Report: CSAC under fire for accepting freebies from the promotions they regulate

by Jesse Holland on Sep 25, 2009 2:26 PM EDT

Oops, they did it again.

The California State Athletic Commission (CSAC) is once again finding itself mired in controversy after the state's Fair Political Practices Commission launched an investigation in response to the accusation that CSAC members were accepting free tickets to several boxing and mixed martial arts events -- the same events they were charged with regulating.

According to the L.A. Times, commission members were getting their palms greased in order to send friends and family to pricey events at no charge. Included in the list of beneficiaries was actor Sylvester Stallone, who's chummy with Commission Chairman Timothy Noonan, one of Governor Schwarzenegger's top Aides, one commissioner's pastor and an assortment of other member's friends and family.

The CSAC is no stranger to controversy. It's probably best known for the Sean Sherk steroid scandal, which "The Muscle Shark" claims was botched from the get-go. Phil Baroni and Antonio Silva also blasted the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of their steroid testing, with "Bigfoot" even filing a lawsuit to prove his innocence.

It was widely believed that the commission was on the straight and narrow after embattled commissioner Armando Garcia stepped down in light of sexual harassment charges, but these new developments don't exactly reek of ethics.

What influence these handouts from promoters had on any of the decisions made regarding their corresponding promotions is purely speculation, but it certainly doesn't leave you with that warm, fuzzy feeling.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Oh please! free tickets?? Hardly a reason for anyone to “tamper” with a fighters test results.

by UFC Champ on Sep 25, 2009 2:30 PM EDT reply actions

you’d think, but it’s pretty obvious that their “random” tests aren’t so random..
Nick Diaz
Sean Sherk
Josh Barnett all got chosen for “randoms” recently.
I think this shows that they are picking people who have failed prior tests rather than giving promotions special treatment!

by kevin on Sep 25, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions

it depends on who was greasing there palms.

by roy on Sep 25, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions

They should take a harder look at guys who have failed tests in the past. It’s not an uncommon practice. NFL and MLB players who get suspensions for failed tests are subsequently tested much more frequently than their non-caught counterparts. Hell, Lance Armstrong has never failed a drug test. Ever. Yet when the Tour de France conducts “random” drug tests, his name seems to come up every single time.

by PW on Sep 25, 2009 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions

what they should do is to just come in unannounced and have them take drug tests.. they should go from camp to camp..

by RoBerto on Sep 25, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions

maybe all the sherk haters will finally stfu? oh no, im dreaming again… whoops, sorry to let logic get in the way of my thinking!

by brendan on Sep 25, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions

I dont believe anything oouut of the CSAC

by john G on Sep 25, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions

why because he “got hurt” the same day he was picked for a drug test? that would more than likely make someone rational think he was afraid to take the test! And don’t give me his "dr. note, I just took 5 months off work and gave them a note…I was fine!

by kevin on Sep 25, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions

it seems to me that the csac is a complete joke…..sort of like WAMMA

by child on Sep 25, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions

I quite frankly can’t believe that CSAC would do anything to tarnish their spotless reputation.

by chefdaddy on Sep 25, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Good ol CSAC – showin exactly why they firmly hold #2 on my sh!ttiest commission list.!

by NameNotRequired on Sep 25, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions

agreed

by Ligger_Nyncher on Sep 25, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions

NNR? Surely you don’t hold them in a higher regard than the NSAC?

by McArthur on Sep 25, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Ontario baby takes #1 far and above everyone. Florida was a solid #3 since they take bribes but NSAC appears to have surpassed them with the Big John move.

by NameNotRequired on Sep 25, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions

depends on what seats where given, some seats at a boxing event could be a 10k or more.

by roy on Sep 25, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions

It’s like cops taking free donuts and coffee.

by Felix by day, El Mexicutioner by night on Sep 25, 2009 2:47 PM EDT reply actions

lol~ they always get hooked up for free, dont they?

focking pigs~

by stinky~fingers on Sep 25, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions

They get a lot more than just donuts and coffee.

by UFC Champ on Sep 25, 2009 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions

jesus! i thought this was public knowledge… the only people who get better seats then fighters are MMA events are the friends of the commission… real talk.

by ekc on Sep 25, 2009 2:50 PM EDT reply actions

Sure seems like the comission tested SF’s fighters “randomly” more often than the UFC’s…agree or disagree with me, but these questions are the reason that these guys shouldn’t be accepting any gifts from fight promotions.

It would be like an NFL referee getting free Jets tickets… just shouldn’t happen.

by introvert on Sep 25, 2009 3:08 PM EDT reply actions

no intro, i named 3 guys from 3 different organizations!
PW, I agree they should look at guys that have failed more than that of guys that haven’t, but then you can’t call the tests “random!”

by kevin on Sep 25, 2009 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions

You missed my point.

The fact that they accept gifts from certain promotions opens them up for scrutiny every time they test other promotions fighters…simple as that.

by introvert on Sep 25, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions

…it’s a direct conflict of interest.

by introvert on Sep 25, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions

I agree, they shouldn’t take anything, but as usual in your point is your obvious hate for the UFC.
“Sure seems like the comission tested SF’s fighters "randomly" more often than the UFC’s…”
that was ur quote, so I simply pointed out that it seemed even to me!

by kevin on Sep 25, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions

But if they’re getting bribed equally by all the orgs, that should cancel out any charges of conflict of interest and open them up to charges of graft. Still bad, but toally different.

by PW on Sep 25, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions