Frank Butcher
Blue Belt
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 575
- Reaction score
- 0
Good article on Zach Arnolds FightOpinion about the state of the CSAC and the way they handle the fight business(Boxing and MMA) BADLY.
Having trouble posting the link so if you interested then you have to find it yourselfs(sorry).
Hear some quotes from the article from the MAXBOXING website.
On February 5th, inside the Dept. of Consumer Affairs Conference Room in Sacramento, California, the California State Athletic Commission held one of its scheduled meetings to discuss various issues that concerned their jurisdiction, and to listen as an MMA fighter stated his case in front of the panel to have his punishment for testing positive for a banned substance pared down. It was a rather routine and mundane affair for the most part.
But as the 'public comment' portion of the meeting was held, the fireworks would begin and evidence of a divided and fractured commission would become very evident. This part of the gathering is open to anyone who wants to have his or her voice heard on anything that was not included on the agenda. What this particular session became was a referendum on the merits of executive officer Armando Garcia. And the lines of where you stood were made very clear.
With Garcia presiding over the meeting, various judges, referees and inspectors would state their case for and against the executive officer (whose performance is being evaluated on a month-to-month basis), right in front of him.
First up was David Mendoza, a judge and referee, who extolled Garcia
Having trouble posting the link so if you interested then you have to find it yourselfs(sorry).
Hear some quotes from the article from the MAXBOXING website.
On February 5th, inside the Dept. of Consumer Affairs Conference Room in Sacramento, California, the California State Athletic Commission held one of its scheduled meetings to discuss various issues that concerned their jurisdiction, and to listen as an MMA fighter stated his case in front of the panel to have his punishment for testing positive for a banned substance pared down. It was a rather routine and mundane affair for the most part.
But as the 'public comment' portion of the meeting was held, the fireworks would begin and evidence of a divided and fractured commission would become very evident. This part of the gathering is open to anyone who wants to have his or her voice heard on anything that was not included on the agenda. What this particular session became was a referendum on the merits of executive officer Armando Garcia. And the lines of where you stood were made very clear.
With Garcia presiding over the meeting, various judges, referees and inspectors would state their case for and against the executive officer (whose performance is being evaluated on a month-to-month basis), right in front of him.
First up was David Mendoza, a judge and referee, who extolled Garcia
