There are some really great tribute videos out there, some of which provide great footage of  Tanner’s early fights in Pancrase.  You can check them out at  http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2009/9/4/1015328/remembering-evan-tanner-september.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O04L0XboS8c

Neither Yvel or Henderson broke any rules or disobeyed the referees commands, but is their conduct good for the sport of MMA ?  Do fighters have any responsibility to refrain from delivering extra damage to an opponent who is not merely dazed, but stiff-as-a-board, ass-out, KO’ed?  This issue is fairly unique to MMA because the fights transition from stand-up striking situations to groundfighting (unlike boxing, or grappling sports that don’t involve striking).  My opinion is hell yes they have a responsibility.  Although I’m a bit more on the fence about the Yvel fight, the last shot by Hendo was clearly excessive.  Yes, I know, you’ve got to keep fighting until the ref stops it – but “keep fighting” doesn’t mean throwing a superman forearm from hell on a guy who you know is out cold and could already be in trouble.  And, yes, I agree Bisping needed to have his mouth shut, I just think the overhand right that turned the lights out did the trick.

No less a downer, Lesnar turned in a dominating performance indicating the start of a new era in the heavyweight division; then proceeded to make a total ass out of himself (and the UFC) by having a brain fart and reverting back to his WWE shtick.  Again, I like Lesnar as a fighter – he’s a complete beast.  But the post-fight antics and apology were, well, pretty pathetic.  Basically, Lesnar’s excuse sounded something like “I don’t like to loose . . . Mir beat me last time . . . so I gave the crowd the finger, mocked Mir when he was still trying to recover, talked about climbing on top of my wife, and insulted a major sponsor.”  Are you kidding me?  Get a grip. 

A weekend of great fights, but disappointing performances.

“All animals are equal . . . But some animals are more equal than others.”

Animal Farm, George Orwell

While the law governing exculpatory agreements like waivers will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there are some general principals that may be helpful to owners of martial arts schools or wrestling clubs in drafting effective waivers.

• Avoid Ambiguity- Make sure the waiver is written in plain English and is conspicuous.  If you end up in court and a judge gets the impression that you were trying to hide the meaning or content of the waiver through use of overly complex language or “fine print” you’re likely to get a bad outcome. 
• Scope – Generally, waivers purporting to excuse liability for intentional, willful, or wanton acts; reckless conduct; or gross negligence will not be enforced by courts.  Unless there is something unique about the law in your jurisdiction, waivers are typically only effective in limiting liability for simple negligence (i.e. carelessness).  Don’t try and stretch it, you may end up invalidating your waiver. 
• Minors- Generally, the law will not bind a minor to a waiver.  This is usually the case  regardless of whether the minor or his/her parent signs the waiver.  The reason a minor’s waiver is typically unenforceable is that the law does not consider children to have the capacity to contract.  Minors may generally disaffirm contracts, unless the contract deals with a life necessity.  The life necessity exception will typically not apply to recreational sporting activities. 

Any of you school owners out there, how do you deal with liability with regard to minors?  Also, do any of your waivers limit the liability of your students?

Henry Cejudo after winning his gold.

 As reported by the NY Times(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/sports/05wrestling.html?_r=3&ref=sports) and blogs like www.bloodyelbow.com, USA Wrestling has increased the stipends to be paid to world champions and Olympic medal winners.  With the creation of the “Living the Dream Medal Fund” gold medal, silver medal, and bronze medal finishers at this years World Championships in Copenhagen, the 2010 and 2011 Worlds, and the 2012 Olympic Games will be awarded stipends that equate to real money.  Specifically, USA Wrestling reports that the stipends for medal winners will be as follows:

For the World Championships, the the stipend will be $50,000 for a gold medal,$25,000 for a silver, and $15,000 for a bronze

For the London 2012 games, the stipend will be $250,000 for a gold medal, $50,000 for a silver, and $25,000 for a bronze.

You can read the announcement at USA Wrestling’s webpage (http://www.themat.com/section.php?section_id=3&page=showarticle&ArticleID=20418).  Interestingly, the NY Times article (see link above) spins the “Living the Dream Medal Fund” as an incentive for Olympic caliber wrestlers to bypass MMA.  The article features an interview with gold medalist Henry Cejudo, with Cejudo explaining how he considered transitioning to MMA before winning his gold. 

All the more reason to root for the success of MMA as a commercial venture.  It’s about time our wrestlers don’t have to choose between eating and becoming world or Olympic champions.  Granted, there are no guarantees in life, but having some potential light at the end of the tunnel will help to keep our top wrestlers competing.  Kudos to USA Wrestling.

