the definitive gokudamus theory on .9 scandal

so after a long hard fought battle, we have established, and the paid posters have conceded, that the practice of inconsistently applying an "off-the-record" rule is wrong and that if athletic commissions want to impose special rules with respect to how they treat decimals for weigh-ins, it should be codified in their statute so all fighters and other interested parties have notice of how each commission operates.

now, the remaining question is not whether or not there is some level of culpability, the question is, what is the degree of culpability.

here is my theory on that issue:

the practice of rounding down all decimals to the nearest whole number was driven by the UFC, not the athletic commission. This would explain why the quebec AC rounds down all decimals for the UFC, but doesn't follow that practice for most boxing or other MMA events. Since there is no express standard in the AC's codified rules, the Quebec AC, in true frenchman form, are pliable and allow others to dictate how they operate and implement their rules.

the problem, however, is that a government agency isn't supposed to allow private organizations to govern how their rules are interpretated and/or implemented in most scenarios. any influence a private organization may have on a government agency should, in most cases, be limited to voting and/or lobbying efforts. that is why the ufc consistently and repeatedly puts up a front that they have zero influence on the commissions. you hear it often, the UFC doesn't govern the commissions, the commissions govern the UFC. But as we all know, the practical reality is that this is not the case. The UFC does exert influence on the commissions, and many AC's are receptive to such influence, to varying degrees, due to the fact that UFC events bring in a lot of money.

So in this instance, the UFC asked the quebec commission to interpret their rules to drop the decimals for UFC events. The reasoning is obvious, a more flexible weigh in system means a lesser risk of fighters not making weight, which can have serious implications, including fights being called off. obviously the ufc takes making weight seriously and have even cut fighters for not making weight.

However, since the UFC shouldn't really have this type of influence, its not made public. If you ask most UFC fighters, they probably didn't know the Quebec AC drops decimals. Why? Well, the Quebec AC is not going to notify fighters of the practice, because from their perspective, its the UFC's rule, and the UFC isn't going to notify fighters in most cases because they try to always maintain the outward image that they have no influence or say in AC matters. So the end result is hardly anyone is aware of the rule.

So why did Mersch break the silence and inform diaz of the rule? my theory is that since GSP was sick (as confirmed by firas) there was a significant risk that he would not make weight, so they let the UFC know. This created a dilemma. Should the UFC keep silent on the rule and run the risk of GSP missing weight and getting the extra hour and .9 to make weight, which undoubtedly would create a huge outcry from diaz's camp since noone was aware of the rule? Or, should they bite the bullet, and tell nick in advance so as to give the impression that everything is equal and on the up and up.

Ultimately, the UFC made the decision to go with the latter and tell nick in advance in the hope of preempting any conspiracies. so what do they do. They don't send in some low level, minimum wage UFC employee to inform nick, which they could have easily done. No, they send in  one of their highest level executives, a trained lawer and assistant GC of the UFC, to handle this extremely sensitive subject that the ufc wanted to keep under wraps, hence, the "off-the-record" discussion. unfortunately, they fucked up by getting caught on camera and letting nick know after he already cut weight.

This explains why mersch was in total denial after the fact when texting with nick's lawyer. he knew he was caught. and what is the first rule advisers tell any politician when they are caught in some impropriety? deny, deny, deny.

so, what does this all mean? i don't think the UFC's/AC's motives were as nefarious as some think. I don't think they made up this rule on the spot to favor GSP over nick. I don't even think they witheld the information from nick for that reason either. But, I do think both the UFC and the Quebec AC do have some level of culpability for having an off-the-record rule that was created by UFC influence.

"we have established, and the paid posters have conceded, that the practice of inconsistently applying an "off-the-record" rule is wrong"

Not quite, everyone agrees consistency is desirable, that's not the same as saying inconsistency is "wrong".

""now, the remaining question is not whether or not there is some level of culpability, the question is, what is the degree of culpability."

Nice circular logic. You haven't -- at all -- made a case for anything wrong having occurred. 

