. So at the very most…it is a loophole. It is one of the most widely acknowledged things in the sport. You don’t put vaseline or any other grease on the body.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then your argument is to change the rules from here on out, but you can’t punish someone retroactively.
There’s a distinct difference.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dana White's Response-front page
I think that using grease or Vaseline is completely illegal, but in this case I don’t think it made a difference in that fight. I know Georges St. Pierre. He’s not a cheater. He wanted this fight so bad to prove that he was the best fighter in the world. He completely dominated that fight. It had nothing to do with grease…. The athletic commission is looking into it. You can not rub grease on any part of the body besides the face. [The commission] took all our camera work from all the different angles and is looking into it. This is the case of a stupid cornerman. The cornerman did it and he is going to be held accountable for it…. Anything can happen to his cornerman – everything from a fine to never being able to work in the corner again."
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, Dana thinks it is illegal. The rule clearly states that it is not. Dana’s beliefs may echo what the intent is, but that’s not the rule as it stands. They may change it.
Dana also states that it’s being looked into, so it appears their is no final resolution yet.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The rule does not..
say that it is not illegal. It does not define what an excessive amount is. Which in this case is any amount.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL Brent. Do you really think that you are the person who is the final arbiter on interpreting the rule.
In no logical world is “excessive” going to be defined as “any amount”.
In fact, “excessive” is used to describe the amount used on the face OR body. If “any amount” is the definition for “excessive” on the body, it’s therefore the definition for “excessive” on the face, and we all know that is patently false.
You’ll have to do better than that.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude...
you need to chill and stop taking everything so personally.
You don’t put any Vaseline on the body. If you want to say GSP is not at fault then fine. But stop acting like any amount of lubricant on the body is acceptable…it is not.
I am no more the final word on this rule than you are.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is the real point of
this is that no one would even think that GSP knew or had anything to do with it. Admitting it is illegal would be one giant step towards that though.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you admit that you aren’t the final word, then you shouldn’t be interpreting the term “excessive” to equate to a definition that would be absurd.
The rule is what it is. You may not like it, but that doesn’t change the rule as it pertains to this situation.
Me pointing out your glaring logical errors is nothing personal.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're starting to take on a tone...
that is a little bit overly confrontational with other posters. I’m just saying to keep yourself in check.
I think you’re being unrealistic in thinking that the fact that it isn’t clearly defined means “put as much on as you think you can get away with.” If there is no problem with the situation then there would be no investigation taking place. The acceptable amount allowed in the eyes of fans that are being objective is NONE
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe a confrontational tone is found on a wide range of posters, especially those making accusations of my beliefs without proof.
Can you find a quote that states where I’ve said it means “put as much on as you think you can get away with”. I never said that.
What is acceptable in the eyes of the fans is not relevant. That’s why the NSAC publishes rules.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And because we cannot truly
quanitfy “Excessive” then you say put on how much you think you can get away with until they change the rule.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The president of the freaking UFC
who has a huge stake in this says that any greasing is cheating & because it is GSP you want to drop it? Man, tough crowd.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you insist on continuing to lie?
I’ve never said to drop it. Kizer has said the amount wasn’t excessive. By rule, that’s not a violation. Kizer said the fight won’t be made a NC.
I’d love for the rules to be changed. That doesn’t affect this fight, however, but will affect future fights.
I understand you are logically challenged, but this is pathetic.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"The rule clearly states that it is not. Dana’s beliefs may echo what the intent is, but that’s not the rule as it stands. They may change it."
This not you saying drop it? Really? Sounds like exactly what you are saying is the rule is not ironclad so there is nothing we can do. Pretty much drop it against GSP, but change the rule.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If no rule is broken, you absolutely cannot punish the fighter. If they want to give a monetary fine as an example, fine.
The real issue is the wording of the rule going forward. That is the important policy change.
Please stop telling other people what they think. You have no clue.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you hate BJ, do you love GSP?
I love GSP & like BJ and you can see what side I am on.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Your infatuation with who I root for is bizarre.
I am on the side of logic and fairness.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The president of the freaking UFC who has a huge stake in this says that any greasing is cheating & because it is GSP you want to drop it? Man, tough crowd.
