I guess I should begin at the beginning:

Better Late Than Never: Responding to the Dana White/Loretta Hunt Controversy
April 4, 2009 by Sam Caplan

Sam: For what it’s worth, I can also confirm that the story is pretty much accurate. I was actually contacted two managers about the situation seven weeks ago. I didn’t report the story for two reasons. For one, neither source was willing to go on the record.

AND:

Sam: But the big reason why I elected not to cover it was because I didn’t think it was overly newsworthy.

Cindy: Wait… you’re backing the accuracy of this story (even though you haven’t researched the facts to know if the accusations are true) because 2 mgrs contacted you 7 weeks ago for some off-the-record gossip??? Really?

Sam: Managers and agents aren’t being banned from the backstage area. Instead, they are simply no longer being issued backstage passes. A manager or agent can still get backstage if they are issued a general corner pass.

Cindy: Zuffa has never had a policy — in any way, shape or form — to credential managers/agents for backstage access. There has NEVER been a “manager’s pass.” My sources are DW, Donna Marcolini, Burt Watson – and yours???

Sam: The other statement made by Iole was when he added “And her single attempt to reach a UFC spokesperson is clearly feeble.” Do we know for sure it was only a single attempt? And even only if it was just one attempt, Hunt met her requirements as a journalist. It’s not her job to stalk sources. “

Cindy: Yes, Iole KNEW it was a single attempt when he reported it. How? From Loretta… in the article she wrote that Iole referenced that you apparently have not read:

http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/some-managers-agents-lose-backstage-pass-16813

“Zuffa’s public relations department did not respond to an e-mail requesting comment on the promotion’s sudden shift in policy after eight years”

But check THIS out:

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/a-statement-on-dana-whites-remarks-16853 (from second article/Sherdog’s statement):

“Sherdog.com sought comment from multiple UFC representatives and gave them more than three full days to respond. The company chose not to respond prior to the report’s publication and instead issued White’s video blog several hours afterward.”

And THIS:

http://msn.foxsports.com/boxing/story/9414092/UFC‘s-White-apologizes-for-rant’s-gay-slur (from Loretta’s interview with FOX):

“Hunt told FOXSports.com she made “every attempt to reach Zuffa” before writing the story. “I clearly stated to them what the article would be about but they didn’t respond. I did my best trying to present both sides of the story.”

Cindy: Hmmmm… so which is it? “An e-mail to Zuffa’s PR department (Jennifer Wenk—who has ZERO to do with credentialing), “multiple UFC reps,” or “every attempt?”

Sam: The bottom line is that the UFC should have responded to her request. I understand that Sherdog is persona non grata in the eyes of the UFC but the UFC has to accept the fact that a lot of people still read Sherdog.

Cindy: Elias (Inside Fighting) and I both interviewed Donna Marcolini (separately), Vice President of Event Operations, about Loretta’s contact claims.

This is what she had to say:

(Donna) “Loretta knows me, has my cell phone number, e-mail address, as well as office number… and never ONCE did she bother trying to contact me. NOT ONCE– and Loretta is well aware that I am the person that handles ALL of this. Whether people like me or not, or have never met me in the UFC organization…everyone still knows of my name and what my job is.”

Cindy: So Sam… THAT’S the bottom line, IMO of course.

Sam: Whether they respect Loretta Hunt or not, they need to acknowledge that a lot of people do.

Cindy: They don’t respect her (and I think it is safe to say she feels the same way about Zuffa management) but they still realize a lot of people do. What does that have to do with the fact Loretta (allegedly) didn’t call the person she KNOWS is in charge of credentialing (according to Donna)?

Sam: When Hunt submitted a request for comment, they should have responded and gotten their side out there. Before Dana let loose on the vitriol, he was making a valid argument. If someone had conveyed some of those points to Sherdog in print, it would have taken a huge edge out of the article.

Cindy: In a matter of two days Loretta gave 3 different versions of contact attempts. I hope she has/saved proof of these claims because I have a sneaking suspicion she will be asked to validate her reported efforts – since she stated them on-the-record. And Donna WOULD have spoken to Loretta, had she been given the opportunity.