While Dream is a Japanese promotion, this type of thing is a real problem for MMA.  People have a enough trouble with the groundfighting and submission aspects of MMA as it is.  Seeing a fighter out-of-control (even for just a few seconds) and not obeying the referees commands will turn people off  to the sport permanently.  In my opinion, it is also a serious breach of the implicit covenant between fighters to respect submissions and referee stoppages.  If MMA fighters want the recognition they deserve as professional athletes this type of behavior cannot be tolerated, period.

Sokoudjou seems like a decent guy, but at the very least he should be fined and disqualified from the tournament.  I’ve attached the YouTube clip of the fight below. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVjW3Nk79eA

Any opinions?

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, commonly referred to simply as Title IX, prohibits gender discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding.  One type of discrimination prohibited by Title IX is failure to provide equal opportunity in athletics.  Specifically, Title IX states:

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

Title IX is implemented by the Department of Education’s (DOE) Office of Civil Rights (OCR).  DOE has promulgated implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 36 (http://www.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html).  While few argue with the underlying purpose of Title IX, implementation of the statute by OCR has resulted in the elimination or curtailment of many collegiate men’s Olympic sports programs, such as track and field, swimming, wrestling, and gymnastics.  Specifically, in 1972 OCR published a Policy Interpretation of the Title IX requirements.  This Policy Interpretation described three specific methods of complying with Title IX in the area of equal athletic opportunity:  

(1) Showing that intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or

(2) Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interest and abilities of the members of that sex; or

(3) Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a continuing practice of program expansion such as that cited above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.

Unsurprisingly, in order to avoid litigation schools have relied most heavily on the first method, known as substantial proportionality.  To comply with the proportionality method, colleges and universities simply ensure that the gender ratio of undergraduate student enrollment is proportional to the gender ratio of the total number of athletes on its varsity sports teams.  In order to make the numbers work out, many colleges and universities have been forced to either cut men’s teams all-together, or reduce their roster sizes.  This has hit sports like wrestling especially hard, with some sources reporting that a total of 171 wrestling teams have been eliminated over the past 30-years due to Title IX (see http://www.athleticscholarships.net/title-ix-college-athletics-6.htm).  Like a lot of other antidiscrimination laws, the underlying purpose of the Title IX statute is laudable.  But the problem is that these important laws often degenerate into pure quota systems when the rubber meets the road during implementation.  One reason this happens is surely the reality of enforcement and compliance – i.e., it is easy to enforce and, conversely, easy to demonstrate compliance with a quota.  It’s much more difficult to demonstrate compliance via methods (2) and (3). 

But there is another, more complex, dynamic at work here:  social engineering.  While Title IX simply outlaws discrimination in educational activities, including athletics, the statute has also been interpreted by the courts as a tool to correct the wrongs that society has perpetrated against women athletes in the past.  This idea is explained by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Neal v. Board of Trustees of the California State Universities, 198 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 1999).   Neal involved a claim that California State University’s decision to reduce the number of spots on its men’s wrestling team, which as undertaken to meet the substantial proportionality guidance described above, violated both Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.  The Court disagreed.  Responding to an argument that gender-conscious decisions are appropriate only when necessary to ensure that opportunities are provided to males and females in proportion to their relative levels of interest in sports participation, the court stated:

“Title IX is a dynamic statute, not a static one.  It envisions continuing progress toward the goal of equal opportunity for all athletes and recognizes that, where society has conditioned women to expect less than their fair share of the athletic opportunities, women’s interest in participating in sports will not rise to a par with men’s overnight.  The percentage of college athletes who are women rose from 15% in 1972 to 37% in 1998, and Title IX is at least partially responsible for this trend of increased participation by women . . . . Title IX has altered women’s preferences, making them more interested in sports, and more likely to become student athletes.”

This quote starts out badly for textualists like me - whenever a text is described as “dynamic” or “living” it usually means that the interpreter is about to make it say what it does not.  That aside, I think this quote is a great illustration of how the courts have gone wrong with this statute.  The Court rejects the argument that gender-conscious decisions (which are exactly what Title IX is designed to prevent) should be exercised only when necessary based on level of interest because women are not capable of properly expressing their level of interest due to social conditioning.  Instead, the Court (and in the Court’s estimation Congress) has decided that they know what the female population’s level of interest really is:  the level of interest that makes their participation substantially proportionate to their respective enrollment.

I’d prefer to see the playing field leveled by providing gender-neutral athletic opportunity;  individuals deciding whether or not they are interested in participating; and letting the proportion of men to women athletes fall where it may.