Its awesome how you use Dana Whites word for your argument, but when he says that GSP didn’t cheat you say he is lying.
Proof that you are fos.
by mythbuster on Feb 4, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This can't be serious
Don’t do this to GSP victory man…we all saw it, IF it was a lot of vaseline, whole body and etc, ok, GSP is a cheater. But it WASN’T. Three little spots, non intentional and cleaned TWICE afterwards.
Vaseline should NOT be banned..it’s impossible to do it because it would be horrible to fighters, they would get cut very easily. One thing everybody should now is that, when you fight, you usualy get greased up during the fight…mainly on arms and chest. Try do do a training session once and you know what i mean, so it’s completely normal.
BJ camp tried to build up an excuse and the successfully done it. Backed up by a guy who never liked GSP (Hughes).
I am from Brazil, i train regularly and i love BJ and his acomplishments, but this time he went to far and, honestly Kid Nate, i think your went too far too.
Don’t take this Victory away from GSP. Blame Greg Jackson, Blame Phil Nurse but just don’t take this victory away from GSP.
PS: As i’m from Brasil, english is not my first language so i am sorry for any english mistakes.
by Sr.Thiago on Feb 4, 2009 9:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
no worries man
I probably went over the top a bit but it upsets me, and GSP is the man — the other guys work for him. He’s the captain of the ship, etc.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you Nate for
expressing these concerns. This is exactly what I have been trying to get across all week. I am or was a huge GSP fan, but this has really jaded me about him.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 9:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
gsp
why is it that all the fighters that gsp beat are now moaning he was “greasy”? this is pathetic I didnt here anything at the time, there are referee’s and officials who know what you can and cant do and this should have nothing to do with gsp, has it got anything to do with the fact he isnt american??? I know bisping doesnt get any credit from the us fans ( especially on this forum) even though he was very very close to beating rashad where he was undersized, he beat a “high on roids” leben and doesnt get any credit, lets face it, Anderson, GSP MACHIDA and soon to be bisping are the future not american wrestlers, it just all sounds of sour grapes, bj got smashed and the credit should go to gsp not to hear everyone trying to find a reason why there golden boy penn got out classed in every aspect.
by KOPITE 10 on Feb 4, 2009 9:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You admit (as do others) that it had no impact on the fight, yet you believe the fight was ruined?!
Wow, my sentiments exactly! If people truly believed it didn’t have a significant impact on the fight, they wouldn’t be pushing this matter to the death (to the death George!). The truth is people believe BJ’s guard could have been neutralized because of the Vasoline, and that could be the reason he got his ass whooped so badly (coupled with his lack of training of course). Why are people so interested in this? Because they truly want to know who’s the better fighter between the two. Why aren’t they content with a re-match? Because they know that would take half a year to set up and they can’t wait that long. Clearly, if there was a re-match, and BJ got a similar beat-down, everyone would be silenced. SO, if you feel that strongly about what happened, petition for a re-match instead of trying to change the past. Also, since when does Vasoline make a fighter quit out of a match? And, even with the small amounts of Vasoline, I thoroughly enjoyed GSP beating the shit out of Baby J for all the trash talking he did. I wonder if he took his own advice when he got back to his hotel room. If a split decision was unsettling to Penn-man’s ego, I wonder what this beat-down did for him…Ok ok, you caugt me, I’m a GSP fan, and still am because you can tell from the way the man talks and trains that he’s no cheater…Ok flame on
by ToTheDeathGeorge on Feb 4, 2009 9:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I am a Texan American,
and absolutely love GSP for what he has brought to MMA. That being said, this is a huge black mark on his credibility and it has nothing to do with him being Canadian. People in this country do not hate Bisping simply because he is British, it is because he comes off like a prick to some.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 9:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The funniest or really worst part
of this argument is that the people are arguing that GSP “WOULD NOT CHEAT” because they know him & he is awesome. That is fine and is the option for fans. You tell these same people (Rome) that BJ has been greasing & throw five high profile fighters names out there accusing him of it & watch the opinion of having “some grease” on your body change. People should be able to look at their own heroes & give an honest opinion/judgment without being clouded. I guess that I expect too much from people.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 9:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
You should probably take your own advice in that you somehow seem to know that he was cheating. Intent has to be taken into account here and you just can’t say that you know 100% that the intent was to cheat. The simple fact is that Rome is right, the focus should be on changing the rules for Vaseline so something like this can’t happen again.
