What's Missing From UFC's Response to Miguel Torres, Rashad Evans? Consistency.

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » What's Missing From UFC's Response to Miguel Torres, Rashad Evans? Consistency.
Next Page »
emfleek
12/9/11 1:11:46PM
Here's a question that became very important, yet difficult to answer this week: If you're a UFC fighter living in this wild world of social media, how do you know when you've crossed the line between edgy and irredeemably offensive? Better yet, how do you know when crossing that line will get you chewed out by your boss, and how do you know when you've committed an offense so egregious that it's cause for termination?

Answer: You don't. Not until it's too late. Not until your fate is already sealed. And that, whether you think of yourself as a shockingly clever Twitter comedian or a press conference trash-talk specialist, is a problem.

It's a problem for fighters, and it's a problem for the UFC. It's also a problem that has a solution, if the UFC cares enough about fairness and clarity to implement it.

As you probably know by now, two UFC fighters made the issue of sexual assault into fodder for their own attempts at entertainment this week, but with very different repercussions.

At a UFC on FOX press conference earlier this week, light heavyweight Rashad Evans referenced the Penn State sex abuse scandal when trying to zing former Nittany Lions wrestler Phil Davis. Meanwhile on Twitter, bantamweight Miguel Torres joked about "rape vans," suggesting that if they were renamed "surprise vans," maybe people would be more likely to ride in them.

Go out on the street and present these two cases to strangers who know nothing about the world of the UFC. See if they can guess which guy got fired, and which got off with just a stern talking to. I'll bet you a six-pack of your finest domestic ale that more people guess wrong than right.

FULL ARTICLE - by Ben Fowlkes
grappler0000
12/9/11 1:15:18PM
Just got done reading this and was about to post it. It's like he's reading my mind or something.
emfleek
12/9/11 1:24:43PM

Posted by grappler0000

Just got done reading this and was about to post it. It's like he's reading my mind or something.



Same. A little consistency would be nice. I especially like the point about Lesnar and what would have happened had he been the one to post what Torres did.
Chael_Sonnen
12/9/11 1:32:01PM
Wonder how Frank Mir is handling this
Dberntson
12/9/11 2:42:43PM
This is the UFC's/Dana's problem. All major mainstream sports have a uniform code of standards for all of their athletes, regardless of popularity. The UFC needs a consistent disciplinary code for all regarding behavior and illegal drugs. Whether its fines, suspensions or firings, all fighters should be treated the same way. Just look at all the stuff Rampage, Mir, Sonnen, etc. say on a regular basis. If Torres was tearing through opponents, was a PPV draw or still the champ, he would have gotten a slap on the wrist.
airkerma
12/9/11 3:34:04PM
I think that this being the third time Dana dealt with this also played a role in him going straight to firing. Maybe not as much that Torres doesn't have star power but maybe more of a "for fucks sake, why the fuck would you say this after I've had to flip my lid twice!??" type reaction resulted in the firing.
emfleek
12/9/11 3:38:41PM

Posted by airkerma

I think that this being the third time Dana dealt with this also played a role in him going straight to firing. Maybe not as much that Torres doesn't have star power but maybe more of a "for fucks sake, why the fuck would you say this after I've had to flip my lid twice!??" type reaction resulted in the firing.



Let's assume that's the case and things would've happened in the following order...

1st - Torres Tweets.

2nd - Rashad makes Penn State reference.

3rd - Forrest Tweets.

Do you think Forrest would've received the same treatment? You and I both know that he wouldn't have.

This boils down to White needing/wanting to make an example out of someone. Why not Torres; a $60k per fight undercard fighter with a limited fanbase?

He'll be back and Dana will give one of his famous, "Look. Everyone deserves a 2nd chance" speeches.
tmas
12/9/11 4:50:10PM
as a rape victim myself i found what Rashad, and Forrest said more offensive then what MIguel said.
tepid55
12/9/11 5:53:09PM
I think that Torres will be back in the UFC when Dana needs a new opponent for Dominick Cruz.
KungFuMaster
12/9/11 6:17:49PM
Does anyone not realize Torres' first amendment right has been violated?

ghandikush
12/9/11 6:28:02PM

Posted by KungFuMaster

Does anyone not realize Torres' first amendment right has been violated?




