1. How many press conferences for UFC events in the fairly distant future have been destination viewing?
2. What do you think would cost more, strictly speaking in dollars and cents: A) replacing a fighter in a title fight that has already been made official B) a press conference that a fighter no shows?
3. For the print journalists/online journalists/freelance writers, if you show up to a press conference expecting to cover a certain story, only to find that the story has changed suddenly and dramatically due to the actions of one or more people, are you (in general) annoyed at the sudden change, or pleased that there is a new story?
4. When it comes to people who break their word, does it matter to you what position the person breaking their word holds? Specifically, if an employer breaks their word to their employee, is this equal to an employee breaking their word to an employer? (I understand the employer/employee relationship, I'm more interested in how you feel morally and ethically about it)
5. Courtesy of a statement Mike Fagan made today. Do you feel that part of being a professional athlete includes having a working relationship with the media? I.E. If an athlete never agrees to do media and never compromises this, should they be excluded from participation in their sport?
6. Finally, as a fan of MMA, on what do you place more importance, the best fights or the quest to build the UFC into a major league on par with the other leagues?
I'd appreciate if you guys just answered as honestly an unbiased as possible. I of course realize that all these questions are related to yesterday's goings on and I also realize that it may appear to some of you that I am attempting to build a defense for Nick Diaz. I am not seeking to do so.
I would like, however, to generate a full conversation regarding the circumstances surrounding these events and how people feel about them completely separate from the individuals involved. It might be a fruitless endeavor, but I'd like to try all the same.