by LiuLang on Feb 4, 2009 9:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not at all,
I have no idea. But I am not willing to admonish him simply because I think he is a good person/fighter, especially when five people are making this claim.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So you say
just ignore it because we cannot prove intent? Nice, I would love to have you as my judge or jury if I ever get into trouble.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve heard you say that a couple times. This isn’t law or a criminal case. This is a sport. You go by the rules and cheating, by definition, implies intent to willingly cause deceit or trickery. And if you somehow have insight into the intent of Jackson and Nurse, please enlighten us.
Once again, the focus of this should be improving the rules in regards to Vaseline to keep this situation from ever happening again. I think Nate’s view of this is absolutely the incorrect tack to take and Rome has it spot on.
by LiuLang on Feb 4, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Right, I have said it several times.
Intent is in the action & we do not have to determine it. I agree obviously the rules need to be changed, but absolving GSP because the rule is not iron clad is absurd.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Similarly, you cannot convict someone when there is no rule broken. That would be absurd.
You may not like the rule, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if there's no rule
why is Dana White calling for Phil Nurse to be punished maybe even lose his license?
"the spirit of your average dumbass"
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Those were his comments in the heat of the moment without even knowing the entire scenario.
Do you have comments from him days later, after he’s had a chance to review the video footage and actually read the NSAC rule. Please share.
Let’s not pretend Dana doesn’t have a flare for the dramatic.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Check the front page right now...
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because he’s not in a position where he can say anything else. What’s he supposed to say, that it’s okay? If the rules are exactly how they’ve been posted, don’t you agree that it would be hard to punish anyone? With the subjective nature of what is and isn’t subjective? It doesn’t even specifically say it can’t be placed on the body. The rule is dumb, but that’s what it is right now.
by LiuLang on Feb 4, 2009 11:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is not about the punishment,
it is about not dropping this just because of who is accused.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And you’re propping it up because of who is accused. You accuse people of defending him because of who he is, but you’re doing the same thing on the flip side.
Who’s involved here should be stripped away completely and the whole situation looked at objectively. Which is what very few people are doing.
by LiuLang on Feb 4, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love GSP & hate that this has
come up but I will not just drop it because of that. If I can be a huge GSP homer & still not be satisfied that this was all done on the up & up how can you?
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is not my intent.
You guys are the ones wanting to let it go because it is GSP accused of it, that is what is wrong.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You keep repeating that mantra with zero proof.
I support the rule being followed and not convicting someone who hasn’t broken the rules. You don’t like rational and logical explanations, and want to appeal to the fandom aspect.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
NSAC came into the fucking
cage to make his corner stop & wipe him down!! What more do you want?
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What more to you want? That is the accepted resolution. Excess grease is wiped off from the face or body. It happens all the time.
BTW, the NSAC is present in the corners during every round break.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So he cheated
but the rules are not clear & it was GSP who did it so lets just drop it until they word the rule better, right? Yes, we all see those four fat guys in redcoats standing in the ring. What I have never seen, until Sat night, was NSAC guys running into a ring during a fight!
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Drop what? I’m all for clarifying and/or changing the rule. The fighters involved are irrelevant, yet that’s the only point you can continue to hang onto, as your argument holds no substance.
If the NSAC is now unsatisified with the officials they’ve hired to do the in-ring job between rounds, that’s also an issue for the NSAC to resolve.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Of course it is relevant,
you are dismissing this bullshit rule with absolutely zero resolution because it is GSP involved with it. Just like Rome and others, your side on this fight is simply because of love for GSP & hate for BJ. GSP is one of my favorite fighters along with Chuck & Randy, so for me to say this is not easy. But I would say the exact same thing if it were any of those other guys.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Please provide one bit of evidence that I have said to drop it “because it is GSP”. I’ll wait.
