Tweet
By Steve Kim - On February 5th, inside the Dept. of Consumer Affairs Conference Room in Sacramento, California, the California State Athletic Commission held one of its scheduled meetings to discuss various issues that concerned their jurisdiction, and to listen as an MMA fighter stated his case in front of the panel to have his punishment for testing positive for a banned substance pared down. It was a rather routine and mundane affair for the most part.
But as the 'public comment' portion of the meeting was held, the fireworks would begin and evidence of a divided and fractured commission would become very evident. This part of the gathering is open to anyone who wants to have his or her voice heard on anything that was not included on the agenda. What this particular session became was a referendum on the merits of executive officer Armando Garcia. And the lines of where you stood were made very clear.
With Garcia presiding over the meeting, various judges, referees and inspectors would state their case for and against the executive officer (whose performance is being evaluated on a month-to-month basis), right in front of him.
First up was David Mendoza, a judge and referee, who extolled Garcia’s virtues as someone who has brought unprecedented economic success to the state of California. He would be followed up by noted referee and judge Pat Russell, who asked why certain allegations that have been levied against Garcia were seemingly being swept under the rug and forgotten about by the higher-ups. Referee Jon Schorle would stutter and stammer through a prepared statement in Garcia's defense. Max De Luca would also state his support for the embattled executive officer. And then Jack Reiss would echo many of the same statements as Russell, while asking why there was an email that was circulated only to certain members of the CSAC that attempted to elicit support for Garcia on this day.
Then a long procession of CSAC inspectors (all wearing black-on-black ensembles with their traditional red ties) would come in waves, speaking of the leadership and vision of Garcia. Reading off scripted statements, he was compared to everyone from George Washington to Vince Lombardi.
And it's no accident that the 'men in black' came as if they were dressed for work on behalf of the commission. In an email that was obtained by Maxboxing, Dwayne Woodward, an inspector for the state and a Garcia supporter, would send out a group email that had a copy and pasted version of a story penned by Michael Swann of 15rounds.com that talked of the alleged transgressions of Garcia, that, among other things, accuses him of engaging in acts that constituted conflicts of interest (by working seminars for sanctioning bodies and receiving compensation). It was just one allegation that was brought up in an illuminating series that was produced by Swann a few months ago. [details]
But as the 'public comment' portion of the meeting was held, the fireworks would begin and evidence of a divided and fractured commission would become very evident. This part of the gathering is open to anyone who wants to have his or her voice heard on anything that was not included on the agenda. What this particular session became was a referendum on the merits of executive officer Armando Garcia. And the lines of where you stood were made very clear.
With Garcia presiding over the meeting, various judges, referees and inspectors would state their case for and against the executive officer (whose performance is being evaluated on a month-to-month basis), right in front of him.
First up was David Mendoza, a judge and referee, who extolled Garcia’s virtues as someone who has brought unprecedented economic success to the state of California. He would be followed up by noted referee and judge Pat Russell, who asked why certain allegations that have been levied against Garcia were seemingly being swept under the rug and forgotten about by the higher-ups. Referee Jon Schorle would stutter and stammer through a prepared statement in Garcia's defense. Max De Luca would also state his support for the embattled executive officer. And then Jack Reiss would echo many of the same statements as Russell, while asking why there was an email that was circulated only to certain members of the CSAC that attempted to elicit support for Garcia on this day.
Then a long procession of CSAC inspectors (all wearing black-on-black ensembles with their traditional red ties) would come in waves, speaking of the leadership and vision of Garcia. Reading off scripted statements, he was compared to everyone from George Washington to Vince Lombardi.
And it's no accident that the 'men in black' came as if they were dressed for work on behalf of the commission. In an email that was obtained by Maxboxing, Dwayne Woodward, an inspector for the state and a Garcia supporter, would send out a group email that had a copy and pasted version of a story penned by Michael Swann of 15rounds.com that talked of the alleged transgressions of Garcia, that, among other things, accuses him of engaging in acts that constituted conflicts of interest (by working seminars for sanctioning bodies and receiving compensation). It was just one allegation that was brought up in an illuminating series that was produced by Swann a few months ago. [details]
Comment