Karo Parisyan Suspended and Fined, Win Over Kim Changed to No Contest
by Scott Haber on Mar 17, 2009 4:01 PM EDT
245 comments
Promoted to the front page from the FanPosts by Chris Nelson.
MMA Weekly is reporting breaking news from the Nevada State Athletic Commission's hearing today concerning UFC welterweight Karo Parisyan. Parisyan tested positive for three different painkillers after his UFC 94 fight with Dong-Hyun Kim where he won an underwhelming split decision.
The results of the hearing are as follows:
The commission voted unanimously to suspend Parisyan, who slumped before the commission as the punishment was delivered
A)Parisyan is suspended from competition for 9 months
B)He is fined 40 percent of his $80,000 purse ($40,000 show/$40,000 win), totaling $32,000, which will go to the Athletic Commission
C)He must submit to random drug testing
D)The result of his UFC 94 bout with Dong Hyun Kim is changed to a "No Decision"
Although the fine and the suspension are very serious consequences, the elimination of his win over Kim and the resulting "no contest" ruling definitely caught my eye, as I can't remember the last time this happened in the UFC, or if it's ever happened at all.
The last major overturning of a win to a no-contest that I recall, was Nick Diaz's submission win over Takanori Gomi which was changed after Diaz admitted to marijuana use. Ken Shamrock recently tested positive for steroid use, but there's been no word if concerns surrounding his submission victory over Ross Clifton will even be heard by any athletic commission, let alone overturned.
Sherdog also reported from the hearing:
Parisyan, who was not represented by legal counsel at the hearing, pleaded for leniency before the commission after he admitted his guilt.
“This is my only form of income,” Parisyan said. “If I don’t fight, I’m nothing. I’m very, very sorry. It was completely unintentional. This is embarrassing for me.”
“I trust the guy,” Parisyan said. “He’s a friend of mine. He’s got a chronic disease. He gave me the pills and told me they were the same exact thing. That’s why I took them.”
What’s more, Parisyan failed to disclose his use of painkillers, prescribed or otherwise, on a pre-fight questionnaire. Only after the fight did he inform an NSAC inspector.
“All I was concerned about was the fight,” Parisyan said. “I hadn’t fought in a year. My mind was calm [after the fight]. When I saw the urine test, I thought, ‘Oh, my God.’ [The inspector] told me as long it wasn’t an anabolic drug that would have given me advantage or a drug like cocaine or something, I should be fine. I had my doctor fax in the prescription, and a week later, everything blew up.”
NSAC Commissioner John Bailey was not swayed by Parisyan's explanation:
“[The commission has] to know what’s going on with you,” Bailey said. “You just decided to not be truthful on a pre-fight questionnaire. We can’t have fighters drifting in and out of reality.”
We've seen several UFC fighters test positive for illegal susbtances over the past few years, but it's almost always been the losing fighter that ends up guilty...as if you needed any more reasons for not taking illegal painkillers or steroids. Nonetheless, this is sad news for Parisyan and the UFC as a whole. Karo had been facing some serious mental and physical issues in the last year, and this certainly won't help. I've always been a fan of "The Heat", but I really hope he takes this time to get his act together and find the right kind of help that he clearly needs.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
2 recs |
245 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I don't know, that seems
pretty consistent with other punishments for illegal substances. I remember hearing most recent suspensions were started at one year.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they would have been anymore lenient, it would have sent a pretty strange message. Nick Diaz had a similar outcome, for a far less performance enhancing drug in (marijuana).
by grb on Mar 17, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
weed is not even a performance enhancer
the olympic comity doesn’t take away medals for it! they just want sports organizations to be police in this country, its ridiculous,and makes me sick! but pain killers are a different story, he knew better. If you wanna dance you gotta pay the piper :>)
Last man standing for the record breaking "CKC Luncheon aka This Place is Ridiculous 2 days ago by Little Nicky 21"---1073 latest 2 days ago by uncle finster
are you gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite" -Mr Blonde-
"Creator of the(pie in the sky) trade our 1st one of our 2nds and two of our 7th rounders and "draft B. J. Raji" bandwagon On board Matty I's Besswagon On board L Nicky 21s Brandwagon
by uncle finster on Mar 17, 2009 5:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually, it CAN be a performance-enhancer, because you apparently feel less pain when you’re using heavily — and by all accounts, Diaz used heavily.
by bobthewriter on Mar 17, 2009 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pot did not help him win that fight. I also seriously doubt he was high while he was fighting. And even if somehow he smoked before the fight, anyone with a tolerance does not stay high for too long.
by J_Maddux on Mar 17, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
nick diaz said on video that he gets high then runs, so weed helps him to do cardio. that would make it a performance enhancer.
by #5mmafan on Mar 17, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, look at it like this.
Marijuana is used medically as a painkiller and to alleviate nausea from other treatments.
So, medically speaking, it is a banned painkiller. End of discussion.
If you're not submitting, you're just rolling around with another guy.
by BJJDenver on Mar 17, 2009 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It reduces small amounts of chronic inflammation. It is not a “pain killer”.
by Luke Thomas on Mar 18, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By his own admission (while simultaneously deflecting responsibility), Karo f’d up at almost every stage of the proceedings. Seems fair to me.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Mar 17, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, Kim is still considered undefeated.
I’m 50/50 on whether or not making that fight a non contest is too harsh. Then again the fight should have been a draw. And a no contest is about as close to a draw as there can be.
So all is well in the world.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Mar 17, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that overturning a fight for something like this might be too much. Thank god it was such a close fight and not a domination. Imagine if the decision to Quarry-Starnes got ruled a no-contest…
by MattTil on Mar 17, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good, Kim deserved a win so a no contest is the best case scenario after that horrible judging.
by Chooch on Mar 17, 2009 1:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
sounds like Karo wasn’t the only one on drugs during that fight…
by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
"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 Mar 17, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was tough to judge, but I had it 2-1 Kim, but Karo didn’t really do anything to show control in that fight IIRC.
by Chooch on Mar 17, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kim won that fight. If his name was on par with Karo’s he would have won. Thank god the loss is erased from his record.
by MattTil on Mar 17, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was an impossible fight to judge properly, given the 10 point must and per-round submission of scores
Stun Gun dominated round one and then rounds two and three were totally even and uninspiring. If you look at the entire composition of the fight, Stun Gun clearly won. But due to the scoring system, he got the shaft.
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally I felt the same way about the Guida-Diaz fight. Lot of split decisions on that card.
"Japan is half-Machida" - iiowyn
by Day Man on Mar 17, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"We can’t have fighters drifting in and out of reality."
wow. if there were ever a statement tailor-made for karo.
by woooburn on Mar 17, 2009 1:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Dead on
"Japan is half-Machida" - iiowyn
by Day Man on Mar 17, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Karo gets to keep 8k of a win bonus in a fight that he DIDN’T WIN. That makes no sense. Plus, he should have lost it to the judges in the first place. Ridiculous.
by Beer Monster on Mar 17, 2009 2:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If they UFC really wanted the money back I’m sure they could get it.
