UFC needs to be more transparent in dealing with Code of Conduct violations
LAS VEGAS -- The UFC finally explained rising lightweight contender Michael Johnson's inexplicable absence from the Octagon over the past nine months with a statement it posted on its web site late Monday afternoon.
Johnson had been arrested for simple battery in Palm Beach County, Fla., on April 9, slightly more than a month after his victory in London over Melvin Guillard. Given that the offense was a violation of the UFC's Fighter Code of Conduct policy, the UFC suspended Johnson.
An attempt by Yahoo Sports to get an update on the case from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office was unsuccessful, but Johnson was reinstated on Monday after a third-party investigation had been completed that cleared him. He will meet Edson Barboza in what should be a sensational match on Feb. 22 in Brazil.
But the announcement of Johnson's reinstatement on UFC.com raised far more questions than it answered:
• Who conducted the third-party investigation?
• What were the report's findings?
• What, if anything, was Johnson required to do to return to the UFC?
• Was the alleged victim interviewed?
Those questions, and many others like them, were left unanswered. It leaves open the question of whether Johnson was treated fairly, and if he deserves to return. The public can rightfully claim to have little confidence in the integrity of the third-party investigation when it doesn't even know who conducted it, or when.
"I would hope that the public would have confidence in the pronouncements, public pronouncements, that we make," said Lawrence Epstein, the UFC's chief operating officer. "That being said, I think actions speak louder than words. He didn't fight for us during this time we were conducting this investigation. I'm telling you and we did represent in our public statement that we did conduct an investigation and that investigation included a variety of things: Interviews with Michael and his representatives. Interviews with his medical practitioners who evaluated him. [There was] a complete review of public records related to anything that may have happened with respect to domestic violence and a variety of other factors.
"After reviewing all of those materials, we reached the conclusion, or our third-party law firm reached the conclusion that at this point, he is eligible to be in a UFC event."
Give the UFC credit for being proactive and taking action. But the interests of both the public and the UFC itself would be best served by being more transparent and providing more information.
When Johnson was suspended in the first place, for instance, a notice on UFC.com should have been made. The announcement of the suspension should have included copies of public documents relating to the arrest that caused Johnson to be suspended.
But Johnson was reported to be fighting on a July card in San Jose, Calif., and then was yanked. It's clear that someone in the UFC hierarchy didn't know Johnson wasn't eligible to fight.
Once the case was concluded and the UFC made the decision to reinstate him, it would have made sense to include the third-party law firm's report on the statement the company released. Epstein said he is concerned about private, personal information being released inappropriately, but Epstein is a lawyer and understands those kinds of things can be redacted.
"I understand what you're saying [asking for transparency], but the report contains private medical information, for example," Epstein said. "As I mentioned, there were interviews with medical practitioners that Michael allowed the third-party to speak with.
"Once again, this is a balancing of privacy and trying to get the information out to the public, as you indicated, and trying to be as transparent as possible. These are some of the judgment calls we've made in that balancing act."
It would make sense for the UFC to modify its policy and begin announcing all fighter suspensions within 72 hours of their occurrence and providing a reason. It could be as simple as saying, "UFC fighter John Doe has been suspended for nine months because he failed a post-fight drug test administered to him on Dec. 30, 2014" or "UFC fighter Jane Doe was arrested on Dec. 14, 2014, on allegations of driving under the influence and has been suspended indefinitely pending the outcome of the case."
It would end ambiguity and serve as a lesson for others how they could expect to be treated under similar circumstances.
"It's definitely food for thought," Epstein said.
That would enable the public to have more confidence that the right thing is being done. It will also prevent rumors unfairly swirling around a fighter about what may or may not have occurred.