I'm sorry he is arrested right now?
KungFuMaster
12/9/11 6:31:59PM
I like the UFC and the fights it puts on but I don't like the direction in which it is going. You have an organization which will not let its employees under contract participate in other sports. Now you have incidences where the UFC is trying to regulate what its employees can and cannot say. What is next for UFC fighters? I reckon the UFC will try to regulate their training.
KungFuMaster
12/9/11 6:34:32PM

Posted by ghandikush


Posted by KungFuMaster

Does anyone not realize Torres' first amendment right has been violated?




I'm sorry he is arrested right now?



I don't get it.
Bustamante-Aoki
12/9/11 8:28:49PM
Dana's / UFC's handling of the situation has been ridiculous at best. We all know who's comments were more offensive.

Miguel is the least popular of the three. And Zuffa wanted to appear like they were doing something about the situation. Thats what it all boils down to.

I've never seen the show Miguel was referring to, but it seemed to me he was just making a joke about "rape-vans", not rape itself. Rashad and Forrest were not talking about vans..

It's not right. Miguel got screwed. Plenty of good fights for him in Bellator, or Dream though.

bjj1605
12/9/11 10:10:10PM

Posted by KungFuMaster


Posted by ghandikush


Posted by KungFuMaster

Does anyone not realize Torres' first amendment right has been violated?




I'm sorry he is arrested right now?



I don't get it.



He's mentioned being arrested because you mentioned the first amendment.

The first amendment covers you against government action, not the actions of businesses or individuals. People are entitled to not like what you say and react accordingly.

Actually, as a fun fact, the first amendment as originally written in the constitution protected you only from FEDERAL prosecution, not from the states.
bjj1605
12/9/11 10:17:49PM
I also want to add something that isn't gonna make me very popular...


First of all, I am not happy with the way the UFC handled this PARTICULAR situation. I think it was harsh and unfair considering the treatment of Rashad and Forrest.

BUT.... I don't think that everyone's response is entirely fair. People calling for concrete policy are missing the point. I agree with consistency (given the exact same set of circumstances reacting exactly the same). I do not agree with tying your hands.

Handling things on a case by case basis gives you flexibility. For instance, if Rashad received a harsher punishment than Forrest or Torres, I'd be all for it because his offense was more egregious.

As the boss of the UFC I would never put a rule on the books that said "Anyone who mentions rape on twitter gets the boot." Context and slight differences make a difference.

Once again though, in this particular situation, Dana is mishandling it.
Bubbles
12/10/11 1:01:59AM
Lansberg once again shows his doucheness. i wanna drop kick that asshole everytime i see his face

i already said my pieces on DFW in previous threads
Lethal
12/10/11 1:44:04AM

Posted by Chael_Sonnen

Wonder how Frank Mir is handling this





I was thinking the same thing.
airkerma
12/10/11 10:34:54AM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by KungFuMaster


Posted by ghandikush


Posted by KungFuMaster

Does anyone not realize Torres' first amendment right has been violated?




I'm sorry he is arrested right now?



I don't get it.



He's mentioned being arrested because you mentioned the first amendment.

The first amendment covers you against government action, not the actions of businesses or individuals. People are entitled to not like what you say and react accordingly.

Actually, as a fun fact, the first amendment as originally written in the constitution protected you only from FEDERAL prosecution, not from the states.


I think the last part is somewhat incorrect since Federal law trumps all. If you were to appeal a case it would eventually reach a Federal court and then they would rule in the favor of free speech. I may be incorrect since this isn't really my field, but it seems to me such a large loophole would have been utilized many times.

As for the original post...this is a corporation. They can fire you for whatever they want. For example, if you go up to your boss and tell him he's a stupid prick and can go fuck himself, you may not last very long there.
jjeans
12/10/11 11:09:50AM

Posted by tmas

as a rape victim myself i found what Rashad, and Forrest said more offensive then what MIguel said.



Can I ask how?
Svartorm
12/10/11 11:31:31AM

Posted by ghandikush


Posted by KungFuMaster

Does anyone not realize Torres' first amendment right has been violated?




I'm sorry he is arrested right now?



