The Dana White situation

rovert

Dont know if anyone here has been following this the past few days:

http://msn.foxsports.com/video/MMA_Boxing?vid=351f37f1-220b-4a0c-a378-01c94ab9858d

http://sports.espn.go.com/extra/mma/news/story?id=4038031

White uses slurs in video

Dana White, the volatile president of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, is under fire after an obscenity-filled video blog was released Wednesday in which he took aim at women and homosexuals.

White also unleashed a verbal tirade against a female reporter from Sherdog.com in the video blog, which was posted for a time on the UFC's Web site. It has since been pulled from the site.

The rant was centered around a Sherdog.com article which White believed incorrectly told of his group's credentialing policies for the agents and managers of fighters. He called the Sherdog.com writer, Loretta Hunt, a "dumb bitch" among expletives, and termed the report "an absolutely [expletive] retarded story."

In Hunt's story, she wrote that Zuffa, the company that owns and operates promotions for the UFC and WEC, notified some fighter representatives that they will no longer receive credentials to sit with their clients backstage on fight night.

White used an anti-gay slur when referring to an anonymous source in Hunt's story on Sherdog.com, which is a partner of ESPN.com in the coverage of Mixed Martial Arts.

"I stand by the story," Hunt said in an e-mailed statement to ESPN.com. "It's accurate. I contacted the UFC in ample time for them to respond, clearly stating what the article would be about. They did not reply. Then, I went out of my way to find people that could possibly present Zuffa's side, which is included in the article."

Groups such as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) have called for White to apologize for the tirade. He has not done so, according to a spokesman for the UFC, though a post from GLAAD spokesman Ted Rybka indicated that White will apologize on the UFC's YouTube site.

Dana issued an apology on Youtube which was quickly removed with the end result being that there will be no more Dana video blogs. Given Dana's communication style this was bound to happen.

dunkamania

No more Dana Vlog's is not necessairily a bad thing.

Dana has done so much for the sport, but given that the sport is now borderline mainstream, the UFC needs someone with a lighter touch in the spotlight.

bigslick

I think having no more Dana video blogs is a major blow. Whatelse will i watch on youtube now? Have to say that he is not everyones cup of tea as he speaks his mind no matter what it is.

Peiking Duck

I really enjoyed his video blogs. It is a shame that they are now finished.

rovert

dunkamania wrote: »

Dana has done so much for the sport, but given that the sport is now borderline mainstream, the UFC needs someone with a lighter touch in the spotlight.

Truth if the sport had broken through the mainstream barrier Dana would have been in real trouble.

bigslick wrote: »

I think having no more Dana video blogs is a major blow. Whatelse will i watch on youtube now? Have to say that he is not everyones cup of tea as he speaks his mind no matter what it is.

Ill miss it too besides the entertainment value it was always a great insight into Dana's (& UFC's) thought process when it came to match making and business operations.

On the story itself I’ve always gotten a kick out of anyone associated with MMA being/coming across as being homophobic given the inherent homoerotism of it.

So does anyone have strong opinions about this? Should he step down? Does anyone think he is homophobic or was he just being macho Dana?

To be honest Loretta also had this coming , i didnt think it was going to be from Dana.

stevemc01

From what I've read over at mma weekly, ESPN are running with the story and making it a big issue for 2 reasons, not sure if they are true but here they are anyaway

1) Apparently Sherdog is part of the ESPN group????????

2) Apparently Loretta Hunt is the partner of one of the ESPN editors.

ginoginelli

dana's apology lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXfX54NROdc

Nothingcompares

Who does he think he is? Brian Clough?

Fozzy

Dave Meltzer said that he's also pulled out of a tv show that was set to be filmed about his life. Regardless of your opinion of him, he has got a very interesting life

I think that it's unfortunate. He tends to get mad every now and then and he happened to use a word that made a gay rights organisation complain about him. I'm not saying that it's ok to use that word, but it's in relatively common usage and when you're mad and shooting out expletives I don't think that you should have to do anything more than apologise for what you said

Perhaps it was just the culmination of a stressful time for Dana and now he wants a bit of time out of the spotlight. I hope that he doesn't disappear forever as he can be an entertaining guy

I'm not sure about Loretta Hunt's partner, but Sherdog is the MMA content provider for ESPN. I always wondered if ESPN knew that Sherdog was banned from UFC events when they signed that deal

@rovert: He should've just used my "fagot" defence line :pac:

Roper

rovert wrote: »

On the story itself I’ve always gotten a kick out of anyone associated with MMA being/coming across as being homophobic given the inherent homoerotism of it.

