Last week, the California State Athletic Commission played a big part in the future of MMA in the next few months. Sean Sherk's case was delayed another two weeks, Phil Baroni had his sentence only reduced even though he had a plethora of evidence pleading his innocence, and the CSAC's poor judgement and bad procedures has caused a magnifying glass to be placed on their appeals board. We will take a scrutinizing look at the CSAC, their history of decisions, background of their board, and the overall structure of the organization in this week's edition of MMA Analytics.
Throughout this week, I have been chronicling the California State Athletic Commission's vast history of poor decision making, unprofessional behavior, and poor administrative support. In this week's edition of MMA Analytics, I hope to give everyone an inside look at an athletic commission that seems to need a change, a big change. From inexperience commissioners on the board to a horrible appeal system, the CSAC is on the verge of hitting a huge roadblock, an attack on their credibility. Let's take a hard-nosed look inside the CSAC.
Commissioners lack experience
The commissioners on the board of appeals at the CSAC are the sole group of people that decide the fate of each fighter when there is an appeal process. If a fighter wants to appeal a decision and present a case to the board, these are the people who ultimately decide the livelihood of a fighter. What happens when you have a few people who seem to either give a fighter a chance no matter what the circumstance, but then give honesty the cold shoulder? You have the makings of a commission that cannot consistently make the right decision.
The members of the appeals board are June Collison, Mario Rodriguez, Timothy Noonan, Julio Ramirez, Howard Rose, Peter Lopez, and the lone doctor on the board, Dr. Christopher Giza. The man who oversees the CSAC board is Armando Garcia, who seems to always have his recommendation for discipline overlooked in most of these cases. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger oversees the CSAC under the Department of Consumer Affairs. The "Governator", as he is popularly known as, has appointed all but two of these commissioners to this board. This may seem to be standard procedure in this matter. The governor would most likely appoint those who are most qualified to regulate rules and laws regarding boxing and mixed martial arts as well as have good judging skills based on factual data. Fact is, nearly all of these commissioners are unqualified.
A former Olympian and health care management expert, a lawyer, an insurance broker, a CEO of a financial advisory group, a CEO of an ad specialty and promotional products business, and a former California Film Commission member all make up the board with the exception to a neurology expert in Dr. Giza. When you look down the list of credentials, do you actually see a board that can make competent decisions when it comes to steroids, drugs, and mixed martial arts? This list of "experts" looks to be mainly people who were appointed based on their position in society. They could possibly be heavy campaign donaters for Schwarzenegger or simply people who have some heavy pull within in the state. It is pure speculation, but it is certain that there are better suited people for the position.
Administrative problems
The problems in the latest hearing involving Sean Sherk and Phil Baroni seemed to expose the poor administrative "kinks" in the system that the CSAC has put in place. During Sean Sherk's hearing, an information packet that contained a large amount of evidence that his representation planned to review during the hearing never reached the commission members in the week preceding the hearing. An administrative error in the front office could be the problem. Without people paying attention to evidence coming into the office and getting that information to the people who need to see it, how can we expect fair and timely appeals? It's a fairly small problem on paper, but it did delay Sherk's appeal that seemed to have high-jacked the UFC's lightweight division.
In the Phil Baroni case, an absence of any type of system in which to present a case caused complete disarray in the board room. Baroni's agent, Ken Pavia, tried to object to multiple motions by the commissions, all overruled. His evidence was cross examined before he had even presented it to the commission. Pavia also mentioned in his thread on the MMA.tv forum that information that was handed out to the commission that he had never seen but requested wasn't thrown out even though he hadn't seen it. What am I getting at here? The commission doesn't seem to have any type of organized court system within their walls. The hearings are not run like a criminal court. Pavia mentioned that the hearing was not ruled by the principle of beyond a reasonable doubt or a CSAC ruling from another case, but from a 1999 hearing that involved an auto salesperson license with the DMV. They based the entire hearing's procedure on that case, a case that had nothing to do with the current appeals.
We can make the argument that Pavia may be speaking this way due to the fact he represents Baroni and feels that he is innocent. Baroni has been long regarded in the MMA community as a "juicer", but the evidence he presented overwhelmingly proves his innocence. In particular, the lab testing seems to be in question after looking at Baroni's evidence.
Labs seem inconsistent
One aspect of the case involving Baroni seemed to be the lab testing. During a pre-fight test that Pavia stated he made Baroni take because Baroni claims to be taking 67 supplements in his fight training, he tested negative for steroids. In the post-fight test that was sent to the CSAC lab, he tested positive for two types of steroids. One of those steroids was Boldenone, a horse steroid that has a half-life of nearly 5 months and is used primarily on horses. Pavia stated that Phil took three more tests that he had sent to a different CSAC approved lab for testing. All of those samples came back negative.