You won’t find it, because I’ve not made such claims. I’m even for changing the rules. That doesn’t mean you can punish a camp for doing something that isn’t against the rules.
Please try and redeem the last bit of your credibility by ceasing with your lies and accusations.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You have spent the last
three days saying this is all BJ complaining dude! And then that “well the rule says not excessive so that is it” lol
I am not advocating punishing anyone, but this has to be looked at when it apparently has happened more than once.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Link?
I’ve spent the last 2 days applying logic to the discussion while people like yourself muddy the waters with false statements and innuendo.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cheating requires some sort of intent, plain and simple. You should be focusing on the rule that was broken. The commission deemed it was a problem in the cage and addressed it as per their rules. In this case, they wiped away the “excessive” amount of Vaseline.
The real issue here is the rule to prevent accidents/cheating like this from happening. Just get rid of Vaseline completely. If people claim the amount on GSP is significant somehow, then the amount of transfer from face to glove to limbs over 3 or 5 rounds must be significant as well.
by LiuLang on Feb 4, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What you really mean is
cheating for your favorite fighter requires absolute proof with intent before you even acknowledge it.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He’s my favorite fighter? Really? Do you know me somehow? You need to take a step back and take a deep breath, friend.
by LiuLang on Feb 4, 2009 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Remember your posts on here man.
You have spent this entire week saying BJ is just bitching.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve spent the entire week doing what?? Go look at my profile. Before this thread, I posted twice about this issue. And the sum of that was people tend to look for reasons as to why they lose and can’t accept that they got beaten by a better fighter. And that the decision about wrong doing should be left to the rules and if the rules are bad, change them.
I’m a big GSP fan, but I am also a big fan of BJ, at LW. But are they my favorite fighters? No. But this isn’t what we are talking about. Keep it to the issues and if you’re going to attack me for something I say, get it right.
by LiuLang on Feb 4, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
play nice you two
"the spirit of your average dumbass"
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I have mistaken your
comments then I apologize LiuLang. It is just frustrating to me that so many people (again not you) simply want to sweep this under the rug because of who is potentially involved.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you completely. This in no way should be swept under the rug. I think this is the perfect opportunity to have the rules changed for the long term betterment of the sport.
What I don’t agree with is taking away from GSP’s victory or accusing him of cheating because of his corners stupidity. It just seems to me that it was dealt with within the boundary of the crappy rule in the cage. And other than dealing with it in the cage, there should definitely be some sort of reprimand/fine for GSP’s corner.
by LiuLang on Feb 4, 2009 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I do not want to take away from his victory
but to absolutely say he had no knowledge is not something I can do when this many people have accused him.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed...
were this his first fight where it happened then I could accept a degree of ignorance. But it is seeming less and less like the case now.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Innuendo from other fighters is not evidence. Other fighters have also insinuated that GSP was on steroids, but their insinuations in no way lend credence to punishing GSP for that, either.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you. You can’t take what other fighters are saying as evidence of him having a history of doing this. Fighters make excuses as to why they lose all the time, whether be injuries, other guy’s on roids, he made a pact to sell his soul to some demons, whatever.
If one is going to say that he’s been doing this with Jackson all this time, then it must be safe to assume it’s a strategy of the camp, right? So I guess that mean Marquardt, Jardine, Rashad and everyone else greases up, right?
And if GSP was doing it before going to Jackson’s camp, does it mean when GSP joined them, he said “Hey Greg, I’ve been greasing for years, mind keeping up my tradition?” Without proof, previous allegations are baseless and ridiculous.
by LiuLang on Feb 4, 2009 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And you are frustrating everyone else by ignoring what they say and instead saying “well you Love GSP and hate BJ”
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You are frustrated that I
want people to explain why they are taking the position of leave GSP alone? Really?
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again you are ignoring what they are saying. It is not leave GSP alone.
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 11:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is all over these threads!
It is the rules, GSP’s cornerman did it. Don’t take away from his victory. What do you call that?
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To the moderators, what is the proper warning category for a poster that continually insinuates that other posters are only making their opinions about this issue because of the fighter they like? Making hundreds of these posts over and over again arguing in circles and ignoring whatever the other poster says. Is it spam, troll, or inappropriate?
Thanks.
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
this whole thing is making coming to this forums harder and harder. it just seems to me that these guys that came out claiming GSP greased against them too finally have their excuse as to why they got beat so badly. These guys that fought GSP and got absolutely destroyed were usually the ones that were beating everyone else so when they look like a bunch of amateurs when fighting GSP that must have meant that Georges had to have been cheating. Just get over the fact that a French Canadian is just that far ahead of everyone else.
by brazary on Feb 4, 2009 9:57 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Again with the French-Canadian thing, really?
DUDE, no one gives a fuck where GSP is from. He could be from Malaysia or freaking Pakistan for all I care. I would still love the way he fights & I would still be pissed.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lets keep ethnic and national origin out of this
It’s not relevant and quickly leads to an ugly shit storm.
consider yourself warned.
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Its just weird when guys who knowingly take steroids or get in police chases and are held down at gun point are given less heat then GSP is
by brazary on Feb 4, 2009 10:06 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I can only speak for me,
but I never thought Sherk was elite & he was suspended & lost his title so what else do you want? And I assume the police chase you are talking about is Josh Neer & I said throw his ass under the jail just like would happen to any other person.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I want to point out...
that “innocent until proven guilty” is not a phrase that needs to be bandied about so much in this case.
A) it is a phrase that applies to the legal system not public opinion. With public opinion there is no rule that you must not pass judgment until a trial is held. Every time someone disagrees with the way a situation like this is going someone bangs out the “THIS IS AMERICA!” thing which just doesn’t apply to conversation…only to trial.
B) We all need to admit that there is adequate proof of guilt here. Regardless of the phrasing of the rule it is understood by all fighters and cornermen that you do NOT apply Vaseline to a fighter outside of applying it to his face. This means that on the video when you see that the vaseline is applied to his face and then his shoulders and back are rubbed without wiping the hands off…there is your proof of guilt.
I have come around a little bit since my initial hardcore defending of GSP and his camp. He is one of my three favorite fighters to watch on the planet but there is no way around the fact that it happened and it does taint his career to this point. I have no doubt that he beats every one of the guys he has beaten to this point grease or not…but that doesn’t mean that it makes it okay for it to have happened. That is the difference. You can admit that it is wrong while still acknowledging that he is a monster of a fighter. But most people to this point seem unwilling to be objective one way or the other. I don’t think the wins should be taken away from GSP, but something has to happen (fines..etc) to make it clear that intentional or not…you job as a fighter and as a cornerman is to make sure that you are operating withing the rules of the contest.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 10:09 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
Perfectly said Brent.
I agree with everything you wrote in that. It is nice to see someone who is as big a GSP fan as me thinking this way.
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with both comments
A.) It is not fair to pass judgment on someone until you find them guilty. This holds for public opinion too. How would it be fair I called someone incompetent, a liar, cheater, or thief without adequate proof. If GSP’s back being greased wasn’t fair to BJ Penn, then how is assuming GSP intentionally cheated fair to a man who trained his ass off for this fight?
B.) If there is adequate proof of guilt on GSP’s part, how come more action isn’t being taken against him? How come both Keith Kizer and Dana White, who were both personally on-site and intricately dealt with the situation, both proclaim his innocence? Do they not have an ounce of deceny or integrity? Is Kizer letting GSP get away with this because he likes him? Why is people’s opinion of what they saw on tape over-riding that of the officials on site? If there is adequate proof as you claim, why isn’t more action being taken against GSP?
by ToTheDeathGeorge on Feb 4, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not trying to pin it on GSP...
I’m pinning it on his camp. He bears a degree of responsibility in the situation as he is…you know…the fighter that was in the cage. They are reviewing the tape and it is clear that the action that will be taken will be against his cameraman.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because his cameraman was not focusing on the real story?
Just a little humor =)
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
oh jesus!
hahaha
I totally didn’t realize I said that. But yes…I hold the cameraman responsible 100%
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Now the real truth is coming to light…
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But you are indirectly attacking him...