"the practice of rounding down all decimals to the nearest whole number was driven by the UFC, not the athletic commission."

A wonderful theory that discards the fact that two of the six events used half pounds -- you know, the "inconsistency" you keep bleating about. 

" This would explain why the quebec AC rounds down all decimals for the UFC, but doesn't follow that practice for most boxing or other MMA events."

"Most"? So some other events discard decimals? What powerful influence was exerted in those instances?

Are you aware (of course you're not) that non-Zuffa Strikeforce weighins in California were also sometimes rounded down? For example, look at all these nice whole numbers for Fedor vs Henderson: http://www.mmamania.com/2011/7/29/2302700/strikeforce-weigh-in-results-for-fedor-vs-henderson-live-from-hoffman

"the problem, however, is that a government agency isn't supposed to allow private organizations to govern how their rules are interpretated and/or implemented in most scenarios."

The problem with your argument is the government agency doesn't give a single fuck about this aspect of the rules, or they would, you know, PUT IT IN THEIR RULES -- which as far as you are aware, not a single A.C. in the world has done. No "influence" needs to be "exerted" to get an AC to do something which is not in any way addressed in their rules. 

And in any case you should be delighted that the UFC would be pushing for consistency in rounding down whenever they have a say in the matter -- you seem extraordinarily devoted to the concept of consistency after all. They round off in their own events that aren't overseen by ACs.

"However, since the UFC shouldn't really have this type of influence, its not made public"

The funny thing is this is the crux of your entire argument and yet it's ridiculous. Can you tell us why a promoter shouldn't be able to have its preference govern a policy that is not covered by any rule? 

"Should the UFC keep silent on the rule and run the risk of GSP missing weight and getting the extra hour and .9 to make weight, which undoubtedly would create a huge outcry from diaz's camp since noone was aware of the rule?"

What nonsense. Do you think it likely that the Diaz camp would be aware that this AC, unlike EVERY other AC in the world, has rules that say fighters don't get an extra hour to make weight? They weren't even aware you couldn't be over for a title fight when Nate fought Benson, even though their team and Nate's own brother had about 50 title fights between them where that WAS the rule.

In conclusion, my god, I hope you're lying when you say you're a lawyer, because you suck at debating, you suck at reasoning, and you suck at making an argument. Also, you seem kind of dumb.

 

ahh..i see that the UG's resident homeless vagrant has wandered into the thread...since i have nothing better to do, i will humor you and break it down for u...

lets, take it one at a time shall we? we don't want to let you get away with your red herrings or faulty logic - that doesn't help anyone

"Not quite, everyone agrees consistency is desirable, that's not the same as saying inconsistency is "wrong".

so you are saying applying an off the record rule inconsistently is a good thing? or you are just saying its not wrong? if the latter. explain why it is not wrong.

cmon dorcus...im waiting..i like winning, but not by forfeit..

ok, fine..ill take that one by forfeit, which actually covers your second argument, so 2-0 gokudamus

 

"A wonderful theory that discards the fact that two of the six events used half pounds -- you know, the "inconsistency" you keep bleating about. "

interesting. so the quebec AC has treated the decimal different in different UFC events? that seems a bit odd, doesn't it. Which events were they different. in any event, it doesn't negate the assertion that the rounding is driven by the ufc. it could very well be the case that the UFC determined they wanted more flexibility in the weighins and asked the AC to drop all decimals. or they could ask the AC to drop decimals only for certain events depending on the fighters, which would be even more wrong.

the question you need to ask yourself is this. why the inconsistency in the first place at all? if its not being driven by the promoters - who is driving the inconsistency? why would a single AC, governed by one statute apply a rule differently depending on the event? what is the rationale for that?

RampageFitsLikeAGlove -


the problem, however, is that a government agency isn't supposed to allow private organizations to govern how their rules are interpretated and/or implemented in most scenarios.



I get this however you only seem to bring up the UFC.  In California and other states that Strikeforce held events, they follow the Unified set of MMA rules, however no one seems to have an issue that Strikeforce would ban elbows in their events.  Even when Bellator holds events under state commissions, they will alter the rules and eliminate elbows for their tournament fighters, but allow them in title fights.  Both of these promotions rules are not in line with the commissions set of rules.



