So is Yves Lavigne Not Entitled to an Opinion Anymore?
Yes folks, you read that right. Today I tackle the MMA equivalent of moving Sisyphus’s Rock.
Today, I’m going to stick up for Yves Lavigne.
I’ve always had a bit of a soft spot for the French Canadian born referee. In fact, I’ve often touted him as one of my favourite Mixed Martial Arts officials. It’s not because he’s an outstanding or even particularly memorable referee - just that he gives a whole hell of a lot of leeway when it comes to stepping in. To lose an Yves Lavigne fight, you really have to earn it.
Which is just fine by me. Despite what critics say, this isn’t the Colesium in Rome - no one is forcing these guys to get in there. They made the choice and they took the risk, and they all deserve the benefit of the doubt. Usually, most of the time, Yves gives you that.
Occasionally, too much of that. Marcus Davis had to endure almost half a minute unconscious before Yves decided he really didn’t want to continue. I think the first time you shook his arm and it was limp should have been a clue that the lights were out, but I’m not the referee, am I Yves?
Yes, fans have always seemed to have an axe to grind with Mr. Lavigne. Be it the aforementioned Davis stoppage or the Pete Sell bludgeoning or the Philippe Nover robbery, he certainly has his share of indefensible blunders inside the cage.
How strange, then, that his latest and most grievous blunder occurred outside it.
Allegedly, Lavigne made some light comments (to no less a prestigious MMA news site then Canoe.com) to the effect that Josh Koscheck was a pussy, he deserved (or at least directly caused) the Daley post-fight sucker punch, and he made the crowd boo him. Oh, and also that GSP was totally going to kick his ass.
I say allegedly because soon after the story broke, Lavigne stated publicly that he never made any such comments, and the story has been removed from Canoe.com. Whether this was a legitimate error or an attempt at some "Chael Sonnen’s Twitter Account"-style antics - well, fans haven’t quite decided yet.
But let’s put aside the question of Mr. Lavigne’s guilt for a moment to focus on the larger issue at hand. Innocent or not, the incident has already cast an inscrutable pall on his career. Josh Koscheck has stated that he doesn’t care if Lavigne never made the comments, he doesn’t want him officiating any more of his fights. I’d be willing to bet he won’t be the last to turn an untrusting eye on the French Canadian.
Also interesting was fan reaction to Mr. Lavigne’s comments when the story first broke. Again, let’s put aside whether or not he actually made the comments, and focus on the comments themselves. Sure, they were biased, but were the really inaccurate? Did Lavigne really say something that wasn’t true?
It’s strange because his comments accurately reflect the feelings of 99.9% of the MMA fan base, the other .01% being AKA and Josh Koscheck’s mom. You could argue Josh wasn’t afraid of Daley’s standup - who can really say but Kos himself? - but he certainly didn’t want any part of it. He used is wrestling to take Daley down, neutralize his ability to strike, and control position to a decision win. Any other interpretation of events is, in my opinion, not possible.
Lavigne felt this reflected fear of striking on the part of Koscheck. He also felt it’s what compelled Daley to hit him after the fight, and the crowd to boo. Stop me if this sounds familiar to anyone.
Hell, Yves is being generous to Kos here. The crowd wasn’t booing the wrestling-based gameplan so much as Josh’s ill-advised attempt to become the Cristiano Ronaldo of MMA. That whole "dissing the Habs" thing probably didn’t help matters either.
Then he goes on to make some predictions about the GSP/Koscheck rematch, and states that Kos will look for the big KO a’la Matt Serra. This will fail due to GSP’s improved striking, leading to another dominant defence by the champ. Again, none of what he said is revolutionary, or incendiary, or anything but the consensus opinion of the majority of fans.
Take out the fact that Lavigne is an official (and a French Canadian, while we’re at it) and are his comments really so outrageous?
But, alas, we can’t separate the man from the job, can we? To many, these comments reveal the presence of bias. Bias, that awful thing that prevents referee’s from being the paragons of impartiality they are supposed to be. How can Lavigne be trusted to referee another match ever again now that we know he interprets events like we all do and seems to have a favourite fighter, like we all do?
So I guess the question is: will having these beliefs effect his performance as an official? They could, but I don’t think it’s a guarantee. You can still have biases and personal beliefs, but suck them up and put them aside for the sake of professionalism. How many of us have bosses, or co-workers, or procedures, or whatever at work that we can’t f*cking stand, but we still put up with and work with to the best of our ability for the sake of the job?
All I’m asking is for folks to remember that referees are people too, and are capable of having opinions just like people. Did it show poor professional judgement for Lavigne to make these comments to the press, if indeed he even did? Absolutely. However, I don’t see anything in those comments that makes me think he should lose his job as an official as some have called for.
Unless it’s revealed that Lavigne was the one who slipped GSP the grease during the Penn fight - at which point I’m liquidating my assets and seeing if there’s any extra space in Matt Lindland’s bunker.
By Elton Hobson
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
27 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Douche?
Not that I condone facism or any ism for that matter. Isms are in my opinion, not good. A person shouldn't believe in an ism, he should believe in himself.
I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me". Good point there, after all he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. Wouldn't change the fact I have to bum rides off of people.
by Sam Cupitt on Sep 5, 2010 6:04 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Yes
and from what everyone tells me, I need to get up close with your Mom.
by Dootch on Sep 5, 2010 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
Yves Lavigne
Completely denied the interview ever took place and has since taken legal action. From what I have heard the older writers on this website are on strike, because many of the new writers are just making shit up to stir the pot.
This is nothing like Chael Sonnen’s comments and the interview was never recorded so there would be absolutely no proof he ever made those comments. So really it doesn’t matter at all.
by ImmortalTechnique92 on Sep 4, 2010 11:08 PM EDT reply actions 4 recs
He denied that he gave an interview to that reporter, not that he never said that
He also denied giving any interview on GSP vs Koscheck and yet we have audio of him doing so.