Is Baroni blowing smoke? It's possible that Pavia and Baroni are playing to the media and trying to expose the CSAC's poor practices and prove Baroni's innocence. Fact is, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Baroni. It also seems to be coming only from Baroni and Pavia. The kicker in this entire case was the fact that during the first vote, two of the commissioners felt that Pavia and Baroni had beaten the CSAC's lab and proved that there was a mistake. Two commissioners voted to throw out the case. A couple of others chose to ignore the facts that Pavia presented, and one seemed to swing to a reduced suspension to please both parties. In the end, Baroni received a reduced suspension. Did he take steroids? We won't ever know, but his representation proved that there are flaws in the system and flaws in the way the CSAC conducts themselves.
I can make one glaring comment on this whole process. Pavia was able to retest the sample that the CSAC had tested at their lab. The same sample that tested Baroni positive came back negative at an accredited third party lab. Pavia presented this to a CSAC expert who stated that false positives are not possible. Fact is, they are. In researching Sean Sherk's case in the past, false positives can occur in many steroid tests due to instability in the urine after the sample has been taken. They can also be caused by over the counter supplements. The CSAC website actually states that 15% of over the counter supplements can cause false positives, yet their own expert failed to see that. Pavia stated in the MMA.tv thread that this should have ruined his credibility. It seems that the CSAC needs a new expert and a new lab possibly. This is only going to cause more appeals in the future.
Historically bad decisions
The most exposing evidence of the CSAC's horrible problems is the fact that historically, they have made bad decisions in appeals. There is a long line of fighters making appeals in which they have no physical evidence to back up their claims, yet they are still able to have their sentence reduced significantly. The CSAC has apparently unknowingly set up a system in which arguing your case with ridiculous arguments can, in fact, reduce your sentence, but honesty is punished. If you honestly admit to taking steroids, I believe you should not have your suspension reduced, but be given leniency as far as cornering a fighter or possibly a later hearing to reduce a suspension by a month or two. Consider it a parole hearing in which you will be retested. That would be a decent system if fighters didn't come in arguing without any evidence and still having their sentences reduced. These cases would be completely thrown out and the suspension would be upheld in a perfect commission. With that said, let me put down some hard evidence into my claims that the CSAC has atrocious decision making in the appeals cases.
In June, John George, an MMA fighter, appealed a test that claimed he tested positive for three different types of steroids. He did not claim he did not take them. Instead, he claimed that he unknowingly took them in a supplement. Three steroids were in his supplements. Sure. He argued his case with no supporting evidence and no real argument that supported his claims. The commission voted to reduce his suspension from 10 months to 2 months and his fine from $2500 to $500.
In August, pro boxer James Toney claimed that his positive test was due to taking over the counter vitamins. He presented no scientific evidence or testing of the vitamins. He argued that he doesn't need to take steroids to compete and asked for a reduction. Dr. Giza actually mentioned that reductions should only be based on evidence, evidence that Toney did not have. This launched Toney into a vulgar tirade against Giza, but ultimately his sentence was reduced. Even though he managed to "cuss out" Giza and present no scientific proof that the vitamins had steroids in them, his sentence was reduced.
These are two cases that seem to have unbelievable verdicts even though both fighters presented zero physical evidence or tests that help support their claims. Along with Sherk and Baroni, all of these cases combined sum up the CSAC's massive problems with their board of commissioners, bad administrative practices, and non-existent procedures in the hearings.
CSAC solutions
Replacing members of the board with people who have backgrounds in boxing or mixed martial arts would help the CSAC gain credibility again. Appoint a former boxer, fighter, FDA drug expert, an expert on steroids, or a few more doctors with backgrounds in performance-enhancing drugs or sports medicine. Adding people who actually have experience in areas that these fighters are involved in may bring a movement that involves the commissioners having to see actual evidence to prove innocence instead of rants by the fighters themselves.
Set up a system of rules and procedures that is similar to a criminal court system. This will allow organized ways of presenting a case, evidence, and statements to the commission. A fighter's livelihood is on the line and those fighters at least deserve a chance to present their case in a professional manner.
Make decisions that make sense. If a fighter has no physical evidence supporting their case, thrown the case out and uphold the suspension. Unprofessional remarks or comments should be disciplined and cause a fighter's case to be thrown out. Ranting and raving shouldn't cause a reduction in a sentence. To make a long explanation short, physical and scientific evidence should be the basis for reductions, not claims that have no support.
These are all simple solutions that the CSAC could make. Instead, I feel that we will have to put up with their current membership for quite awhile. Not only will this affect the number of fighters that California events can grab, but it may cause a slowdown in mixed martial arts business in the state. With Dana White recently calling out the CSAC as well, it seems that the CSAC is now in the spotlight as an organization with poor credibility. This issue may get larger and the "Governator" may have to actually step in and do something about it.
)
)
)