The problem is a lot of people on here, and other places, are bashing GSP, putting a mark on his record for something he was not a part of. People are finding all different angles to imply GSP is a cheater, including the testimony of 5 other fighters he’s faced. Everyone is building a case towards his participation in this conspiracy. I’m defending the man because I honestly believe he had nothing to do with it, based on the interviews done with Keith Kizer, Dana White, and from what I do know of the man’s character. Also, his dominating performance in rounds 3&4 is a testament to his skill, not the Vasoline. People keep saying the vasoline didn’t affect the outcome of the fight, but do they really believe it? People say it shouldn’t have happened, and I agree. But look at the offenders, Phil Nurse and Greg Jackson, and not much is talked about them because it’s always about the man who’s at the top, and trying to bring him down. It shouldn’t have happened, but it did happen. GSP would have won either way. If you honestly believe that, then think about it. What is the motivation for the man to cheat? He didn’t need to cheat. Plus, he wants to be a better fighter, he wants to prove himself, what does cheating accomplish for him and his pride?
by ToTheDeathGeorge on Feb 4, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude...
the grease was on him. To say “something he was not a part of” is…um…wrong. Even if he didn’t know it was happening it still would put a mark on his career. There is no way for it not to.
And don’t tell me that I’m “indirectly attacking him” I have been clear in my statements what I think and one thing that WILL STOP in this thread is people telling others what they mean or think. I’m done with watching it and warnings will be handed out for it going forward.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How would unknowingly having a small amount of grease put a mark on his career?
Do you realize that fighters get grease on their bodies from the other fighters during the course of a bout? That’s also a case of a fighter unknowingly getting greased, and it’s certainly no mark on their careers.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is different...
than grease being placed on the fighter by his corner. If you think it doesn’t put a mark on his career than that is fine. You’re on that side of the divide. I’m on the other. No amount of going back and forth is going to change that so maybe we should drop it.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Both are cases of a fighter unknowingly getting small amounts of grease on his body. The fact that it inevitably happens in every fight should give an indication as to the ultimate relevance of this topic.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No...
The intent of putting vaseline on a fighter is different than it rubbing off the other guy’s face. It’s not the same at all.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We are talking about the fighter, not the corner man.
And as for intent as it relates to the corner man, the videos back up the explanations, and that it seems like a careless oversight. Give a monetary fine to the corner man, and change the rules if they need to. None of that has to do with any marks on a fighter’s career.
by Hardcharger on Feb 4, 2009 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again..
we’re going to have to agree to disagree. This is a black mark that will remain on the record of one of my favorite fighters for the rest of his career for me and many others. If you don’t feel the same way…that’s perfectly acceptable and you have the right to do so.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"I’m defending the man because I honestly believe he had nothing to do with it"
You want us to not accuse GSP of being involved & this is your reason why?
by dnevil001 on Feb 4, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You and Kid Nate are dead on with this stuff. Kid Nate has a little over the top rhetoric, but your points are the same.
by szucconi on Feb 4, 2009 10:14 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I have to rec that.
maybe I’ll add “over the top rhetoric” to my sig line
"the spirit of your average dumbass"
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 11:33 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with most of it and it is blogging gold.
by szucconi on Feb 4, 2009 12:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Two of the most misunderstood phrases are: Innocent until proven guilty and freedom of speech.
by bigweeze on Feb 4, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You screw up, you get punished. But I heavily disagree with implying GSP intentionally cheated without proof of intent.
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“But one other thing really made me dislike Pat Militech: persistent rumors that he slathered himself in grease before, during and after fights.”
One of the best pieces I’ve ever read on BE. But I have to ask – why on Earth would Pat Militech slather himself in grease AFTER a fight?
by MMAEruption on Feb 4, 2009 10:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Helped him slip into...
afterparties where he was not invited. Jerk was always finding ways around the rules
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
good catch!
will strike that.
lol.
"the spirit of your average dumbass"
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love how everyone thinks they’re a lawyer. Defending greasing is something better left for Johnny Cockrane. We, as fans, should be uniting against this — this is a no brainer.
A few months ago, shortly after the stand-gate controversy, I posted on B.E. that I thought the future of MMA was ‘baby-glove boxing’. Now, more than ever, I believe this is the future of the sport — It just seems like that’s really what the fans want to see. Screw that jiu jitsu craziness, I want to see some get knocked out!!
I'm just a dude who's trying to put it together.
by mma_dude on Feb 4, 2009 10:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
There is something I don't understand.
GSP and Greg Jackson, licensed professionals, pay Phil Nurse, a licensed professional, to perform two jobs within a one minute time frame:
(1) Cuttman: Put Vaseline on GSP’s face using his bare hands.
(2) “Witch Doctor”: Rub GSP’s chest and body with his bare hands.
???
All I know is that this is negligence, not professional behavior. It is a significant violation of acceptable internal control. It would have zero chance of passing an independent ethics audit.
by Jahbulon on Feb 4, 2009 10:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
How is it that some of you people think that because BJ is filing a complaint about the greasing that that equals BJ making excuses?
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
by lovingmma25 on Feb 4, 2009 10:40 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Where I'm at...
Kizer stated:
“We wiped [St. Pierre] down very, very hard,” Kizer said. “And even after the end of the third round, even though there was no touching of his back with Vaseline, we still wiped him down again after that round, too, just to be safe.”
So right there is Kizer stating that they were making sure there was NO touching of his back with Vaseline. Were any amount acceptable then they would not have made sure that NONE touched his back. Nor would they wipe him down just to be safe.
There was also the quote from Kizer stating that:
no amount of the substance should have ever been used on the fighter’s body.
So you have someone who is more or less the word on the meaning of the rule…saying in two different ways that NO amount of Vaseline is acceptable for use on a fighter’s body.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
and for once...
I forgot to hit the reply tag on a comment. That was meant to address my conversation above with Hardcharger. But for the sake of getting rid of the “tiny quotes” as the reply rows get smaller I’ll leave it down here
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Someone needs to ask Kizer to cite the specific rule he is talking about there. If only just to bring light how vague that rule is and that it needs to be changed.
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm putting it down here in hopes that everyone will see...
THE TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEY MEAN WILL STOP! There is not going to be any more “you say that but you REALLY mean…” or “you’re just saying that because…”
State your points…BUT do not put words in other people’s mouths (or on their keyboards as the case may be).
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Feb 4, 2009 11:54 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
by iiowyn on Feb 4, 2009 12:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This topic has been beaten to death and then some....
Obviously this is a passionate issue for many. Obviously there is huge debate that can never accurately be settled as it is a matter of opinion combined with flimsy evidence and conjecture.
I believe the underlying root of the argument is just and fair (I’m not referring to the dubious argument that GSP is himself a premeditating cheater). We need to see a clarification of both the rules and procedures to ensure that this is not an issue going forward because honestly- this sucks! People are watching two of their favorite fighters both go down in flames because of this and it’s not fun. BJ fans get to deal with the accusations that he has a legacy of being a lazy, mouthy, whiner who can’t accept defeat. GSP fans get to deal with accusations that he is a cheater. Nobody wins in this case. It’s gone beyond the old “my fighter is better than yours haha” to a downward spiral that has grown into a monster with eight arms.
I’m bowing out of this one until it dies down and the facts come out. This is MMA- something that we enjoy. It’s entertainment. I have my belief that GSP is innocent but that may or may not be correct. Regardless, participating and reading about both sides ad nauseum is affecting my ability to enjoy the sport and the blogosphere. This controversy is not worthy of destroying that!
Everybody take a deep breath, let the people involved sort it out, and wait to see the results.
by Harrymanback1 on Feb 4, 2009 12:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Finally someone writes exactly what I’ve been posting in the comments. GSP is tainted in my eyes also and every fight he’s ever had I have to believe he was cheating since he is, you know, a cheater…
by Reaser on Feb 4, 2009 12:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
at least we know that even though GSP is trying to single handedly destroy the sport, that it can’t happen, MMA will always survive, if it could get passed standgate nothing can stop us now…not even GSP blatently cheating…
by Reaser on Feb 4, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments are closed.
Can’t we all just get along?
"the spirit of your average dumbass with overblown rhetoric"
by Kid Nate on Feb 4, 2009 12:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 



