It's clear as day that each commission has a rule book for their state, but will alter it if the promotions choose, just as Montreal will alter the tolerance allowed during weigh ins whether it be for UFC, smaller promotion, or boxing. 



If you guys have any issue at all, I'd be addressing UFC and asking why they like to handle it this way.  I agree each commission should be on the same page and consistent, but as shown, it can be altered if a promotion chooses. 

So are u agreeing that this rule was driven by the UFC? Despite the fact the UFC is always very clear that anything having to do with regulation is strictly within the exclusive authority of the AC? And also despite the fact merch and the UFC totally deny any involvement? Phone Post 3.0

RampageFitsLikeAGlove -
Anderson's BBC in my Goku - 
RampageFitsLikeAGlove -


the problem, however, is that a government agency isn't supposed to allow private organizations to govern how their rules are interpretated and/or implemented in most scenarios.



I get this however you only seem to bring up the UFC.  In California and other states that Strikeforce held events, they follow the Unified set of MMA rules, however no one seems to have an issue that Strikeforce would ban elbows in their events.  Even when Bellator holds events under state commissions, they will alter the rules and eliminate elbows for their tournament fighters, but allow them in title fights.  Both of these promotions rules are not in line with the commissions set of rules.



It's clear as day that each commission has a rule book for their state, but will alter it if the promotions choose, just as Montreal will alter the tolerance allowed during weigh ins whether it be for UFC, smaller promotion, or boxing. 



If you guys have any issue at all, I'd be addressing UFC and asking why they like to handle it this way.  I agree each commission should be on the same page and consistent, but as shown, it can be altered if a promotion chooses. 

So are u agreeing that this rule was driven by the UFC? Despite the fact the UFC is always very clear that anything having to do with regulation is strictly within the exclusive authority of the AC? And also despite the fact merch and the UFC totally deny any involvement? Phone Post 3.0


100%..... as stated in another thread, I don't think the Montreal commission puts a bunch of options (weigh to the pound, weigh to the 1/2 pound, weigh to the 1/10th lb) in a hat and then draws one for that event and that's what they use.  I think any of those options are fine, they give the promtion the choice, and that's what they use.  Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with any of them as it's just the way they round the numbers, but it would be nice if it were more consistent. 



Has Merch denied any involvement in the choosing of weigh in procedure and is that his job?  I'd imagine this is something chosen long before the event and likely when all paperwork is signed confirming the show.



If Dana has shown us anything, it's he has no problem throwing anyone under the bus, including the head of AC's like Kizer.  If he thought the Montreal commission messed up, I'm sure he would have publically called them fuckin idiots many times by now.

I think we are on the same page then.

Regarding mersch if u read his texts he clearly is acting like he has no idea what tweedle is talking about and that its all the AC. Ratner did the same. Phone Post 3.0

RampageFitsLikeAGlove -


Despite the fact the UFC is always very clear that anything having to do with regulation is strictly within the exclusive authority of the AC?



I've seen Dana say this before, but clearly even he knows that some rules are negotiable.  I mean, I highly doubt he's unaware of the Strikeforce and Bellator examples I brought up.  The commissions and referees follow/followed and enforce/enforced the "no elbows" rule, despite elbows being allowed by the state commission.

The elbow thing is a bit different IMO. The laws may allow elbows but they don't require them so its not the same as actually changing a distinct rule like weigh in limits differently Phone Post 3.0

i think if they were tryin to screw nick and make it easy for gsp, they wouldnt have mentioned the .9 allowance to nick

ok, so another forfeit for orcus, that covers your arguments no. 3 and 4, 4-0 gokudamus...moving on...

"The problem with your argument is the government agency doesn't give a single fuck about this aspect of the rules, or they would, you know, PUT IT IN THEIR RULES -- which as far as you are aware, not a single A.C. in the world has done. No "influence" needs to be "exerted" to get an AC to do something which is not in any way addressed in their rules. 