Sam: By not getting their side out earlier, the UFC gave Sherdog the ability to report the story in a salacious manner.

Cindy: So you agree the manner of her presentation was over the top/juicy/mouth-watering instead of remaining professional, neutral and balanced throughout? Cool… I got the same impression;)

Sam: Another point I’d like to make is that as I read Iole’s article, I don’t see a single instance in which he mentions that he requested a comment from Sherdog or Hunt in regards to the article he wrote on the subject.

Cindy: Another point I would like to make is that the only manager/agent willing to speak OTR about the “Zuffa DENIES managers backstage access” claim was Ken Pavia and he has since denied (in writing on the UG as well as PM’s to me) having stated what she claimed he did. Thoughts? Comments?

Sam: Moving on, the UFC’s decision to eliminate special passes for managers and agents alarmed certain people within the industry because there is a feeling that the company wants to eliminate them from the sport. But that’s only one side of the story and no one as of yet has really been able to get the other side.

Cindy: What is your source that Zuffa had a policy of issuing “special passes for managers and agents” and made a recent decision to eliminate them? DW absolutely and immediately did give Zuffa’s side of the story in the vlog. Each fighter can credential 3 “seconds” and if he wants his manager in the back he can give him one and there’s not a dayum thing Zuffa can do about it (nor do they care) because that’s AC territory. DW said that, too.

Sam: But if the UFC really has designs on doing that, they don’t need to eliminate corner passes for managers and agents to do that.

Cindy: Zuffa COULDN’T eliminate corner passes for mgrs/agents if they wanted to because it is the SAC’s policy that fighters are entitled to 3 corner credentials (4 if it is a main event/title fight) NOT Zuffa’s. The fighters decide who will get them and Zuffa has zero input in their decision.

Sam: Managers and agents can still get backstage if their fighter issues them a corner pass and even if they can’t get backstage, they can still buy a ticket. In some cases, certain managers and agents are being given free tickets.

Cindy: You don’t know how that works, either? Zuffa gives EVERY fighter 4 event tickets (some more, depending on their contract). The fighter, in most cases, gives these to their families and friends to watch the event (pretty decent seats typically in the same section DW and Lorenzo put their friends and families – not immediate family members, of course). The fighter receives these tickets at the weigh-in and he is more than welcome to give one to his manager IF he wants to. Depending on the venue, Zuffa then goes above and beyond and provides each fighter and cornemen 4 more tickets as a courtesy once that fighter is done fighting, which now allows that fighter and his trainers back into the arena to watch the remaining bouts. Those tickets are distributed backstage once the doctors and inspectors clear the fighter.

Sam: I think the real issue for a lot of managers and agents is that their cost of business will increase if they don’t get issued a pass or a complementary ticket. UFC tickets aren’t cheap and a good seat can cost you as much as $500-750 (and in some cases, even more). Unfortunately, buying a cheaper seat isn’t an option. Being a manager and or agent is all about projecting an image of success. If you can project the appearance that you’re making money for yourself, then what reason does an athlete have to believe that you possess the ability to make money for them? It’s a glamour issue and a manager/agent can’t be seen sitting in the cheap seats.

Cindy: LOL! If you thought that is/was the REAL issue for a lot of managers – and now you know it’s NOT – what are your thoughts?

Cindy: Sammy, you know I love you to death but WTF??? “Better Late Than Never?” No… because commenting on something you know very little about because you haven’t bothered to research it is NOT a good thing because your readers don’t know the difference. This is a news site and as far as they know you give them news.

Zuffa didn’t change some policy and suddenly start denying managers/agents backstage credentials because they do NOT have such a policy (written or unwritten). If a mgr wasn’t one of the fighter’s credentialed “seconds” but still needed to go backstage for a specific reason (not to hang out), Donna would (occasionally and on a case-by-case basis) let them borrow one of Zuffa’s green “promoter” passes/credential because she’s nice and tries to be accommodating. It was not a standard practice- it was a kind gesture/favor that she NEVER had to do.