"Japan is half-Machida" - iiowyn
by Day Man on Mar 17, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overturning a win for popping opiates is complete bullshit. I also think it’s bullshit that what was both one of the greatest fights and finishes of our generation (Diaz gogo over Gomi) was ruled a no contest aswell. I was at 94 live cageside and Kim def won that fight fair and square but in my opinion painkillers are not a legit reason to change the outcome of a fight!
by irepdaronx on Mar 17, 2009 2:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why? You don’t think a guy on painkillers is cheating?
by Beer Monster on Mar 17, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it’s on the banned substance list it’s on the banned substance list. If you are stupid enough to take anything that is on the Banned Substance List and you get caught then you are getting what you deserve.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bet on Kim. I want my money back not that this is a “No Contest.” Not really.
I just want Karo to refocus himself and getting his life straight.
by SanDiegoMMA.net on Mar 17, 2009 2:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Seriously,
Karo has such an entertaining fight style when he is on.
I really hope this is a reality check for him and he gets his act together, and not a push into a slide.
by Razreshat on Mar 17, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For real...
if you bet online, contact them and let them know of the change. They’ll likely refund you.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been told that payouts are official as of the night of the fight, and any subsequent changes in that will not be refunded since they can’t collect themselves form the people they paid out in the first place.
by Beer Monster on Mar 17, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's probably true...
but sometimes they’ll work with you.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve never heard of books refunding actions in cases like this. Are they going to take money away from people who had Parisyan?
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Mar 17, 2009 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It probably depends on the terms of service.
Like with the world series. vegas paid out that game that got suspended due to rain because their rules say that a game is official after 4 and half innings, they treated the end of that game as a completely new game.
Maybe if one person contacts them they will go and do an individual refund, but I doubt they will go around paying everyone that pay on Kim, because they’re not getting the cash back from Karo.
Just like you probably won’t be able to go back and get a refund if you bet against a college team on a game they were forced to forfeit years later because of ineligible players.
by Phildo on Mar 17, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brent explained his experience with it. Pretty clear that it’s not something they’re going to do for your average Joe.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Mar 17, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...
I should clarify. At the time I was playing pretty heavy amounts of money so…….
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brent, do you have a problem you want to tell us about? The first step is admitting to it….
by ufc4 on Mar 17, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha...
no. At that point in my life I was living rent free and making good money. I had the money to gamble, once life changed to where I had to live like an adult…that betting got reduced by A LOT
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 18, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No shit?
That’s interesting, but I’m not familiar with any similar situations. They would lose big, because they can’t exactly ask back for the winnings from those who bet on Karo. Hey, what the fuck? We better review the betting game— I think I picked Stun Gun! Haha
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They won't do it for everyone...
but you MAY be able to have them work with you. I have had bodog help me out in a similar case previously.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont know where your betting but don’t count on it.
by WARMMA on Mar 17, 2009 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The fine is bullshit. This isn’t A-Rod, he doesn’t have much $. I get the suspension, prevent him from making more $ til he gets straightened out. But fining a guy who makes that little $ and has a small window to make more is brutal. Athletic Comission bullshit
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 2:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He made 48000, plus sponsorships, for that one fight. Don’t be an apologist.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 17, 2009 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and what’s his earning capacity for the next 40 years? Will he be making that annually?
The suspension is legit, but taking the moderate $ that he’s already made is brutal.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He got paid a win bonus for a fight he didn’t win. Why should he get to keep any of it? He actually got off good.
by Beer Monster on Mar 17, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Karo keeps up the standard pay scale plus sponsorships, he’ll make more over the next ten years than most couples make over their entire lives.
by Michaelthebox on Mar 17, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dude, really?
In the end he got more money for not winning than he should have.
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
WTF does A-Rod have to do with this?
Should poor people not have to pay traffic tickets because they don’t have a lot of money?
Fact is, Karo f’d up and knew he f’d up going into the fight.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Mar 17, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
AMEN
The guy needs a reality check. He’s always in La-la-land. Talks about ‘his’ title shot. Thinking he can take all sorts of pain killers and get away with it. And you know what? He did get away with it. He made serious jack off a fight that he shouldn’t have been in in the first place. He’s a young dude, there are lots of ways for him to make money. Pleading ignorant and letting him get away with it would reinforce his belief that rules shouldn’t apply to him like they apply to everyone else. The best thing for Karo is to get in touch with reality. He needs to learn that he’s not special, he’s not specially deserving, he doesn’t deserve a title shot, he needs to do things the right way.
by Dooda on Mar 17, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What A-Rod has to do with this is that he’s an athlete who tested positive for steroids. He makes approx. $25 mil a year, and forfeited exactly zero of it for his transgression.
Now, Karo forfeits 40% of a piddling $80K for his wrong. So the statement: “should poor people not have to pay traffic tickets…” is the inverse of what has actually happened with Karo. We’re not enforcing it against the potential billionaire, just the middle-income athlete. That ain’t right.
Fine both or neither and certainly don’t just fine the lower-income athlete.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a lame argument, first a union protects A-Rod so he took the test knowing he could not be punished. Second A-rod doesn’t deal with the AC and is not licenced under there rules. There is no body under which athletes are fined for doing bad things. If Karo want to abuse drugs then he has to follow the AC rules, because he has agreed to. MLB didn’t have those rules.
by szucconi on Mar 17, 2009 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
ARod's test was also supposed to be a confidential
study test & the results were not supposed to be released & therefore no punishments handed down. Had he tested positive on a regular test he would have been suspended. Not no ARod’s side, just a statement of fact.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention that at the time there was no prohibiton against steroids in MLB.
by #5mmafan on Mar 17, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m so tired of hearing this BS excuse repeated over and over- illegal drugs WERE BANNED at the time, if he (or any other player) did not have a doctor’s prescription for steroids then they were, in fact, against the rules of MLB.
by ufc4 on Mar 17, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes but it’s not like it was hard to get a doctor’s prescription for them too.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I mean the guy blatantly cheated and then lied about it, but because he’s broke that means he shouldn’t be fined. That’s some screwed up logic there dude.
by ufc4 on Mar 17, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
then apply your logic everywhere and not merely to one man.
The real ‘screwed up logic’ is that the commission that enforces the fine directly benefits from the enforcement of fines.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
because they’re paid directly to the commission
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, that is not how fines work, the commission makes money, but not via fines if you count the hearings and legal fees incured when a rule is broken. What would you suggest the penalty be?
by szucconi on Mar 17, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
suspension. Especially upon showing of performance enhancing drugs that directly infringe on MMA’s interest in protecting ‘equal footing’. Could even make it a longer suspension.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fighters will run to Japan. When Baseball players break rules they are fined, I see nothing wrong with a fine. Its not like they are fined if they are found not guilty.
by szucconi on Mar 17, 2009 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Karo & other fighters will
consider the results when they decide to break the rules next time. It is not very hard, you are given a list of banned substances.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Karo has a responsibility to know the rules. He did something he should have and has to accept the penalty for it. If he feels the athletic commission is too severe he can file an appeal. End of story.
by Andy R on Mar 17, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I demand the BE betting game address this :p
by subo on Mar 17, 2009 2:11 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Good for the NSAC, overturning the decision was the only credible action they could have taken after the Diaz/Gomi incident.
by smoogy on Mar 17, 2009 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
NSAC has overturned a couple since Diaz/Gomi just none on that level(I think they overturned a KotC fighter for pot too). The other big one I can think of was Donald Cerrone’s fight with Kenneth Alexander in the WEC because of a diuretic.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
11-0-1 (1 NC)
Sherdog already updated Stun Gun’s Fight Finder entry. Excellent.
Contributor Emeritus - BloodyElbow.com
by Chris Nelson on Mar 17, 2009 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sherdog don’t fuck around.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Mar 17, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A+ comment, subo.
http://www.sackmikegoldberg.com
by Mike Fagan on Mar 17, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WOOOO
Stun Gun is undefeated again! Not often you can say that someone is undefeated again..
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ken Shamrock recently tested positive for steroid use, but there’s been no word if concerns surrounding his submission victory over Ross Clifton will even be heard by any athletic commission, let alone overturned.
I don’t know if California has the power to overturn a fight decision due to a drug test yet, they didn’t have that power when Royce Gracie tested positive.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 2:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They should overturn it to make them both losers
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
With as many guys as California catches you would think they would have the power to overturn results for it but I think it’s only Nevada and New Jersey that can and NSAC only got that ability a couple of years ago.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was calling Shamrock and Clifton losers.
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don’t need an atletic commission hearing for that :D
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
You seek the wrath of WARGODS?!??!
Yeah, who got the final Death Blow? 'Cause I thought that Hawaiian guy had it comin' to him. - C. K.
by monkeyfightclub! on Mar 17, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think the wrath of Wargods includes Tank Abbott showing up at your house and drinking all your beer.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
LSD
If a fighter were to ever test positive for LSD would the bout be ruled a NC? NSAC’s argument about Diaz was that weed makes you impervious to pain. Does going on an acid trip count as improving your performance?
by Sokonojudo on Mar 17, 2009 2:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
A banned substance is a banned substance, it doesn’t matter what it is. If it is on the banned list and you get popped for it they are going to overturn the decision, Diaz wasn’t singled out for pot he was just the first to fall under a new NSAC regulation.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Calming your nerves or averting your tension is considered performance enhancing. Maybe if you tripped on acid you’d think you were fighting a giant frog that your girlfriend cheated on you with. I would fuck that frog up, son….
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a. no one tests for LSD as far as I know.
anyone tripping on LSD would be at least close to incapable of performing the routine pre-fight tasks like walking to the cage, getting his gloves checked, etc.by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the auto-formatting on this site.
by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they could...
Former Pittsburgh Pirates’ pitcher Dock Ellis says he was under the influence of LSD when he pitched a 1970 no-hitter against the San Diego Padres.
by MMAcGyver on Mar 17, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i believe David Wells was on something when he pitched his perfect game. i could have botched that but i think my memory is correct.
by #5mmafan on Mar 17, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was hungover.
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 Mar 17, 2009 11:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UAF-Underground Acid Fights
Who wants to join my mixed martial substance test?
Everybody fightin' bout a spoonful...
by plastict on Mar 17, 2009 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This always pisses me off...
I don’t care if you think painkillers or weed shouldn’t be banned substances or don’t grant a fighter an advantage. Simple truth is…they ARE banned and the fighters are aware of this heading in. You break the rule, you know you’re likely going to get fined and suspended. I have a lot of trouble feeling sorry for someone in that situation.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 2:49 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
“1. The administration of or use of any:
(a) Alcohol;
(b) Stimulant; or
© Drug or injection that has not been approved by the Commission, including, but not limited to, the drugs or injections listed in subsection 2”
Also don’t drink before your urine test.
by Sokonojudo on Mar 17, 2009 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rec’d
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Mar 17, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t get what is so hard to understand about the banned substance list, do some fighters not understand what banned means?
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no trouble at all not feeling sorry for these morons.
The rules are clear.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s such a thing as a bad rule. If a substance has no provable effect on the fight or the fighter’s safety, what business is it of the commission to regulate its use?
It’s one thing to blame fighters for breaking rules, but that doesn’t mean the validity of those rules shouldn’t be question.
by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are plenty of jobs you could do just as well if you were drunk or high. But you can’t. No one has to prove to you why you shouldn’t be drunk while you’re doing retail.
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If they put peanut butter on the banned substance list and a guy shows up at a weigh in with a jar of Jif then he deserves what he gets. Whether something should be on the list is a completly different topic for discussion than a fighter getting punished for breaking clearly defined rules.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It doesn't matter...
it’s a different discussion. Saying the rule should be changed is all well and good. But the rule was in place, you don’t get to break every rule you find objectionable.
Should Shogun start soccer kicking Chuck in that fight because he thinks they should be legal?
The difference between the need to obey and the call to change rules is quite different
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Great point Brent.
This bullshit about what should be illegal or what should not be is ridiculous. The point is that these substances are listed as banned & fighters or people here personal preferences do not matter. Take it up with the athletic commission and try to get something done that way instead of just ignoring the rules.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
civil disobedience has been a fundamental part of our nation’s history(taxation without representation).
Frankly, I think the mere existence of a rule is pretty tragic rationale for why we should follow that rule. Why don’t I murder people? Because I think it’s morally wrong, and that coincides with the laws of the United States. Why don’t I speed? Because traffic accidents over 70MPH have a higher risk of death for all parties involved.
The ’there’s a rule argument’ sucks. Muhammad Ali didn’t follow the ‘rule’, how much differently would we think of him if he had?
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You can not fight in that state if you don’t like there rules and you can lobby to change them if you want to. There is no reason to be ignorent of the rules that your licence is under.
by szucconi on Mar 17, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so....
if someone does not think murder is morally wrong, they have free reign to commit such acts? The fact that there is a law regarding that action is irrelevant? Why are there laws and rules at all then, perhaps this should be a complete lawless society?
by soadtrails on Mar 17, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think most people, and most legislatures will continue to create laws that make murder illegal regardless of you murdering people. Why? Because that’s a law that makes sense.