And in any case you should be delighted that the UFC would be pushing for consistency in rounding down whenever they have a say in the matter -- you seem extraordinarily devoted to the concept of consistency after all. They round off in their own events that aren't overseen by ACs."

ok, so the AC doesnt give a fuck about the rule..i never really said they did...whether or not they give a fuck about the rule doesnt really say anything about whether or not the reason why decimals are rounded down for ufc events is because of ufc influence...in fact, if they dont give a fuck, it actually bolsters the argument that they could be easily persuaded to shape the rule to accomodate the ufc...and thanks also for strenghtening my argument by proving that the ufc does favor rounding down as evidenced by the fact that they round down for events where there is no commission....high five!

Awesome read. I can't wait for your thread about Diaz' illegal late hits and how that should have been an automatic disqualification since you're Mr. By The Books and all. That should be posted soon right? Since you aren't doing this because you're butthurt over Diaz losing and your sole motivation is to see justice served....

Sound logic my good sir, sound logic.

 

hey if you guys want to make actual arguments instead of just throwing out ad hominem attacks people may view your attempts to discredit me more credibly...but of course both you and I know that its easier just to post immature gifs instead of actually engaging in a debate with me...

anyways, orcus, on to your next weak argument...

"The funny thing is this is the crux of your entire argument and yet it's ridiculous. Can you tell us why a promoter shouldn't be able to have its preference govern a policy that is not covered by any rule? "

this is a very interesting statement, so lets break it down...it sounds like you are implying that you do agree with me...that the genesis of the rounding down rule that the quebec AC uses is the UFC, not the AC, in which case, im not sure why you are arguing with me, because it seems we are in agreement...

also, its curious you say there is no rule...i thought this whole time rounding down the decimals was pursuant to some rule...but thanks for enlightening me...but just one question..if its not based on a rule...then what is the rounding based on? hmmmmm....

but anyways, to address the "substance" of your argument, i never said a promoter shouldn't have a preference over anything. they can have all the preferences they want. the problem is that the UFC very clearly tries to deny any involvement in shaping or having any influence on AC policies and governance. i can probably pull dozens of quotes from dana talking about this...from the judges, the refs, to testing for PEDs...so for the UFC to actually cause some influence, it would go against their public statements as well as the statements of mersch and ratner specifically with respect to this matter...

So funny to see orcus fly in as the first response and put his ZUFFA shill perspective in and try and nit pick his way to total denial.

Totally normal procedures at that event. Nothing to see here. Mike Mersch didn't do anything shady. Didn't lie. Didn't try and cover up a conversation before he knew it was on video.

None of that happened. Totally normal. Nothing to see here...lol Phone Post

yeah...orcus is an argument spammer...he throws out a ton of arguments, most of which are completely illogical or absurd, in the hopes that by sheer volume, it creates the appearance that there are a number of holes or flaws in your assertions...normally i let it go and dont spend time focusing on his nonsense, but in this instance, since i actually took longer than 2 seconds to make this post, i thought i'd humor him and ride each of his arguments out to their "logical" conclusion.....but of course he suddenly vanishes into thin air since he knows he has no rebuttal for my decimation of his nonsense...

Fuck off with the paid poster zuffa shill shit. Its fucking stupid!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being upset over how this has played out. Just like there is nothing wrong with seeing no issue. If you can't debate without resorting to name calling then why bothet debating.

At this point its just arguing in circles. So I'll just leave as agree to disagree.

Have fun! Phone Post

Anderson's BBC in my Goku - 

hey if you guys want to make actual arguments instead of just throwing out ad hominem attacks people may view your attempts to discredit me more credibly...but of course both you and I know that its easier just to post immature gifs instead of actually engaging in a debate with me...

 

The gif was only meant as a joke, I apologize if I offended. VU.

 

EDIT: If you want, I can remove it.

great post goku vtfu

Damn you love crying

"http://i.imgur.com/VF45S.gif" /

How long do you plan on having your period? Phone Post 3.0