Exactly. 1st Amendment isn't some behavioral blanket of protection. Try calling your boss a "f*****g c**t" and see if you're protected from being fired.
emfleek
12/10/11 11:34:52AM

Posted by Svartorm


Posted by ghandikush


Posted by KungFuMaster

Does anyone not realize Torres' first amendment right has been violated?




I'm sorry he is arrested right now?



Exactly. 1st Amendment isn't some behavioral blanket of protection. Try calling your boss a "f*****g c**t" and see if you're protected from being fired.



I can't wait until Monday!

mrsmiley
12/10/11 1:34:16PM
I'm not an expert on law,so maybe someone can help me out.
From what I know you are protected from freedom of speech against your government and not a workplace,but your right to speak consertedly is protected and is extended to union and non-union workers alike.

So something like a rape joke may get you fired but if a few of the fighters were to get together and talk about how their boss is mishandling himself or believe he's not being fair they are protected to do so.
I think that's right anyways.
bjj1605
12/10/11 3:41:21PM

Posted by airkerma

I think the last part is somewhat incorrect since Federal law trumps all. If you were to appeal a case it would eventually reach a Federal court and then they would rule in the favor of free speech. I may be incorrect since this isn't really my field, but it seems to me such a large loophole would have been utilized many times.

As for the original post...this is a corporation. They can fire you for whatever they want. For example, if you go up to your boss and tell him he's a stupid prick and can go fuck himself, you may not last very long there.



What you said about "Federal law" trumping all is due to an amendment, sort of.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1968 as part of Civil War reconstruction.

Prior to that amendment, the Federal Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

However, prior to this amendment, in cases where the Federal Government and states had conflicting LAWS (not constitutional rights) Federal laws would override state laws.

I'm going for my PhD in Poli Sci, btw. So where this "really isn't (your) field" it certainly is mine.


Edit: One more fun fact. Along these same lines (first amendment not applying to individual reactions) the Supreme Court decided in 1883 that the government did not have the right to outlaw discrimination by individuals. This ruling has never been overturned, though it is ignored modern day. Therefore, according to the most recent supreme court ruling, Civil Rights laws are unconstitutional (though I think everyone agrees that they're good and we should continue to ignore that case.)
bjj1605
12/10/11 3:56:38PM

Posted by mrsmiley

I'm not an expert on law,so maybe someone can help me out.
From what I know you are protected from freedom of speech against your government and not a workplace,but your right to speak consertedly is protected and is extended to union and non-union workers alike.

So something like a rape joke may get you fired but if a few of the fighters were to get together and talk about how their boss is mishandling himself or believe he's not being fair they are protected to do so.
I think that's right anyways.



You're talking about a different issue.

This depends on if you live in a right to work state and if you're employed "at-will."

If you live in right to work state (or live in another state but are not a member of a Union) chances are that you are employed "at will" (meaning there is no contract or defined period of employment). If this is the case, your employer can fire you for any reason other than those protected by law (race, ethnicity, gender) (unless you live in Montana).

People usually think there job is a lot more secure than it is. Most of the time, the employer doesn't even have to give you a reason and you have no legal recourse.
Kpro
12/11/11 7:23:12AM
I'm guessing we won't hear any rape chokes on a FOX broadcast.
Redkayak
12/11/11 11:20:58PM
Any new word on this.

I'd sue for not being treated equally
Yeah i would.
Svartorm
12/15/11 8:49:52AM
You ready for inconsistent?

"learn how spell dummy!!! Assassination!!!! The one you spelled is what must have happened to you in prison."

-Dana White via twitter last night

So, prison rape jokes are ok, but rape van jokes aren't.
Bubbles
12/15/11 9:25:23AM

Posted by Svartorm

You ready for inconsistent?

"learn how spell dummy!!! Assassination!!!! The one you spelled is what must have happened to you in prison."

-Dana White via twitter last night

So, prison rape jokes are ok, but rape van jokes aren't.



what a fucking tool
emfleek
12/15/11 10:23:20AM

Posted by Svartorm

So, prison rape jokes are ok, but rape van jokes aren't.



Not only that, but when you call someone out for a misspelling, make sure you use proper grammar. Please?

"learn how spell dummy!!!"
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics