Sherdog Steroid Accusation (Fighter Bashing) Policy Needs A Reboot

[LetThemBleed]

Pro athletes are not clean

I'll take sweeping generalization for the win.

 

[TerrorTimmy]

bullshit. I’ve had multiple posts removed for saying that Chris Weidman was a steroid user. Not my fault they don’t wanna hear it. You explain his disturbing trend of looking slow, ineffective and getting KOd in nearly every fight since USADA came into play.

but I agree with OP, it’s a stupid rule.

Weidman used PEDs and it's obvious

But there's similar accusations in literally every GSP thread. They never get removed and those posters never get dubs.

Maybe if a mod is feeling vindictive because you accuse their favorite guy they'll remove it, but otherwise it always gets a pass. Mods have literally told me as much when I've reported posts with PED accusations. They actually asked me to stop reporting it.

10 years ago you got dubs for saying "horsemeat" in an Overeem thread. That's just not true anymore.

 

[DivineMind]

I think your examples both can be considered fighter bashing.

Maybe not the first one as much. But the second one certainly could because it references the fighters fighting that night.

It's probably the tone of your messages that are giving you problems. The tone of this thread doesn't look like an issue to me. I think you just are missing what is actually fighter bashing and what isn't. Just talk generally about ped use. Make silly comments about guys who have been caught cheating specific to their cheating. Anything that is based on fact you wont have issue with.

But generally saying "these guys look like they are on peds" even if said more colorfully or with a silly tone is definitely fighter bashing.

I disagree. If the claims aren't leveled against any specific fighter by name, it's just general speculation and should not be punished.

 

[Max Power]

I could never take MMA seriously enough to bother enforcing rules like "fighter bashing". Toughest guys in all of combat sports - but don't dare say mean things about them on a forum 99.99% of them wouldn't dream of posting on, let alone read.

 

[Nightwish]

We just call it natural acai powder supplements, gas station dick pills or Pico pulsing to get around the rules

Or Aliens.

 

[TheChance]

I say that not only are all your favorite fighters using PED's but all your favorite athletes as well. Never been dubbed for it and never had a post removed. Maybe it is just they way you go about it IDK.

 

[Arrrrgh]

I disagree. If the claims aren't leveled against any specific fighter by name, it's just general speculation and should not be punished.

I'd agree if you weren't making those accusations based on fighters "looks" and the only other evidence being that we statistically know fighters have been caught cheating before.


Lets take your specific example and show how its a problem:

"A lot of these guys are juicing" or "damn these fighters are looking juicy tonight, wonder what kinda vitamins they're taking"

You claim that's talking about steroid use in general, but its not. It's specifically saying "a lot of these guys are juicing." If the context of that is these guys in the sport of MMA then I'd say that one is fine but if the context is these guys in this photo or these guys on this card, unless there are known accusations or failed tests against fighters on the card or in the photo (or other credible evidence) one would have to assume it is based on either their appearance or a general feeling that one may be juicing because we know it happens in the sport. Where that is a problem is now that accusation is associated with those specific groups of fighters. And it is unfounded. That's fighter bashing.

The second example is more blatant. You are talking about the fighters on that card. You are specifically saying they "look" juicy as a reference to being on PEDs because of their appearance. That's cut and dry fighter bashing unless there are fighters with failed tests up and down the card. Now if it were Jon Jones and a bunch of guys who've been caught multiple times and you said something tongue in cheek about "he looks like he ate his picograms this morning," thats different. You aren't saying he looks like he's on roids directly. You are saying this known drug cheat looks like he is coming into the cage in great shape like when he was known to be cheating so I still have questions about him and want to see clean test results.

Do you get the distinction?

You say general in the op but those examples are actually specific. If you talk about it generally it isn't an issue. A great example of how to do that is to look at this very thread. A mods hands have been on this thread and it is allowed. Look at all the discussion we've been able to have unimpeded.

Again, I've never had an issue discussing peds on here except where others in a thread started fighter bashing and the entire thread was locked/deleted.

 

[DivineMind]

I'd agree if you weren't making those accusations based on fighters "looks" and the only other evidence being that we statistically know fighters have been caught cheating before.


Lets take your specific example and show how its a problem:

"A lot of these guys are juicing" or "damn these fighters are looking juicy tonight, wonder what kinda vitamins they're taking"

You claim that's talking about steroid use in general, but its not. It's specifically saying "a lot of these guys are juicing." If the context of that is these guys in the sport of MMA then I'd say that one is fine but if the context is these guys in this photo or these guys on this card, unless there are known accusations or failed tests against fighters on the card or in the photo (or other credible evidence) one would have to assume it is based on either their appearance or a general feeling that one may be juicing because we know it happens in the sport. Where that is a problem is now that accusation is associated with those specific groups of fighters. And it is unfounded. That's fighter bashing.

The second example is more blatant. You are talking about the fighters on that card. You are specifically saying they "look" juicy as a reference to being on PEDs because of their appearance. That's cut and dry fighter bashing unless there are fighters with failed tests up and down the card. Now if it were Jon Jones and a bunch of guys who've been caught multiple times and you said something tongue in cheek about "he looks like he ate his picograms this morning," thats different. You aren't saying he looks like he's on roids directly. You are saying this known drug cheat looks like he is coming into the cage in great shape like when he was known to be cheating so I still have questions about him and want to see clean test results.

Do you get the distinction?

You say general in the op but those examples are actually specific. If you talk about it generally it isn't an issue. A great example of how to do that is to look at this very thread. A mods hands have been on this thread and it is allowed. Look at all the discussion we've been able to have unimpeded.

Again, I've never had an issue discussing peds on here except where others in a thread started fighter bashing and the entire thread was locked/deleted.

I'm not saying PED discussions aren't allowed in practice, they are to some extent but there's a giant grey area that gives mods a lot of latitude since it's *officially* against the rules.

To be even more clear, I'm saying only accusations of the form "Fighter Johnson MacNamara is on steroids, it's friggin obvious" should be disallowed.

Anything more general than that should be allowed. Because there's 0 reputational harm if you don't single out a specific fighter by name. The examples I listed are more general, since they don't call out any fighter by name - for example, if 20 fighters are on a card and I say "some of these guys are looking xxtra juicy tonite", if "some" means 5, that means that 15/20 = 75% are clean. That's enough plausible deniability that no one is taking a direct shot to their reputation.

 

[Lethal]

Which brings me to the Sherdog forum rule against fighter bashing - as forum posters we are not allowed to make doping accusations against fighters. This rule has been enforced against both direct accusations on specific fighters and even indirect references to steroid usage in general. I will focus my griping on the latter, since I think direct accusations against specific fighters without evidence can be damaging to reputations - and it's not like these guys have FU money like Lebron James, so they're aren't immune to such damage. Anyhow, the rule raises several issues.

1) You are asking people to ignore reality, that many of these fighters MIGHT be cheating, and to censor themselves from stating a fact. I think we can all agree, based on simple empirical reasoning, that fighters on average have a non-zero probability of taking some kind of illegal PED. Everything we know about the fight game tells us that doping on some level is occurring * in general *. Is that enough to accuse a specific fighter? No, of course not. So why punish people for having the correct factual outlook on a topic if they are just speaking generally?

2) You're giving mods too much latitude to get power hungry and abuse their warning / banning privileges. Practically everyone on this forum speculates about PED usage from time to time. The front page is littered with indirect references to PED usage. Users speak their mind, thinking they are justified in speaking the truth, then get hit with a warning or ban. Rules with a lot of grey area require intelligence and subtlety to be enforced correctly (and sometimes those things are hard to come by).

3) You're creating a situation where Nate Diaz or Josh Barnett or Joe Rogan or Firas Zahabi are allowed to speak their mind on a topic freely, but JoeSchmo on Sherdog.com is not. You're squelching free speech. So users are allowed to speak their mind on Youtube and Reddit and Twitter, but not on Sherdog? Sherdog is shooting itself in the foot in the long run by censoring in this way.

What's the upshot? Continue to enforce the rule against unfounded steroid accusations against SPECIFIC fighters. That is, punish a user for saying something like "Fighter X is on steroids, I'm positive of it!". Do not punish users for making statements about steroid use in general such as "A lot of these guys are juicing" or "damn these fighters are looking juicy tonight, wonder what kinda vitamins they're taking".

1) The rules are in place by the site owners, we're just here to enforce them. We don't make them. All three components of the Fighter Bashing rule (direct insults towards fighters, PED accusations, and sexual graphic comments towards female fighters) were put in place because it kept fighters from wanting to post here, and it's the main rule they want us to enforce, so don't expect it to go away. While the rules are a bit more lax than they were a decade ago this one isn't as flexible as over the years we've lost a lot of fighters that use to post here frequently. The only difference is that with this new forum deletes and the reply ban feature are used more frequently in place of infractions.

2) If a fighter has previously tested positive than it should be fair game to bring that up in a topic as it's no longer an unsubstantiated claim with the fighter having a prior history. Likewise, a lot of posts are missed if they aren't reported, as we only have a few active Mods and various different sub forums besides the UFC discussion section that also have a lot of threads so if it's not reported its unlikely to be seen by a Mod. As for Mod misconduct or abuse of power, that's something that I cannot discuss in public. If you feel that a Mod is abusing their power or is showing any misconduct please PM an Administrator and it will be reviewed.

3) Just because a fighter makes a comment in an interview doesn't mean it's OK to post here. For example, if Nate Diaz is free to say during an interview that Fighter so and so is a "steroid using cheat" without repercussion, you can also say the same during an interview. It's a private site, freedom of speech doesn't apply to the private sector. It's no different for guys involved in mma than it is for any of us regular posters. Sherdog, Twitter, Reddit, etc all have different rules and terms of service.

Hopefully this clarifies things. For your last point, I'd say that's consistent with how things are now for the most part.

 

[Arrrrgh]

I'm not saying PED discussions aren't allowed in practice, they are to some extent but there's a giant grey area that gives mods a lot of latitude since it's *officially* against the rules.

To be even more clear, I'm saying only accusations of the form "Fighter Johnson MacNamara is on steroids, it's friggin obvious" should be disallowed.

Anything more general than that should be allowed. Because there's 0 reputational harm if you don't single out a specific fighter by name. The examples I listed are more general, since they don't call out any fighter by name - for example, if 20 fighters are on a card and I say "some of these guys are looking xxtra juicy tonite", if "some" means 5, that means that 15/20 = 75% are clean. That's enough plausible deniability that no one is taking a direct shot to their reputation.

I could go on belaboring the point but its fair to say we disagree on your examples.

Importantly, that barely moves the line to say those things a little differently. So the point of the thread appears to be moot and settled. They already do what you are asking for my man.

 

[DivineMind]

1) The rules are in place by the site owners, we're just here to enforce them. We don't make them. All three components of the Fighter Bashing rule (direct insults towards fighters, PED accusations, and sexual graphic comments towards female fighters) were put in place because it kept fighters from wanting to post here, and it's the main rule they want us to enforce, so don't expect it to go away. While the rules are a bit more lax than they were a decade ago this one isn't as flexible as over the years we've lost a lot of fighters that use to post here frequently. The only difference is that with this new forum deletes and the reply ban feature are used more frequently in place of infractions.

2) If a fighter has previously tested positive than it should be fair game to bring that up in a topic as it's no longer an unsubstantiated claim with the fighter having a prior history. Likewise, a lot of posts are missed if they aren't reported, as we only have a few active Mods and various different sub forums besides the UFC discussion section that also have a lot of threads so if it's not reported its unlikely to be seen by a Mod. As for Mod misconduct or abuse of power, that's something that I cannot discuss in public. If you feel that a Mod is abusing their power or is showing any misconduct please PM an Administrator and it will be reviewed.

3) Just because a fighter makes a comment in an interview doesn't mean it's OK to post here. For example, if Nate Diaz is free to say during an interview that Fighter so and so is a "steroid using cheat" without repercussion, you can also say the same during an interview. It's a private site, freedom of speech doesn't apply to the private sector. It's no different for guys involved in mma than it is for any of us regular posters. Sherdog, Twitter, Reddit, etc all have different rules and terms of service.

Hopefully this clarifies things. For your last point, I'd say that's consistent with how things are now for the most part.

What about this distinction I draw between direct accusations against a *specific* fighter, and general speculation about PED usage?

As long as a fighter isn't *directly* called out, I don't see why they would take issue with fans *generally* speculating about PED use, since PEDs are now openly understood to be part of the fight game, thanks to the efforts of USADA.

Specific, direct accusations are obvious, easy to police, and cause the most trouble. Why not just limit the rule to root out these violations, and leave the general speculation about PEDs to be fair game?

It wouldn't really be a changing of the rule, it would be a clarification of an existing rule. And it would eliminate the grey area in enforcement, and allow users to have clear expectations of how the rules will be enforced.

As it stands now, mods are still enforcing against the more indirect types of general PED speculation. They're obviously doing it far less, but this creates an inconsistency - users get used to the lax enforcement, then all of a sudden they get dubs.

 

[DivineMind]

I could go on belaboring the point but its fair to say we disagree on your examples.

Importantly, that barely moves the line to say those things a little differently. So the point of the thread appears to be moot and settled. They already do what you are asking for my man.

Clearly that's not true since I just got dubs 30 days ago! Lol.

And there's no reason for you to disagree on my examples. I'm saying we should only ban X and allow Y. You claim that a certain subset of Y are actually very close to X; that may be true, but they are not X, so that's besides the point. Obviously, me saying that only X should be banned is an opinion and you're free to disagree with that.