What changed in January was the method of credentialing (authorized) corners/seconds. Some managers were caught swapping their credential (lanyard style) with folks in the audience (in the seats Zuffa GAVE them for their friends and families) which allowed them to gain UNAUTHORIZED backstage access. They would simply take the credential off (around neck) and sit in the seat of the person they allowed to use it. When that person came back out, he would give it to someone else and then sit in their seat. The mgrs caught were warned but the practice continued – event to event, with other managers and it was causing chaos. Donna fixed their asses when she changed the credentialing procedure from a removable lanyard to a sticky colored wristband they affix on the corners/seconds themselves.

This new system didn’t cut down on the unauthorized access occurrences – it eliminated them. Now there is zero doubt who is credentialed to be back there and who is not. It is the promoters prerogative whether or not they want to issue credentials to anyone above and beyond what the AC’s requires and they choose NOT to because it isn’t necessary for a mgr to be in a locker room on fight night. If a mgr wants to cheat a fighter out of a trainer in order to have his mgr come and hang out they are more than welcome to do so. The AC’s support the idea that mgrs/agents do not NEED to be back there – if they felt differently they would make it a commission policy. Zuffa concurs.

Check Inside Fighting later today to read Elias’ Q and A with Donna to learn more about this, if you’re interested. I’m not proofing this so excuse any typos?

Cindy

It is my hope that you will try to set the record straight and report the findings to your readers. Will you forward me the link if you do? You have my e-mail address. Thanks.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

It baffles me as to why you “chose” to address this issue and waste your time writing about childish, silly things like “everyone’s jealous of Dana” crap.
Who cares?

The whole controversy was about UFC trying to screw managers, not Dana calling people gay.

If you wanted to say your piece on this, Why didn’t you say something about the actual news story?(UFC vs manager controversy) Do you have a huge man crush on Dana or what..?
you freakin’ wrote a whole essay on Dana’s character like.. what’s that have to do with anything?
who cares? He already apologized it’s in the book. It was flavour of the day. Everyone’s moved on. Nobody’s overreacting. It’s only the internet.

You say you’ve no time yet.. you waste your time and viewers’ time writing an essay on some meaningless crap. You’re missing the point.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

But I don’t know if you follow other sports or not, so I’ll explain that women who cover sports have to put up with sexism all the time, and they accept it as part and parcel of the male-dominated locker room environment. But when an executive calls a female reporter a “dumb fucking bitch” it crosses a line into misogyny, and interferes with the respect that is necessary for a journalist to do her job responsibly.

Yes, you’re right, it’s ALL unprofessional, and since there’s no interest group for white males, there tends not to be a group to organize around outrage when Dana attacks one of them. But at the same time, a female MMA writer, like a female MMA fighter, stands out, and is struggling to be taken seriously by her peers, and when the head of the largest MMA organization in the world is calling her a “bitch” for deigning to write a column that isn’t flattering to his organization, it undermines that struggle. And in that instance, people for whom sex equality is a priority shouldn’t turn a blind eye.

And THIS is where I draw my analogy. If you are walking down the street, and you see one dude punch another dude in the face, you might think it’s wrong, an overreaction to all but the most extreme provocation. But you will probably not intervene. However, if you see a dude punch a woman in the face, you’ll intervene, perhaps because of the paternalistic double standard, but in any event, because society doesn’t accept attacks by men against women on equal terms. Verbal abuse might be thought of differently than physical abuse, but societal perceptions are closer than you may think.

If Dana White was a woman named…umm…Dana White, running a major corporation, and if she had a problem with a male journalist, and called him a “faggot,” there would be controversy. She’d likely lose her job. But she might get away with calling a female reporter a “bitch.” However, THIS Dana White runs an organization that is frequently derided for brutality and violence. He should be acutely aware that, by carrying himself with the swagger of a fighter, he does more damage to the perception of his organization than if say Rampage Jackson got into a public verbal confrontation with Loretta Hunt, and referred to her as a “fucking bitch.” (And I’m sure that UFC would be under public pressure to discipline Jackson.) How can the organization distance itself from an individual that has worked so hard to be the public face of that organization?

And again, I’m going to call bullshit, because I’ll assume you were around during the Jon Fitch fiasco, when there seemed to be quite the groundswell in support of Fitch’s assertion that Dana bullies, and the negative views around Dana’s profanity-laced tirade against AKA’s management. Again, I recognize that the response is magnified because he was attacking a woman rather than a trained fighter and his representative, but that’s a question of context.

