Anderson Silva may no longer be able to fight in Las Vegas - Page 4 - MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos
UFC The Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) is a U.S.-based mixed martial arts organization, recognized as the largest MMA promotion in the world. The UFC is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada and is owned and operated by Zuffa, LLC. This promotion is responsible for solidifying the sport's postion in the history-books. UFC is currently undergoing a remarkable surge in popularity, along with greater mainstream media coverage. UFC programming can now be seen on FOX, FX, and FUEL TV in the United States, as well as in 35 other countries worldwide.

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #31 of 38 (permalink) Old 04-12-2010, 02:56 PM
Super Ultra Great Delicious Wonderful
osmium's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 6,517
Originally Posted by TLC View Post
What are you talking about? Where did the other two main events come from?
Didn't you know that it is Anderson's fault that Leites flopped to his ass every time he went near him and that the Cote fight was an embarrassment because he has a great chin and didn't immediately go to sleep. Too many people who believe pro wrestling is real are MMA fans these days.
osmium is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #32 of 38 (permalink) Old 04-12-2010, 02:58 PM
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 703
Originally Posted by TheGrizzlyBear View Post
Cote, and Leities (sp?)
So any fight he doesn't knock out his opponent in the first round, basically? Hyperbole should be left in the hands of the experts.

Originally Posted by osmium View Post
Didn't you know that it is Anderson's fault that Leites flopped to his ass every time he went near him and that the Cote fight was an embarrassment because he has a great chin and didn't immediately go to sleep. Too many people who believe pro wrestling is real are MMA fans these days.

I'm not going to trash Silva for his performance on Saturday, even though I was disappointed with his strike output.
But clearly, in those two fights, he outworked his opponents and clearly outpointed both fighters. I don't know how refusing to reckless charge in like a beserker is disrespectful to the sport.

Last edited by TLC; 04-12-2010 at 03:01 PM.
TLC is offline  
post #33 of 38 (permalink) Old 04-12-2010, 02:59 PM
Earthquake Survivor
Chileandude's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,936
We all know Anderson's friends and family had their house betted on him winning by UD.

Chileandude is offline  
post #34 of 38 (permalink) Old 04-12-2010, 03:18 PM
True Grappler
IronMan's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New York City, New York
Posts: 6,222
This is really stupid.

I never print the name of a source who refuses to let me confirm their credibility. If I did, I'd end up printing stupid sh*t like this all the time. "Partner of Ed Soares" is either a seriously misleading characterization of the relationship, or an outright lie.

As far as the rules of conduct, the portion of the code which is cited is meant to deal with fighters taking a dive. Let me show you what I mean:

1. The Commission may suspend or revoke the license of, otherwise discipline, or take any combination of such actions against any contestant, promoter, ring official or other participant who, in the judgment of the Commission:
(a) Enters into a contract for a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat in bad faith;
"In bad faith" is a pretty ambiguous phrase. It's meaning, though, is clearly established in the following section.

(b) Participates in any sham or fake contest or exhibition of unarmed combat;
This is a secondary rule which is meant to protect those who gamble on professional fights (which is a huge deal in Nevada) from being engaged in a fraudulent bout. This is why the terms "sham" and "fake contest" are used.

Any fighter who is brought into a fight with the intention of taking a dive is considered to have taken the fight "in bad faith," and this second portion allows NSAC to refuse to license fighters who knew about the fight but were not active competitors. This is a much bigger deal in boxing, where there are more fighter/promoters.

(c) Participates in a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat pursuant to a collusive understanding or agreement in which the contestant competes in or terminates the contest or exhibition in a manner that is not based upon honest competition or the honest exhibition of the skill of the contestant;
Again, this is clearly meant to codify what NSAC means by "bad faith," and how exactly to assess whether or not a fighter has taken a dive.

(d) Is guilty of a failure to give his or her best efforts, a failure to compete honestly or a failure to give an honest exhibition of his or her skills in a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat;
Again, this is clearly a reference to a fighter who takes a dive, and not to a fighter who is (a) showing off or (b) engaging in tactics which are not popular with the fans.