But, it’s important to consider whether a law/rule makes sense or not, instead of just following all rules like drones.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and who makes the determination that a law/rule makes sense? Perhaps the law is created to either reflect what the masses think, or it is created to make the playing field level. Seems that most people here think that using unprescribed painkillers is and should be against the rules. If he wants to be a rebel and not follow established protocol, then you get what he got. That is not following a rule like a drone. If he truly believes that they should be legal, then the RESPONSIBLE thing to do is approach it from the proper avenue.
by soadtrails on Mar 17, 2009 7:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If these guys were trying to make some kind of stand against rules they don’t agree with they wouldn’t be trying to hide them doing it from everyone. What is on a banned substance list has nothing to do with the law it has to do with sport regulations that the fighters agree to abide by when they file for their fighter license. Don’t confuse breaking the law with cheating at a sport.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah...these guys are Muhammad Ali
Fighters have a responsibility to meet the criteria to fight within the established rules. Make weight, piss clean, follow the established rules for the fight…etc.
If you want to pretend that this is somehow as noble as Ali taking a stand against the Vietnam War…go ahead…but you’re delusional.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 6:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
And athletic commissions have a responsibility to not abuse their power by creating and enforcing rules that are strictly within their mandate instead of infringing on people’s private lives.
by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's crap...
pain killers can have a direct impact on the fight.
It isn’t abusing your power to want guys to fight clean. I guess you want guys to put anything they want in their bodies to fight though. So okay…we’re just not going to see eye to eye. I want to see guys fight clean, you’re fine with guys abusing pain killers and I assume steroids as that’s being done “in someone’s private life” as well.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
wait, what’s going on here? Are you examining the merits of the rule? You can’t do that, there’s a rule for God’s sake! It doesn’t matter what the rule says, what matters is that it’s there. Shame.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's fine to examine the merits of the rule
which is what I said in my first comment. What I’m saying is that you don’t get to break a rule and not get punished. Sorry…that’s fucking life. I know we like to pretend that fighters are above all this…but they fight under the rules of the athletic commission. They break the rule, they get punished. Now if you want to push for changing those rules…fine, that’s great and I’d support that. But you don’t change things by just doing whatever the fuck you want and then going “I’m like Muhammad Ali!”
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
They can affect a fight only if they’re used in a fight. Just because they’re showing up in someone’s urine doesn’t mean they’re affecting the fight.
Steroids are different because they’re obvious performance enhancers.
by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They have to have the rule in place because what will happen if someone gets beat badly and seriously injured and it turns out that they were high (on weed or pain killers) or drunk in the cage/ring?
Everyone would come down on the AC for allowing the guy to fight while he was impaired, just like how the bartender can get in trouble for serving you or letting you drive home when you’re clearly wasted.
Who knows how high Diaz was in the fight or how pain killers effected the people that took them and they were caught. The commission’s job is to protect the fighters. Saying, “you can’t fight when you are high” seems like something that falls into that category.
by Phildo on Mar 18, 2009 1:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“this actually shut my respiratory system down, it put me to sleep, empty stomach, i couldn’t eat the day of the fight, I don’t know how I was walking out to the fight.”
That sounds like it had some sort of effect on the fight.
by Phildo on Mar 18, 2009 1:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To my knowledge they don’t test for alcohol, and yet they’re still able to make sure fighters aren’t drunk during fights. Perhaps they could do the same with marijuana and opiates and other recreational drugs?
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 2:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would never stand up anywhere. You need a test that can prove that the drug is in the system. Someone thinking someone else is too high to fight is too subjective of a standard for it to be used for anything.
A cop can’t say, "I think you’re drunk, I’m arresting you for DUI, there has to be a test for it.
If the only way to test for whether or not you have drugs in your system means you have to stop taking the drugs a few weeks out, tough shit, don’t take the drugs, or don’t do something that says you can’t take the drugs.
by Phildo on Mar 18, 2009 3:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes you’re right subjectivity just won’t fly in mixed martial arts!
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where do we draw the line?
You look like you’re on steroids, you’re suspended. Would that be OK?
by Phildo on Mar 18, 2009 3:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Steroids are totally different though?
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Atletic commissions don’t infringe on fighter’s private lives they tell them what they can’t have in their systems before a fight. Nick can smoke all he wants and Melvin Guillard can snort coke off hookers asses all day as far as athletic commissions are concerned they just aren’t allowed to test dirty before a fight.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
maybe one day in the future the country will come to understand that pain killers are okay and we will trod a old run down Karo out during halftime at the superbowl and applaud him for his courageous “civil disobidence” against the unjust athletic commision.
by #5mmafan on Mar 17, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Martin Luther King did indeed say it is one’s civil duty to disobey unjust laws. Muhammed Ali objecting to report for the Vietnam draft on moral principal and sitting out five years in the prime of his career, when he would have only served for a year and probably would not have been sent overseas (it would have been horrible p.r. for an already unpopular war if he’d been injured or killed) is an excellent of example of this.
What I have trouble understanding is what moral principal Karo Parisyan was fighting for when he chose to take three different types of high-strength painkillers before his fight and then lied about it on the pre-fight questionnaire.
Furthermore it’s not like he’s going to jail or prison, as Ali nearly did. He’s being forced to sit on the sidelines for nine months because he didn’t adhere to the established rules of his profession. His career is not over, his family is not going to starve, and I doubt he’ll even lose his UFC contract. His punishment was quite fair.
by Chromium on Mar 17, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sorry, did Karo take high-strength painkillers because he’s fighting some sort of illness that isn’t anyone’s business? Not that he should have even been allowed to fight if that were the case, but still.
by Chromium on Mar 17, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who cares why he took them? As long as he wasn’t on them during the fight it is indeed none of our business and certainly nothing the regulators should be involved in.
by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 8:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it helped him with training, then yes they are directly related to the fight. Furthermore they were most definitely in his system during the fight or else they wouldn’t have shown up on the test.
by Chromium on Mar 17, 2009 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Video of the hearing
At around 2:26 or so, he mentions that he took two of his prescribed pills the morning of the fight. I don’t know how long those things last, but it’s plausible that they affected the fight.
"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 Mar 17, 2009 10:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But is that what the athletic commission alleges? If they argue that it affected the fight, then sure, they should throw the book at him. Otherwise their rule is simply an invasion of privacy.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 2:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fighters are licensed, they agree to follow the rules when they apply for the license, the civil disobedience arguement is silly for this discussion because this is a job related issue. If they fry chef at McDonalds doesn’t want to cut his hair and they fire him that’s not civil disobedience that’s just asking to be fired. The athletic commission isn’t stopping Nick from smoking on his own time and they aren’t turning him over to legal authorities they are just applying the measures he agreed to when he signed for his fighters license.
Comparing a guy using drugs before a mma fight to Ali dodging the federal draft for religious reasons is about as silly as comparing a guy using drugs before a mma fight to the revolutionary war. These guys aren’t taking a stand or fighting the power they are doing something they know is wrong and trying to hide it so they can get away with breaking the rules.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It’s important because without Diaz and Karo’s breaking of these dubious rules, the discussion of whether or not they should be changed most likely wouldn’t take place at all. Railing against their lack of obedience without critically thinking about the rules they broke is nothing but cheap grandstanding.
Also, your analogy fails because a soccer kick has a very clear and discernible effect on a fight.
by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
The discussion is ongoing. That doesn’t excuse there rule breaking. Will Karo be taking some illegal drugs be looked at like he is some hero ringing in a new age of painkiller fighting? no. That is rediculous. Diaz may take a personal stance and try to get the rule changed for pot, but if you enter into an agreement that gets you licenced then you should follow it.
by szucconi on Mar 17, 2009 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fighter A breaks rule
“HE BROKE THE RULES!”
“Yes they did, but it seems like we should probably look at changing that rule because it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense”
“THAT DOESN’T MATTER THEY BROKE THE RULES. IT’S MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW GUILTY AND STUPID THEY ARE!”
rule doesn’t change
fighter B breaks rule, process repeats
by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 6:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The time to change a rule is not after you broke it. You can’t say its a dumb rule so I ignored it. If I do that at work, I get fired. I have to get the rule changed if I think it is dumb. People will get DQed if they soccer kick to the head of a downed fighter, sure it effects the fight, but some think it is an equally dumb rule. People don’t go around breaking it to start a discussion. There already is a discussion. And Karo didn’t break a dubious rule, he broke a rule ment to keep the fighters safe, not a PED, but dangerous in its own way. Maybe fighter B should learn from his peer being fined and suspended. Fighter B knows the rules under which he is licenced.
by szucconi on Mar 17, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The time to change a rule is when it is proven to be unjust or irrelevant.
If a substance is banned under the broad rubric of “fighter safety” but has no discernible effect on the outcome of a fight, then the athletic commission has overstepped its bounds. They might as well be suspending fighters for traffic violations.
by George Lucas on Mar 17, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
None of these guys are saying that they are unjust or irrelevant they are saying " I didn’t do it" or “I made a mistake”. Lets not act like Karo was up there saying that it was his moral right to take pain killers before a fight he was up their tossing out excuses and begging them to go easy because he doesn’t want to lose his job.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Um Nick Diaz said exactly that. And so am I. It’s none of the regulators’ business what fighters do for recreation as long as it doesn’t involve their contests, illegal or not.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Letting fighters fight on things that could get them killed is on the regulators.
by szucconi on Mar 18, 2009 2:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes I’m sure the “YOU COULD HAVE BEEN KILLED” argument factored heavily into the commission’s deliberations.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There were little deliberations, he was pretty guilty of breaking the rule. His excuse was not, “I wasn’t high during the fight”, it was “I didn’t know I couldn’t do that” For all we know he took them right before he came out. Or he could have taken them a month ago. The commissions rules and methods of testing are clear. If he doesn’t want to follow them then he doesn’t have some god given right to fight in the state.
by szucconi on Mar 18, 2009 3:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep professional fighting isn’t a right it’s privledge, these guys agreed to abide by the regulations when they filed for their fighters license.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:16 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
…aaand we’re back at the “the rules are the rules, screw critical thinking” argument.
You guys are like a broken record.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not a broken record it’s a blatant fact that there is no way around, the fighters agreed to the rules (or they wouldn’t be fighting) and then they broke them, that is the end of the story from that standpoint. There is no discussion if the agreed to rules are broken then they are broken. Professional prize fighting is a privelidge not a right, this is an employment issue, if someone doesn’t like the regulations they are free to pursue another career with regulations more to their liking. Lets not act like these are laws that are forced onto people because fighting for a living is a choice.
You want to discuss the finer points of what can and can’t affect a fighters performance they there can be a discussion but then it’s not like the athletic commissions rely on random internet posters opinions when they made those rules, you better come up with real undeniable medical evidence because that’s what they used to start with. To be honest from my professional perspective (as a OSH professional I do have to deal with these issue on job sites) it’s better to be safe than sorry. If there is even a chance that there is a possible effect or danger to something then that is enough reason to keep it out of a dangerous occupation (and professional fighting is dangerous enough without a bunch of drug what if’s involved).
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:27 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am discussing what can and can’t affect the fighter’s performance and instead of geting reasoned arguments all I get from you guys is “HE BROKE THE RULES AND THAT’S THAT!”
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No you are discussing why you think what the fighter did was ok and that isn’t the case. If NSAC says that bacon and eggs are not allowed in your system then you better damn well skip that country breakfast the morning of the fight, regardless of whether the rule is good or not as long as it exist and you break it then you have to pay the consequences.
If you want to duscuss what can and can’t affect a fighters performance then you better come with something better than your own personal opinion and you better make it clear that you aren’t trying to justify guys actions who broke the standing rules in the past. Once you agree to abide by the rules and then you break them that part of the arguement is over with.
If you have some emperical data to share with us then I for one would enjoy seeing it but at this point we all know each other’s personal opinions already.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:43 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Empirical data you say?
Okay. How about the fact that opiates can remain in the system 3-4 days after usage, marijuana 2 to 30 days after use? How about the fact that most prescription painkillers have an affect of 1-5 hours, or that the effects of marijuana last 1-3 hours? Clearly a positive test does not necessarily imply usage during a fight.
Not that that matters to athletic commissions, because THE RULE is more concerned with what you do in your private life instead of what actually goes on in a contest.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok show me an empirical test that can prove whether they are acting on your system or just still in your bloodstream and you may have something, of course they don’t have a test for that so they are forced to assume the worst when a test comes back positive. Eyeballing guys to see if they act “high” isn’t going to cut it you have to have real empirical proof or else you risk sending a guy who is under the influence of something but doesn’t look it out to the cage to fight.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:56 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Guilty until proven innocent is a pretty reprehensible standard for regulatory policy.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 4:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Guilty until proven innocent is reprehensible for a legal issue but for a voluntary sporting event it works just fine. Besides if you test for it then you aren’t innocent because the regulation says you can’t have it in your system period.
I do understand what you are trying to say but the same standards that apply to the legal system don’t apply to sport’s regulations. The Athletic commissions goal isn’t to enforce the law it’s to protect the participants and because of that they are forced to err on the side of caution. This is about employment safety not legally proving and punishing people.
What the athletic commissions do is closer to what NASA does to regulate it’s astronauts health and safety than it is to what the police do to punish drunk drivers. Heck most of the stuff on the banned substance list is perfectly legal otherwise but if you want to follow that career path you have to follow what that career path dictates.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 4:09 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It should also be pointed out that Athletic commission punishments are pretty tame compared to many other career regulations. If you fail a piss test for Wal Mart they fire your ass, Karo Parisyan still has a career to come back to 9 months from now.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 4:23 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well score one for Nick Diaz and the potheads then but that wasn’t his defense to NSAC.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree. I don’t think we have a bright line standard that says ‘the time to change a rule is before you break it’. Often that is not the case. Take MLK Jr. He purposefully engaged in breaking segregation laws because he thought that it was the best way to show the error of the law, and thereby get the law changed.
Maybe sometimes the best way to change a rule/law is before it’s broken, but traditionally that’s not accurate.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again...
please stop bringing up people like MLK and Ali. Parisyan fighting while on painkillers is hardly the same thing.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s not at all the same thing.
The point is now your examining the rule instead of pronouncing the importance of the existence of the rule. That’s what’s important.
Steroids/PEs infringe on fair play, an overarching interest in sport.
Painkillers infringe on what? America’s war on drugs? Nancy Reagan, do tell.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you're high on painkillers during the fight...
they are absolutely a performance enhancer.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 17, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t believe that. Narcotic/Opiate based pain killers slow the cardio-respiratory system and slow muscle reactions.
How would such a painkiller help a fighter during a fight? I can only see it hurting a fighter as far as performance.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When someone is punching you in the face any pain deadening agent in your bloodstream is going to have an affect on the fight.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could see it being a factor if there was some relationship to not being KO’d, like it prevented the brain from being ‘turned off’.
But pain? Like ‘ow that hurt’, that’s not the ’he’s hurt’ of getting hit in the head or the body. ‘Hurt’ to the head means faculties are reduced because the brain just bounced off the skull, it doesn’t have to do with pain as in ‘ouch that is painful’. Getting hurt to the body is the inability to draw breath properly.
by lcollins1 on Mar 18, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pain is pain, if someone has you in a submission and you have a pain deadening agent in your system you are going to be able to last longer and work harder to get out of it. I could go on and on about the many different ways that professional prize fighters inflict pain on each other during fights and the many different ways having a substance in your body that mask pain has an effect on the fight. When two professionals are in a cage trying to do bodily harm to each other then of course having a pain deading agent in your system is going to have an influence.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
do you use three types of pain killers for recreation?
by szucconi on Mar 18, 2009 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s none of your business what I do. That’s the point.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 2:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you do it while driving a car? You are restricted friom doing so under the agreement of your licence. The same applies here.
by szucconi on Mar 18, 2009 2:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your analogy only works if they say that the fighter in question was on the drugs while he fought, or that they somehow affected the fight. How have you people not understood that yet?
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why do you think people are not understanding that.
He peed in a cup after the fight.
The drugs were in his system.
What is the problem?
by Phildo on Mar 18, 2009 3:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They were in his system, but were they affecting the fight? This is something that the commission doesn’t even consider.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
because they have determined that having the drugs in your system effects the fight.
The quotes from Karo are pretty solid on that.
by Phildo on Mar 18, 2009 3:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Testing positive != high when fighting.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When talking about pain killers it does.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re just wrong there. You’ll test positive for opiates days (weeks?) after the effects of them have worn off.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re just wrong there. You’ll test positive for opiates days (weeks?) after the effects of them have worn off.
No I am not because you can’t just tell if someone has taken a pain killer (I have a bad back and have taken plenty of powerful painkillers in my time). If you have a painkiller of any time tested for in your system the assumption has to be that it is currently in effect because there is no way to determine that otherwise. This isn’t about being high it’s about having something in your bloodstream that dulls pain and you just can’t eyeball that.
What do you suggest that they whack guys with baseball bats to see if they have the proper pain registration before a fight? There is a point where they have to make the assumption that it is currently in effect and there is no problem with that because it’s clearly defined that the regulation is against having it in your system not being under it’s affects. That’s why they tell guys not to take this stuff for weeks and months before a fight because they are forced to assume it’s current.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:52 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just because you think you’re really good at hiding your pain killer habit doesn’t mean a trained professional can’t tell when you’re impaired.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what is your method than for determining that someone is high?
You can’t use the eyeball test, that would never stand up in court.
If they tried to suspend you/not let you fight because you “looked high” and they didn’t have a test to back it up, you would sue, and win. The same way if you got arrested for DUI for driving erratically and looking drunk, but if there’s no breath or blood test, you can’t get convicted. There has to be some sort of backup to prove that someone is high. Right now, the urine test is the best thing they have.
Unless you can come up with a better, feasible way to determine whether people are on drugs, the urine test is the only way that will work.
Does that suck that some drugs will stay in your system sometimes when they don’t effect teh fight? Yes, but unless you can come up with a way to prove that they didn’t effect the fight, there’s really no other solution.
by Phildo on Mar 18, 2009 3:37 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The eyeball test works just fine for alcohol, a banned substance with an obvious affect on a contest.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where are earth can you get convicted for DUI without a blood or a breath test?
by Phildo on Mar 18, 2009 3:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A mixed martial arts fight.
No one ever gets arrested or convicted of anything by an athletic commission that’s why Nick Diaz didn’t do jail time for pot.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 4:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops you got me there. I was just saying that MMA restricts alcohol on the basis of the eyeball test alone. Why have a separate standard for other recreational drugs?
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 4:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obviously not, because steroids can unfairly affect the outcome of the fight without being active during the fight. The same is not true for many other banned substances.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 4:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No it works because the regulation (that the fighters agreed to) says you can’t have it in your system. The regulation doesn’t say under the drug’s influence it says in your system because that’s the best they can go buy, you can’t eyeball a person and tell their blood levels and people who look fine can still be under the influence or have active chemicals in their system.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually it’s pretty common to determine if a person is chemically impaired. Police officers do it all the time.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For alcohol yes, for drugs that have other affect no. Of course refusing a test is an admission of guilt in the eyes of the law so they do tend to run the test too(proof looks better in court than “well he looked drunk”).
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If any of these guys were wanting to change the rules they wouldn’t be trying to hide it from officials. Your under some kind of misguided perception that these guys are trying to change things or are ignoring rules they don’t agree with but what they are actually doing is knowingly cheating, if they were out to change the rules they would be vocally saying “I want to change the rules”. Remember these guys agreed to abide by the existing rules and agreed to the punishments if they broke them when they applied for the fighter’s license in that state.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Diaz is quite vocal about how the rules need to change, actually.
You use the term cheating as if to imply there was some sort of performance enhancement taking place.
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No I use the word because rules that all fighters agree to beforehand when they file for a athletic commission license were broken. To be honest some of the stuff there can be a discussion about the effect/lack of an effect on the fighter but when you agree to not do it(which they all do when they file for a state fighters license) and then you do it anyway you are breaking the rules.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you don’t disagree then that the rules need to be changed?
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Show me undeniable proof that it is 100% safe and I would agree to that but due to the danger in the sport it would take that level of proof. Us having discussions on the internet about it interest me because it increases my knowledge on subjects(which is also important for my work) due to the fact that I do research this stuff. Still that is irrelevant to what the rules are because random internet posters don’t have the power to change them and the Athletic Commissions are consistantly going to take the stance of better safe than sorry when it comes to the sport because their job is to protect all the fighter’s safety. It will take real proof to change that.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 3:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
oh those IRRELEVANT INTERNET POSTERS don’t they realize how fruitless it is to voice an opinion on something??
by George Lucas on Mar 18, 2009 3:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No they don’t but then where would the fun be if they ever did realize that? Still it’s easy to get the rules changed all you have to do is come up with two things, undeniable proof and a better medical test that solves the problem.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 4:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Karo (or any other fighter) doesn’t agree with the rules then they have a very simple option- go fight elsewhere. Being a pro fighter is a privelage, not a right. If they are unwilling to abide by the laws laid down by the athletic commission then they are welcome to go fight in Japan or somewhere else where they agree with the rules (or lack of rules).
by ufc4 on Mar 17, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think some people are mistaking professional prize fighting for a legal right but this is actually about skilled employment under regulations that fighters agree to abide by when they apply for their license to do it. MLK fight for equality of man under the rights laid out in the Constitution has nothing at all to do with regulations that licensed professional prize fighters have to follow in order to pursue their specific chosen career path. Fighting in a cage for profit is a privilege not a right. If you don’t want to follow the regulations governing your chosen career path then you are always free to get another career with regulations closer to your liking.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Weed = performance inhibiting, so I think it's purely on there for social graces.
by subo on Mar 17, 2009 2:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/2007_List_En.pdf
Basically, any drug listed there is considered banned: Heroin, fentanyl, alcohol, Insulin, whatever. It’s “THE LIST”.
by Sokonojudo on Mar 17, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m glad they made the Kim fight a NC, I though Kim got jobbed by the judges.
by polevaultking on Mar 17, 2009 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Karo continues to make mistakes, going in to this hearing without representation was idiotic. His explanation was contradictory, his friend with a chronic condition gave it to him and/or he had a prescription and/or it was unintentional.
His pleas for leniancy were based on claims that he has no other source of income, without fighting he is nothing, hinting at a very strong motivation to do whatever it takes to get in the cage and be successful, legal or not.
Bottom line, he broke the rules and the punishment fits the crime. Good job by the commission.
I have been a huge fan of Karo in the past, his battle with anxiety and panic attacks, while funny to some is no joke. It is a very serious condition that causes many who have faced it to self medicate to the point of debilitation and/or addiction. My guess is that Karo found that these drugs helped him deal with the anxiety and panic, and rationalized using them.
Get some help Karo, this can be overcome.
by dualdiagnosis on Mar 17, 2009 3:20 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
i kind of feel bad for the guy. i hope he doesn’t take this too hard and do something rash.
by dr. ransom on Mar 17, 2009 3:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t feel bad for him at all. If he had spent 10 mins. googling “NSAC banned list” he would have realized he was ingesting at least 2 different banned substances. The “ignorance is bliss” defense is BS.
by Sokonojudo on Mar 17, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lets not kid ourselves about any of these fighters really
knowing what is on these lists. They have plenty of people in their camp/staff that are paid to tell them & research this. Do you think Karo did not see the story of James Irwin getting suspended for painkillers?
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wouldn’t be surprised at all if he hadn’t heard about irwin. karo’s hasn’t exactly been psychologically stable as of late.
by dr. ransom on Mar 17, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Irvin
Psychological stability is not a prerequisite of competing in mixed martial arts. Not testing positive for pain killers is.
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, Irvin. My bad
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It honestly does not matter to me,
but I find it hard to believe he would not have heard of anyone getting suspended for painkillers. Kind of the reason he was immediately so defensive saying he had a prescription for them instead of “I did not know they were illegal.”
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He has a list of banned substances. He has training partners and a camp. His fucking cousin fights in the UFC. He has a manager. He’s been in the sport for many years. No excuses whatsoever. It’s like saying you didn’t realize there are ten minute 1st rounds in DREAM.
"I hit [Evensen], and you could just see it in his head. He went, 'Oh, man. We don't have to do this anymore. I'm good. Thanks for having me. I'm going to go home now." -Pat "The Real Techno Viking" Berry
by Blackout612 on Mar 17, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, I brought those some of those same
points up a couple posts earlier.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Karo has been fighting MMA for 10 years now, at this point “I didn’t know” isn’t a excuse that works.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude just because you spend all your time reading on the internets, doesn’t mean others do.
by WARMMA on Mar 17, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does he need to "read on the internets"
to know what he can & cannot take in his particular profession? I did not have to read on the internets that I cannot come to work fucked up on pain pills without getting into trouble.
Arguing on the internet is like being in the special olympics, even when you win you are still retarded.
by dnevil001 on Mar 17, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Part of Karo’s job is knowing about MMA rules and regulations, he’s a veteran fighter. He may not know much about James Irvin but if he doesn’t know the rules surrounding the banned substance list after 10 years in the sport then he’s got a lot more serious problem than a 9 month suspension.
by who me on Mar 17, 2009 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Don't they know who he is?
Also, I want my money back from betting on DHK in the betting game for that card. It’s been ruled a “No Decision.” All bets are off.
Re-count!
Although detractors decry (MMA) as a brutal, bloody form of human cockfighting, aficionados know it is a brutal, bloody, totally fucking awesome form of human cockfighting. -The Onion
by The Kittitas Kid on Mar 17, 2009 3:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We can’t have fighters drifting in and out of reality.
That’s amazing.
I will play my game beneath the spin light.
Absurd Meridian
by Eugene Schelfaut on Mar 17, 2009 3:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
B)He is fined 40 percent of his $80,000 purse ($40,000 show/$40,000 win), totaling $32,000, which will go to the Athletic Commission
How about they give it to charity or something.
Charity starts at home, I guess.
The Bird is the Word.
by IHateMMA on Mar 17, 2009 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
that’s the reality of this fine. ‘I tax you to pay my salary’ is totally ridiculous.
by lcollins1 on Mar 17, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really agree with that thinking, there is no way the AC can count on someone testing positive for a banned substance so they can have money to pay the bills.
by ufc4 on Mar 17, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Athletic commissions make their money off licensing and regulating events, these fines aren’t a drop in the bucket by comparison. The fine is there as a monitary punishment not a money making scheme.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This isn’t a tax it’s a fine for breaking the regulations he agreed to follow when he applied for his license to fight in the state of Nevada. Agreeing to that license is like signing a contract saying you agree to follow those regulations and abide by the Commission’s decision on punishments if you break those regulations.
by who me on Mar 18, 2009 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Gamblers on this fight
got shorted bigtime. I personally thought Kim won the fight 29-28 and threw a few 100 on it, but I doubt my book would give me a credit for the fight considering it was rulled a no contest after the fact.
by KneesnBows on Mar 17, 2009 4:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The 3 things that Karo needs.
1. A new training team. He has looked horrible as of late.
2. New management, including a lawyer for dealing with the commission.
3. A Job training program. Nothing sounds more pathetic than " I need to fight to support my family. This is all I do." You can’t fight forever Karo and you don’t seem to be on any sort of upswing.
by The_Vig on Mar 17, 2009 4:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If Karo gets his act together, doesn’t fuck up again, and redeems his name by the time his career is over, he could easily be an MMA trainer or a wrestling coach or open his own gym. As long as he doesn’t fuck up he isn’t going to have to Shamrock himself into a tragic joke or work a shitty day job that doesn’t take advantage of any of his natural talents.
by Chromium on Mar 17, 2009 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“"This is my only form of income," Parisyan said.”
Well Karo, now you have 9 months to find out what it is like to get a real job.
“Hey bro, would you like fries with that?”
by DirtyML on Mar 17, 2009 5:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
customer: “No BRO, I don’t wan’t fries with that”
Karo: “Do you know who I am? You have no idea the things I could do to you right now”
by soadtrails on Mar 17, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Allow all drugs in sports! (Click Me!)
"Negative, negative. I gotta stay lean and lightning and ready to fight." Capt. H.M. Murdock
by BadB on Mar 17, 2009 7:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Give me my BE dollars back! xD
Kuwabara Kuwabara
by J. B. Maddox on Mar 17, 2009 10:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
“Parisyan, who was not represented by legal counsel at the hearing”
You know what they say… The man who represents himself in court has a fool for a lawyer.
by brad23 on Mar 17, 2009 10:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Like that wasn’t all part of his “pity me” plan. I know people just like them, and I cannot stand even being around them. They think they can smooth talk their way out of anything. He came up with a big ol’ excuse for everything, didn’t bring in legal representation, and look what that got him. SMACK!!!!
Good!
by soadtrails on Mar 17, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Congratulations NSAC you are now as inept as the CSAC, thank you for showing that you have your heads up your asses when it comes to these suspensions and i’ll be sure to ignore your ruling just like I did Nick Diaz win over Gomi. Kizer needs to be fired and there needs to be someone put in his position that isn’t a complete and total idiot in his thinking.
Anyone that defends these morons really needs to step up their knowledge of MMA, the idea that weed and painkillers can help you during a fight is beyond stupid. I also hope that the people crying about how “he broke the rules” find themselves in a similar situation and then they can get the book thrown at them to. Nothing is more insulting than these people who always cry about upholding the rules without any leniency they are usually the one’s who end up being the biggest hypocrites.
by Raker on Mar 18, 2009 12:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Just a little.
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 Mar 18, 2009 1:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This guys right. If it’s a banned substance but not performance enhancing then you should be able to use it before a fight! Where’s my heroin needle?
by ilostmydog on Mar 18, 2009 3:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know...
that my work has a policy where they can do a drug test on any employee. As such I don’t smoke pot, because if I did and got tested I’d turn up dirty and therefore I would get fired. Understanding that, I would deserve to get fired if I violated a rule in place. Now I could easily smoke pot when I’m now working and it would have no effect at any point on the work I do. BUT again, if I did it I would be doing so with the understanding that “well, I could get fired for this”
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 18, 2009 8:49 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Continuing the above discussion but moving it down to make it easier to read.
The reason why they’re banned is because it is near impossible to tell if someone is high on a painkiller the moment of the fight.
The point of testing is that it shows that something illegal was in your system and you COULD have been using at the time of the fight. You don’t do an “eyeball test” as your only checking as everyone handles drugs differently and someone who has a long term addiction can seem much more normal than someone using for the first time. It’s a huge liability issue to use visual inspection as the only checking.
Now again, you seem to be ignoring the fact that I’m saying that it is fine to push for rule changes but this is not a case where “civil disobedience” makes any sense as a catalyst for that change. A) it ignores the fact that Karo seems like he has addiction issues, meaning that you’re arguing that rather than look out for the safety of a fighter you want him to use opiates to his heart’s content just because it’s his own life. And if not addiction issues between the panic attacks and the use of opiates he has some mental issues that need addressing. B) it ignores the fact that this is not a court of law. The rules for competing in this competition in this state are such that you MUST test clean. It doesn’t matter if something is legal or illegal in the courts as much as it matters if something is in the NSAC’s rules. It’s not like the NFL doesn’t have over the counter supplements on their banned substance list. There are rules to participate in certain activities. Fighting for the NSAC (or any other AC) isn’t a right by any stretch. If you refuse to comply with their rules you are going to pay the price.
Lastly, painkillers could give you a minor advantage in a fight in that you can deal with pain a little bit better. But the bigger thing is that they also place the fighter who is using in danger. If he is slower to react he could get seriously hurt. Not being “all there” when fighting is dangerous, as much as we like to pretend it isn’t the case it is entirely possible to get killed in the cage. Being on drugs while fighting can increase the chances of that happening. Not to mention that if he does happen to pop right before getting in the cage there is a chance of an overdose or known problems with these drugs. All of the drugs he tested positive for have side effects that include dizziness, light headedness, anxiety, nausea, vomiting..etc. Guys should not be getting in the cage under those circumstances.
Now if you want to change the rules, take the right approach, don’t just do whatever the fuck you want and expect that there aren’t going to be consequences. That’s all we’re arguing. It doesn’t matter if it seems fair or not right not…because if you want the privileged of fighting for a major promotion you need to comply with state athletic commission rules.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 18, 2009 9:15 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Jesus...I butchered my last paragraph. TAKE 2
Now if you want to change the rules, take the right approach, don’t just do whatever the fuck you want and expect that there aren’t going to be consequences. That’s all we’re arguing. It doesn’t matter if it seems fair or not right now…because if you want the privilege of fighting for a major promotion you need to comply with state athletic commission rules.
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Mar 18, 2009 9:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
![Brock Larson reflects on his upset loss to Mike Pierce in an interview with MMA Junkie:
"I don't think the judges made the wrong call. They had to award him the win because the only thing that went on in the whole fight was takedowns, and he got them. I clearly lost the fight. Hats off to Pierce, but he has some issues to work on himself."
In the locker room after the fight, UFC matchmaker Joe Silva told Larson's manager, Monte Cox, "Don't worry about Brock. He's a fighter. We don't know what we're going to do with this other [expletive]. I don't know if I can watch another 15 minutes of that [expletive].".
"That was good to hear coming off a loss," Larson said. "In a weird way, that loss helps me, and it would have helped Pierce if he tried to be aggressive. Win, lose or draw, at least he's competing. People won't want to watch that stuff.
"I've always taken pride in going after and trying to finish my fights, and I get the upper hand always going after it and being aggressive. Pierce didn't have that attitude. He just wanted to eke out the win and get the [win].
"The W is important, but at the same time it's the entertainment business. People pay to watch, and they don't want to watch two guys hug belly buttons. Clay Guida, he makes more money on friggin' 'Fight of the Night' bonuses than he does on his fight wins."
"People look at film and say, 'This guy beat Brock? That's all he had to do,'" Larson said. "I have to get the Band-Aids out, cover that owie and not have to worry about that being a problem."](http://cdn1.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/84043/md97y25v01_small.jpg)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