Sorry? Inherent homoeroticism?

I get extremely sick of people trying to sexualise every facet of life.

Fozzy

Roper wrote: »

Sorry? Inherent homoeroticism?

I get extremely sick of people trying to sexualise every facet of life.

You've heard it for years about pro wrestling, sweaty men hugging each other in their underwear. It was even said by an MMA trainer on this board a few weeks ago! MMA is exactly the same in that regard

I can't say that I've ever viewed it in that way, but I do know a good few non-fans who've commented on how gay it looks at times, and I can't really blame them for that opinion

Roper

I would suggest that people see what they want to see. I've actually only ever heard it as a joke from my mates, no one has ever suggested any genuine homoeroticism. We do all know what homo-eroticism means right? It's not just valley speak for "like uh, dude, that looks so gay" because there is a massive difference between people saying something has homo-erotic undertones and something looks a bit gay.

rovert

Nothingcompares wrote: »

Who does he think he is? Brian Clough?

Mega LOL on that one.

Roper wrote: »

I would suggest that people see what they want to see. I've actually only ever heard it as a joke from my mates, no one has ever suggested any genuine homoeroticism. We do all know what homo-eroticism means right? It's not just valley speak for "like uh, dude, that looks so gay" because there is a massive difference between people saying something has homo-erotic undertones and something looks a bit gay.

Ok you are right, that is a reasonable distinction to make. MMA is hardly the fireplace scene in Women in Love but still there is homoerotic undertones to it. I’m not just talking about the in ring action but the general presentation too.

Roper

Oliver Reed would have made a really great fighter.

Actually wait. Oliver Reed could have starred in the movie of Tank Abbot's life!

rovert

A NEW Dana blog:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zVhfle3xtA

unknown13

I saw the whole thing and read the article before the verbal attack and saw what he said.

Lorreta Hunt's article was definite valid for critism because of anonomous sources she mentioned in the article.

Dana's attack was stupid and went on for nearly 6 minutes using whatever offensive words came into his head and then he only apologises to the LGBT community.

Jeff Sherwood (owner of sherdog) did an interview with an American radio station and spread some new light onto the topic

rovert

unknown13 wrote: »

Lorreta Hunt's article was definite valid for critism because of anonomous sources she mentioned in the article.

I dont think so a journalist has a right to protect their sources.

dunkamania

My understanding of journalim is that, Lorreta Hunts story was very unprofessional. You dont write a story, of the nature that she did, without getting a source on the record. Its bad journalism, plain and simple. If you cant get the source on record, you dont write the story.

Does not excuse Dana's behaviour

mirwillbeback

dunkamania wrote: »

My understanding of journalim is that, Lorreta Hunts story was very unprofessional. You dont write a story, of the nature that she did, without getting a source on the record. Its bad journalism, plain and simple. If you cant get the source on record, you dont write the story.

Does not excuse Dana's behaviour

That would suggest you question The Sun newspapers intergrity.;)

roo1981

Deleted User wrote: »

To be honest Loretta also had this coming , i didnt think it was going to be from Dana.

I think a drunken Phil Baroni slapped her round at the UFC 56 afterparty many moons ago, Dana took it easy on her...

ginoginelli

dunkamania wrote: »

My understanding of journalim is that, Lorreta Hunts story was very unprofessional. You dont write a story, of the nature that she did, without getting a source on the record. Its bad journalism, plain and simple. If you cant get the source on record, you dont write the story.

Does not excuse Dana's behaviour

Some of the biggest scandals ever published have quoted anomymous sources. While its not the most ideal scenario to present a story, it's still quite common place and plays a significant role in journalism.

Fozzy

ginoginelli wrote: »

Some of the biggest scandals ever published have quoted anomymous sources. While its not the most ideal scenario to present a story, it's still quite common place and plays a significant role in journalism.

Indeed. I remember reading an article by Kevin Iole criticising Loretta Hunt for not naming her sources in this story, when he himself had broken the story of Couture coming back to the UFC without naming any sources

I'd usually look at the journalist's past record to decide how much faith to put in anonymous sources. Dave Meltzer uses anonymous sources every day, in pro wrestling more so than MMA, but he always turns out to be right, so in a case like that I see no problem as the journalist has integrity

dunkamania

THere is a difference between blogging and journalism.

