Sherdog Responds: A Statement on Dana White’s Remarks
by natyong on Apr 4, 2009 10:25 AM EDT
Email
PrintPromoted to the front page from the FanPosts by Luke Thomas.
Sherdog.com released a statement today on Dana White's now removed video blog. It's definitely worth the read in this ongoing saga.
The article is accurate, and we stand by it.
Sherdog.com sought comment from multiple UFC representatives and gave them more than three full days to respond. The company chose not to respond prior to the report’s publication and instead issued White’s video blog several hours afterward.
Despite the UFC’s refusal to respond before publication, Sherdog.com included comments from managers and athletic commissioners who supported the UFC, expressed understanding and explained possible reasons.
The UFC is not perfect. The UFC is not evil. Dana White has built the promotion into something it never could have been without him. Yet even with all of the good that the UFC has done, it remains a powerful business that should be watched and reported on.
Of course, journalists also face consequences for discussing the UFC in a way it does not desire. It is not something worth whining about, but it is something that should be made public.
The UFC began denying media credentials to Sherdog.com, and other MMA media outlets like Full Contact Fighter and MMA Weekly, in October 2005. It is not true that Sherdog.com’s credentials were pulled for disclosing the finalists of "The Ultimate Fighter 4." The site was ousted nearly a year before the finalists were revealed in August 2006, and the UFC never offered an official explanation. Despite providing MMA content for ESPN.com, Sherdog.com is still denied access.
It also addresses Loretta Hunt's use of an anonymous source. Jon Fitch's recent cut and subsequent restatement is given as a example of the current UFC environment.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
39 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I understand their frustration with being on the outside, but why do they have such a sense of entitlement? I refuse to believe the Sherdog staff or Loretta Hunt were surprised when the UFC refused to comment on an article from her, especially given her history.
That article was written with full knowledge of the situation, have no doubt, and given that, why would the UFC have commented before it was printed when there could be little doubt their words would have been used in an ill light?
Dana’s response was childish and damning, no doubt. Unfortunately, it’s likely that’s exactly the kind of reaction Hunt and Sherdog were hoping for in the first place.
Where do they claim entitlement? From the article:
With that said, it doesn’t take a media credential to cover the UFC. The promotion can credential whomever it wants, and Sherdog.com can and does cover the UFC regardless.
Maybe this is a little off topic but one of there reporters was trying to talk to a fighter right before he his fights well the fighter didn’t want to talk so the reporter got all pissed off and acting like he was a reporter for CNN or something well since this happened they haven’t posted anymore of his fights on his record on their fight finder.
Really?
Who would that be? I’ve never heard that
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Most internet journalism based on MMA edges on the verge of parasitic given their lack of official blessing, Loretta Hunt and Sherdog are the worst example of this.
They spoiled the results of TuF4 and cry “why me?” every time the UFC shuts down their efforts to become a mainstream source of MMA news, overall I can’t say I’m displeased with the scorn they’ve received, only the choice words that Dana White used to give them said scorn.
They are overall a terrible site and without the UFC they would not be paying their bills, their journalistic integrity is akin to a rat being able to feed off the crumbs that are accidentally left on the floor after a long meal.
by DirtyML on Apr 4, 2009 10:54 AM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Had Dana just said that, we wouldn’t be having this discussion
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 4, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Huh???
According to this Response and Josh Gross’s piece at SI.com this posters facts are wrong. Both say they didn’t do spoiler for TUF4 until almost a year after they and other listed sites had lost their credentials.
I didn’t know the story before and I’ve looked. They are a news outlet, wouldn’t you think they would have put out some articles in the last few years expressing this “Why me?” attitude?
All I meant was smoogy called that guy ‘Dana’ for his comment, and had that actually been Dana’s comment, there would have been no controversy. Does the fact that the UFC banned Sherdog before they released TUF results make the UFC look worse for banning them for something else, or does it make Sherdog look worse for then vindictively leaking the results?
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 4, 2009 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions
This quote cause it’s own controversy and is similar.
“I consider Randy Couture a friend and still do. He hooked up with some Hollywood agent that I bitch slapped about a month ago, and these Hollywood agents are parasites, so unfortunately this guy is probably in Randy’s ear right now.”
Dana can’t say something like this and not cause controversy, nor would he not want to, It’s free press. He just doesn’t normally go overboard like he did in this case.
UFC banned multiple web sites previously credentialed all at the same time. What did they all do since you seem set on it being their fault?
TUF4 results was tabloidish at most. It’s like leaking Rhianna photo. It’s in bad taste, but we are all still looking. It’s Dana’s responsibility to plug leaks not Sherdog’s. They both look bad and both should take responsibility. In the mean time, free press to all!
by natyong on Apr 4, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Is this shit still going on??? Thought BE had finally moved on. Seriously, not since that guy from Grey’s Anatomy have I seen the word fa***t milked so much for it’s “newsworthyness”. On the plus side I’ve been extra productive the last few days on account there being few articles of interest on mma blogs since this thing started.