So on the contrary, I may be high on my own self-righteousness, but I’m no moron. I would just prefer that professionals deal with each other as professionals, and not like petulant children. I think what when you have a responsibility to a roster of business partners, fighters and employees for their livelihoods, that you should curtail your public persona, so that it does not adversely affect your company, not to mention the fanbase who you claim to cater to. And as fans, I think that we should be self-policing from within, so that we aren’t judged from without. It’s telling that Dana didn’t see fit to apologize for insensitivity until GLAAD got involved. And even more telling that so many fans gave Dana dap for “keeping it real.” I can’t support that, I can’t condone that, and if it makes me look like a self-righteous blowhard, I’ll accept that, rather than look like a misogynistic, hateful Neanderthal.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

Quit being a self-righteous moron. You’re comparing athletes who are each capable of defending themselves to civilian assault and battery? It’s not OK to give anyone a black eye outside of a sanctioned cage or ring. Comparing domestic abuse to Dana’s little verbal tirade is idiotic. Loretta’s perfectly capable of defending herself against Dana White in a war of words. She’s got a little bit of an advantage being a writer and all. You all act like she’s helpless. Why? Because she’s a woman. Why don’t these idiots ever defend the numerous MEN that Dana bullies with the same kind of fervor? That’s my point. It’s hypocritical.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

You know what else is based on people “still viewing women as inferior creatures that need protecting by men?” The outrage over what Chris Brown did to Rihanna. I mean, guys beat up guys all the time (hell, I pay money to see it happen every month), but a chick gets ONE black eye, and all of a sudden, everyone gets all protective over her.

Hey, if you guys want to go around calling women “dumb bitches” in professional settings, more power to you. It surely won’t have any adverse consequences for you or your company. Neither would it have adverse consequences in your personal life if you called the various females in your life — mother, wife, sister — “dumb bitches” either. People need to be less sensitive, right? Poppycock.

Fact is, we know what flies in the Real World, and people only put up with disrespect if they’re intimidated into doing so. That’s how bullies operate, and if you condone bullying, then a karmic reward is neither surprising nor undeserved.

And I REALLY wish that people understood what “Freedom of Speech” means. It’s freedom from GOVERNMENT proscriptions on what you say, and adverse consequences BY THE GOVERNMENT on the viewpoints you express. It’s why the Ku Klux Klan has the right to espouse their views in the public square. But if you run a television network, and one of your anchors decides to launch into a stream of obscenities aimed at women, Jews, Blacks, Latinos, and Gays, your network has full power to fire the guy, or give him a raise. And the news media could publicize the anchor being rewarded despite being a bigot (First Amendment also applies to the press), with the only legal recourse being a libel suit. Of course, an expletive and epithet-laden diatribe directed at that reporter might be seen as unprofessional and counterproductive, but it would be fully within the your rights as well.

In the end, it’s a marketplace of ideas. Nobody is trying to silence Dana White, but if his words start to do more harm than good for his company, he might consider shutting the f@&k up.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

I love how you threw that in there. Over at bloody elbow there sure is a buzz about Loretta Hunt being called a “stupid bitch”. I agreed with Dana White on that issue and I got banned from the website. Really nice. This just goes to show that people need to think before they speak and especially before they make a story or video public. This goes for Dana White and Loretta Hunt. Unfortunately we do have the freedom of speech but not without hurting someone, somewhere.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

I don’t think this had anything to do with the gay slur, it’s just that all the attention drawn to it attracted the attention of GLAAD (especially if, say, Sherdog were to contact them and point it out – hypothetically, of course). No, I really think this comes down to some people still viewing women as inferior creatures that need protecting by men.

When Dana goes off on a male journalist (which is often), no one seems to get too worked up. He goes off on a female journalist and all the overprotective men get into an uproar and the story gets all out of proportion. That’s pathetic.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

As for Loretta Hunt, she seems useless. Never seen her do a good interview. Her articles are very good. The article in question is no different.

I haven’t heard many people say good things about her once they have seen her track record.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

I like Iole, and didn’t even dislike his column about this, but he apparently chose not to cover an actual MMA event when he could crap out a piece about dirty words. I’m sure its a lot easier to pinch off a 1000 word nugget about how awful it is to use dirty words in public than it is to actually research fighters and matchups and where fighters stand in light of results after the fights.

Dana White is not a nice guy. Can we get back to talking about fighting?

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

Personally I’m not bothered by the occasional outburst. That kind of grit keeps the sport interesting. I can get all the slick corporate speak I need at my workplace or from the Bolsheviks running the country right now. I’d rather dialogue with somebody who is honest but raw rather than somebody who is polished and two faced.

People in general should calm down. Handwringing and angst over every awkward statement is neurotic and pointless.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

nice article though. i’m glad you pointed out that some articles being written really are using it for more of self-promotion, etc.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

However please understand that I am not bashing you or the site for content. It was my choice to come and read exclusives and share opinions. My only complaint was that I cannot come here and exchange points and views with others that respond here. I rather discuss topics of MMA related news at 5 ounces then any other outlet. However, it is quite difficult when no recap or analysis is reported on.
I understand your family is job one, as should be for all of us. But with contributers and other reporters that come through this site on a daily or weekly basis, I do not think I am wrong for asking why.
It is not that I show any disdain, but come to respectfully ask why not?

Thank you

As for the article……

Dana will have to come to a time and place where he accepts the media as an ally and quit shoving people away. (literally and figuratively) He is not perfect and maybe he will. Media credentials may boost even more positive press and grow his company and the sport of MMA. It seems to me that since he worked numerous hours building this empire, he has trust issues with anyone that may try to help or have their own opinion.

Now with the situation with Hunt, we can all say he does not have issues with the gay community. But since he is a public figure, you are held in a different standard than the regular Joe. He is not polished, he is raw and says what he feels. Nothing wrong with that, because I think we can all appreciate that side of him. But when you use such hurtful and derogatory words, especially against a media outlet, it will be accelerated two-fold.

I have said in the past and reiterate it again. I like Dana and what he has done for the sport. Maybe some sensitivity classes would do some good, and PR has possibly suggested it. Then we all can let it rest.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

Furthermore, I think that while the gay slur is the lightning rod, I think that modern professional sports doesn’t really have a positive opinion of sexism and bullying of female journalists. In particular, a sport often criticized as barbaric, brutish, and low-class needs to be mindful that misogyny, homophobia, and bullying behavior isn’t projected as a lasting image that the sport projects towards the mainstream. Athletes can be criticized for being boorish, intimidating or violent towards women, but executives are held to a higher standard. If any high-ranking sports executive directed the kind of diatribe at a female reporter in a public setting, the repercussions would be swift and decisive.

In addition, the consequences of being a Big Boy Sport is that media coverage extends to more than just “fighters and fights.” Whether bloggers, fans, and Zuffa like it or not, things like a company’s financial state, labor disputes, legal issues, and business relationships are part of the coverage of a sport. Billions are being generated, and with the increased money comes higher stakes. Fighters like Georges St. Pierre and Rashad Evans are getting in bed with blue-chip sponsors like Gatorade and Microsoft, and the UFC is trying to be the exclusive negotiator of sponsorships with fighters. An incident like this adversely affects the UFC brand, and with it, the GSP and Rashad Evans brands. Furthermore, when a company is scared of being associated with the UFC because of Dana White’s personality, serious questions SHOULD be raised by the MMA media about whether his should be the public face of a sport that wants a seat at the Mainstream table.

And I agree that ending the Video Blogs, and pulling back Dana White’s media profile is the wrong move. If anything, it suggests that the “casual Dana” of his vlogs and potential reality show might be undeterred and unmoved, and might still lack the capacity to filter the hateful invective. And yet, the fact that so many fans defend it as “the way people talk in real life” is a little bit disheartening, in that it validates a lot of the perceptions of the kind of people who watch “ultimate fighting.” I don’t want to be lumped in with those people, and I don’t want the sport that I’ve grown to love get marginalized because the fanbase considers misogyny, homophobia, and bullying to be worthy of praise and accolades.

Agree or Disagree: 0  0

Agree or Disagree: 0  0