In blogging, you can say what you want. Sherdog, which provides newsflow to ESPN has to be bound by a stricter rule set.

ginoginelli

dunkamania wrote: »

THere is a difference between blogging and journalism.

In blogging, you can say what you want. Sherdog, which provides newsflow to ESPN has to be bound by a stricter rule set.

Anomyous sources are common place in the media and are wholly necessary. From Watergate to Greasegate anonymous sources have been quoted. Its part and parcel of the industry and generally for the greater good, as it is somtimes the only way in letting the truth out.

Its up to ESPN, Sherdog, The Washington Post, or whoever to decide to run the story.
They put their credibility on the line and the reporter puts their journalistic integrity and career on the line - so its usually not something that will be done casually, or without thought of the ramifications.

Major Corporations like Enron, the tobacco companies as well as the former bush administration were vehemently opposed to the use of anomyous sources, yet if it was not for the cloak of anoyminty used in the reporting of these groups, many of their shady dealings might never have come to light.

I think Dana just wants to wield total control over the media and his fighters. From what I gather he micro-mangages every compartment of the ufc and get pissed when he cant do the same with the media and fighters. When he can't exert this control we end up seeing his expletitive rants, the bully boy treatment of Fitch and AK, and the denying of press credentials.

Dana's done great things for mma - but his unrelenting personal vendettas, cravings to control every aspect of the industry and refusual to allow scrutiny, could end up having a negative impact on the sport and stymieing the growth of it.

BeeSee

dont know what to make of dana myself. anyone at the weigh ins in dublin would have seen him stay behind talkin to everyone and takin photos with everyone until absolutely everybody have left. taught he was a nice guy.

then ya see him on his blog sayin we were only there cause we'd nothing else to do, classy

he's just an egomaniac, seems to rule like a dictator, suppose he does have the power to make or break a fighters career

dunkamania

A bit off-topic, but below is a link to an interesting interview with Dana on Fedor.

http://www.carmichaeldave.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=79:a-carmichael-dave-exclusive-dana-white-on-fedor-emelianenko&catid=36:mma

ginoginelli

new dana blog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Iwrmj8Htlc

dunkamania

A bit of a dead issue now, but I thought I would post this anyway

http://mmapayout.com/2009/04/ufc-vp-of-operations-talks-credentials/

MMA’s latest controversy has more or less pushed the UFC credential issue to the back burner, but I thought it worth while to post this interview conducted a few weeks ago by insidefighting.com with UFC VP of Operations Donna Marcolini.

A summary of the main points is below:

Prior to UFC 88 in September of 2008, the UFC used a lanyard credential system to organize their backstage activities.
The policy of most athletic commissions (including the NSAC) is to issue three cornermen credentials (title fight participants receive four) and then it is up to the fighter to choose whom he’ll assign those corner credentials. It can be a trainer, agent, or someone else.
In addition to corner credentials the UFC also provided its fighters with two sets of four complimentary tickets (this is pretty standard within the industry and written into most fighter contracts). The fighters received one set of four tickets prior to the event to distribute as they please; and, then they received the second set following their fight if they wish to watch the event for the duration of the evening.
During this period, the UFC would occassionally distribute an extra credential pass to a fighter out of courtesy. This was done to facilitate the meeting of a particular need or want of that fighter (e.g., the fighter needed his sponsorship banner that was left at a hotel room).
At some point individuals began to abuse the UFC’s lanyard system by sharing their passes (i.e., an authorized person, with a pass, would switch places with a places with an unauthorized individual sitting in the stands).
The UFC brought a halt to this abuse by switching to a wristband system and ceasing to distribute courtesy lanyards.
Payout Opinion:

It would appear as though the entire credential flap is really a non-issue: the old system was being abused and the UFC tightened the reigns accordingly. So, what’s all the fuss about?

Egos.

The UFC could have easily answered Loretta’s query, but that would have entailed at least an implicit recognition of Hunt and Sherdog as legimiate media. That refusal was all Hunt needed to write yet another story criticizing the UFC (oddly enough her only named contributor to the article was Ken Pavia, the same individual caught abusing the old credential system). In turn, Dana White retaliated with his profanity-laced tirade, not because the issue at hand was that big of a deal, but likely because of his frustrations with the MMA media, “internetland,” and, specifically, his prior history with Hunt and Sherdog.