We promoted this fanpost...
to the front page as it presents the “official” response from one of the two parties involved
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
http://CurseOfRonKarkovice.blogspot.com/
by Brent Brookhouse on Apr 4, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Bottom line is, while Dana’s response was out of line, none of this week’s events happen if Loretta submits an article that would pass a basic journalism 101 assignment. It was lacking in reporting (anonymous sources, and any reporter worth their salt who has been around MMA as long as she have would have built up a strong enough network of sources to have found SOMEONE to go on the record if there was any smoke to this fire); accuracy (Dana shot down the premise of the story in flames); fairness (it read as a hit job); context (In no major pro sport are agents allowed access to the locker room on game day); and judgment (there was no timeliness issue to this that said the story had to run on that particular day, if your story was as weak as this was, you keep working on it and maybe run it a week or a month from now if you’ve built something stronger). I have a journalism degree, and while I’m not in the business any more I know enough about this rotting fish of a story to know it doesn’t run in any reputable publication.
by andherewego on Apr 4, 2009 12:44 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
heh ...
your reply here sounds a lot like my “standing behind” Loretta Hunt fanpost. Rec’d.
I definitely think it should have been written better, but not a big fan of your claims. From the original article:
"There was an event where backstage was so disorganized that all the fighters, not just mine, were worried if this fight was even going to happen, if they were going to get paid," Pavia said. "There was nobody backstage. There was no water. There were no inspectors in sight. My fighters wanted me there."
Kizer and Lembo, whose respective commissions handle the bulk of the big-money boxing events in the U.S., said backstage entourages can get out of hand, but they’ve never heard of a boxing promoter denying a manager or an agent a backstage credential.
"One qualified businessperson, that has a relationship with the fighter, serves the purpose backstage," said Pavia, who boarded a red-eye Monday night to meet his main event fighter, Martin Kampmann, in Nashville.
I didn’t follow fitchgate, but it was less than six months ago and from what little I know it worked out badly for the fighter representation. Why has the ship sailed?
6 months is like 6 years in mma news, thats why, but that’s just my opinion on that mater. plus fitch has re-signed a new contract since and all fighters are being paid a certain amount for being in THE “UNDISPUTED” VIDEO GAME which is what got fitchgate started in the 1rst place.
by bdw on Apr 4, 2009 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Uhm, I did research in the mean time,a Kevin Iole article: UFC drops Fitch, AKA fighters
The outspoken UFC president said…that he no longer wants to work with AKA fighters or those represented by DeWayne Zinkin and Bob Cook.
Mike Swick, Jon Fitch, Christian Wellisch, Cain Velasquez, Josh Koscheck, and a big one Chuck Liddell where part of that group at the time. Pretty scary statements to the agents livelyhood, considering Dana had a black balled list.
good research
but you didn’t post anything that i didn’t already know,(old news, real old) plus you left the “crazy” out of bob cook’s name. Uhm, do you really think chuck was in jeopardy? lol! trust me, that ship HAS sailed.
Does the fact that the article was wrong (the UFC was not making any changes at all to impede manager’s access to their clients) give Sherdog pause?… Or Loretta?…
No?… Oh, ok.
Actually, if you read the response, they confirm that there was a change made. Ken Pavia, for one, was denied access backstage.
I’m amazed how much misinformation this whole episode has created. It seems like a huge amount of people just took Dana’s allegations at face value and didn’t investigate whether or not they were true.
What was the change?
Dana’s story is that fighters can give credentials to whomever the hell they want. You’re saying that’s inaccurate?
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 4, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
That much was stated in Hunt’s original article. Most fighters want to fill those three spots with actual trainers. Anyway, Pavia says he was denied access to backstage. You’ll have to read it for yourself.
"With the multiplicity of disciplines the fighters must be schooled in, their striking coach, their ground coach are needed in the corner," said Pavia, who was among those denied. "Their training partner is in the locker room with them, helping them warm up, to break a sweat, to grapple, to pummel, whatever. Often, a full-service fighter will have all three in his corner, which pushes the manager or agent out."
That would be the fighter utilizing his three ringside credentials (which are granted by the commission, not the promoter) for people other than his manager. Dana, nor anyone else, could stop said fighter from having his manager with him at all times.
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 4, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, they’re denying Pavia at least. Other managers are being permitted in addition to the three credentialed trainers. So unless Pav wants to use up his fighters’ slots for trainers/coaches, yes, they are stopping him from being there.
Dave Meltzer and Josh Gross have also reported on this and appear to back up what Loretta is saying.
Seriously, do you think Pavia’s being blackballed? Why? What managers is Dana so concerned about that he’ll make them jump through hoops to get backstage, when they have unfettered access to the fighter 100% of the time before and after the card?
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 4, 2009 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
He’s saying that Loretta Hunt never said they couldn’t, actually quite the contrary it said the same thing.
Here’s the change the UFC made. In the past, if a fighter requested from the UFC a +1 (above the 3 Athletic Commissions credential) credential for their manager or agent they were granted. NOW they no longer give the +1.
Great idea for page hits
We have Smoogy and MMASupremacy on one team, and Subo and Blackout on another (iiowyn is an alternate). We have a contest.
Smoogy’s team wins and Subo’s team has to do a Fanpost on why Dana White is a bad person, why Brock Lesnar is overrated, and why competing organizations is a good thing.
If Subo’s team wins, Smoogy’s team has to do a Fanpost on why Affliction, DREAM, and all other organizations would be better off folding so UFC controls 100% of the market, why Dana White can do no wrong and everything he says is hilarious, and why Fitch was totally wrong to question his contract.
I am flexible on what type of contest we have to determine the winning team, but I suggest breakdancing.
by Farthammer on Apr 4, 2009 6:03 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I’d feel out of place; I am a long-time-lurker, recent commenter. Obviously this comment was meant in humor. All you guys make for good reading/discussions, and having each other balances things out.
Dude, anyone can FanPost anything – it’s the beauty of the system. I got drafted into writing the letter to ESPN, and I love beating up on smoogy and supremacy, so I think it’d get some fun comments
by Derek Suboticki on Apr 4, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