The only legal action he took was informing Canoe.com (who removed the story) yet it’s still available at Canoe.ca.
Just for full disclosure.
/sarcasm
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun
by S.C. Michaelson on Sep 5, 2010 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Refs are not entitled to opinions publy expressed
About fighters whose events they may ref.
█♣█
A wise man told me don't argue with fools
Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who -- Jay-Z
by thetakeover on Sep 4, 2010 11:13 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
This is the basic issue
I also think Koscheck has a legit gripe.
Who’s to say that Yves won’t stand up Kos on the ground since he found it “boring”.
/sarcasm
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun
by S.C. Michaelson on Sep 5, 2010 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions
An official with an outwardly expressed bias is screwed in any sport. Is Lavigne intitled to an opinion about fighters? Well in terms of doing his job as an unbiased official in the cage no he is not. There is too much at stake in a fight to allow the result to be tainted by bias officials(not to mention the gambling issues involved in MMA) and thus when one presents a public opinion about a specific fighter they are risking their entire careers. Even the hint of a bias for or against a specific fighter is enough to cause people involved in the sport to react very negatively towards that official.
by who me on Sep 4, 2010 11:50 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
Big John
has stated repeatedly that Fedor is the best, and no other fighter is at his level. I didn’t hear a peep when he was the ref for the Fedor – Werdum fight.
http://www.profighting-fans.com/articles/john-mccarthy-interview_052609.html
Stating Fedor is the best
Is not specifically stating that Fedor is better than Werdum at everything, nor is it saying that Werdum is a boring fighter and doesn’t evolve because he doesn’t have the humility to travel around the world like Fedor does.
He didn’t comment on any specific fight especially one that he might be reffing.
But in general, ref can (and do) have opinions, they just shouldn’t express them in most cases.
/sarcasm
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun
by S.C. Michaelson on Sep 5, 2010 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't see a difference
in saying there’s a fighter you dislike as a referee, versus saying there’s one you like. If you can be condemned for one, you should be for the other as well. There’s the same potential for favoritism.
He didn't say he "liked" Fedor
He said he’s the best. He didn’t talk about any upcoming fights, he didn’t call Fedor’s style exciting or any of his future opponents “boring”.
If Yves had said that GSP is the best in the world right now and is very well-rounded, this is a non-story. Once you start saying he’ll beat his next opponent and that his opponent’s style is “boring” and that fight is actually signed, you messed up.
/sarcasm
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun
by S.C. Michaelson on Sep 5, 2010 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that’s a good point, and I don’t think it was particularly wise of McCarthy to have made such comments. I think he gets a “pass,” so to speak because of his long tenure and established record of competence, but I don’t a ref developing his own “celebrity” and consequently speaking his mind is a recipe for trouble.
Darn it—I need to use the preview function.
I DO think a referee speaking on these issues is a recipe for trouble.
I agree
/sarcasm
Follow me on Twitter
Read me at WatchKalibRun
by S.C. Michaelson on Sep 5, 2010 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m an accountant, and the closest thing we do to refing or judging is reporting on the accuracy of financial statements so that investors, creditors, shareholders, and regulatory agencies can rely on them to make informed decisions. When doing these types of activities, the ethical standard we’re held to is not “use good judgment” or “don’t have conflicts of interest”, it’s “avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest”. That means that when we’re deciding whether some activity is ok, we don’t simply ask whether it could impair our judgment, we ask whether it could possibly look to someone like our judgment is impaired. The reason why we follow this tougher standard is that when you do a job like auditing that’s a public trust, not only do you have to do your job correctly, but you also have to do it in a way that maintains the public’s trust. If I’m auditing a company, I might think that their products are an essential part or my life or a blight on humanity, I might think their CEO is most alluring women I’ve ever met or the scum of the earth. Thinking any of these things doesn’t necessarily affect my ability to do my job because I’m a mercenary at heart, but saying them in public does, because it creates the seed of doubt that my work is unbiased. It gives anybody who disagrees with my findings the motive, method and opportunity to question them.
It’s the same thing with any job where the public is relying on your sound judgment, whether it’s an auditor, referee, judge, teacher or restaurant critic.
If Yves never said these things at all and this is 100% false reporting, that’s one thing. But, even if he said these things in passing or “off the record”, the responsibility for what’s happening is still totally on him. When you have this type of job, it’s your responsibility to know when and where to keep your mouth shut. Saying shit like this is poison to your ability to do a job like refing or judging because it raises doubts that can never be answered. The next time Yves stands up a wrestler, anyone who doesn’t like it now has a basis for questioning its fairness, and since it’s a question of judgment, there is no evidence that can be used to put the questions to rest.
by Jahbulon on Sep 5, 2010 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Public accountant MMA fans UNITE!
As Jahbulon says, it’s good a requirement for auditors to have independence in mind as well as independence in appearance. Such a concept is typically required, in one way or another, of any professional who is called upon to act as an independent third party.
People complete mis-understand what was going on here.
Yves was simply overcome with excitement for the one fighter and had to get him some.
I like Fedor, it’s just his fans that are intolerable...and his management.
Anyone have a gif of Yves ending up in Kyle Bradley's guard when Chris Lytle smashed him?
Mo Johnston is what John Schneider could be in 4 years.
All I’m asking is for folks to remember that referees are people too, and are capable of having opinions just like people.
That’s some deep sh*t there bro.
We are One.
Don't let the cuteness fool you. Panda's don't feel anything but RAGE.

Walking the line between intelligence and ignorance since 1985
@deowade

by 