"Best efforts" is ambiguous, but "compete honestly" and "give an honest exhibition of his or her skills" is not. The passage is used to come after fighters who perform below capacity because that's what they were asked to do by a promoter.

(e) Is guilty of an act or conduct that is detrimental to a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat, including, but not limited to, any foul or unsportsmanlike conduct in connection with a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat;
This is the passage that seems to be grabbing people's attention.

"Showboating" has never been considered "unsportsmanlike" in the way that this passage is using the term. The stretch of "unsportsmanlike" is meant (a) to reverence the previous definition of "bad faith" and (b) to justify the refusal to license fighters with histories of fouls.

The most recent invocation of this passage that I'm aware of was with respect to Gilbert Yvel when he was trying to get licensed for UFC 108.

It's worth keeping in mind that without actual "fouls" (and Anderson was warned, but not penalized for a foul) there's no serious reason to invoke this section of the code.

And, just to be clear, I'm a little pissed off (and NSAC should be too) that someone is accusing NSAC of threatening to not license of a top tier fighter (which is unheard of without some connection to steroid abuse or a history of disqualifications) because they thought the performance was "insulting."

There are commissions which have developed reputations for being vindictive. CSAC under Armando Garcia certainly had that reputation. NSAC does not.

Sig by Toxic

Barnett - Toquinho -Werdum - "Nurmie"
Z. Gurgel - Morango - Rocha - Tiequan
IronMan is offline  
post #35 of 38 (permalink) Old 04-12-2010, 04:15 PM
DanTheJu's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hurricane Alley (Daytona)
Posts: 1,016
The NSAC (NEVADA STATE Athletic Commission) had absolutely nothing to do with this fight. They have no authority over any fight that does not happen in the STATE OF NEVADA.

So a fighters actions in a foreign country can not lead to discipline by the NSAC (fines or suspensions).

They CAN however lead to a license refusal. The NSAC can deny a license to a fighter based on conduct outside its jurisdiction. But just failing to finish a fight outside of their jurisdiction is not nearly enough to justify this.

Originally Posted by Hammerlock2.0 View Post
Aren't the refs and judges for events outside of the US provided by the NSAC?
No, they are not. When in countries that do not have a sanctioning body Marc Ratner, a VP of the UFC, hires the judges, refs and officials. He is a former NSAC director, but the NSAC has nothing to do with events outside Nevada.

Dan The Ju
DanTheJu is offline  
post #36 of 38 (permalink) Old 04-12-2010, 04:15 PM
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 119
^^^ Agreed!!!

Also, since when does taunting your opponent to engage in FIGHTING "unsportsmanlike conduct"? This is a full contact sport, and that is the reason people watch this sport.

His antics were strategy and actually hyped up the fight in the 1st rounds, I'd rather see Silva show of his speed, movement, fakes, and gestures for 5 rounds than see lay and pray for 1 round. Silva just proved that he is on another level and if you want to be the champ, you have to BEAT THE CHAMP not just survive!!
AlexZ is offline  
post #37 of 38 (permalink) Old 04-12-2010, 04:19 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 406
Who knows what's true and what is not. The way I see it, Silva has Dana White by the balls. Dana is going to wait a long time to find someone to beat Silva in the middle wieghts and Silva is seemingly turning into a real dick-head. If the UFC want to get rid of Silva or just teach him a lesson, they're going to need to put him up against who can take his middle weight belt, the only one is GSP. But then again, I'm not sure GSP will want to take that fight on unless it is really worth his while. There are several fighter problems popping up in UFC and I foresee a management problem. You got guys in similar weight divisions that don;t want to fight eachother because they train together.

tripster is offline  
post #38 of 38 (permalink) Old 04-12-2010, 04:45 PM
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 11
I would like for action to be taken. It would deter such disrespect to the sport.
219rolling is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome