Twitter Mailbag: On USADA accusations, Rousey's remake, and 'red panty night'

In this week’s Twitter Mailbag, should the recent accusations against USADA give MMA fans pause now that it’s in charge of implementing the UFC’s anti-doping program? Plus, what are we supposed to make of Demetrious Johnson earning less in the main event than three of the guys who fought under him? And what would Dalton say about Ronda Rousey starring in a “Road House” reboot?

All that and more, plus the required discussion of Conor McGregor’s showing at the UFC’s “Go Big” press conference.

Got a question of your own? Fire it off to @BenFowlkesMMA on Twitter.

It says what we all know, which is that the respect and praise that UFC executives heap onto flyweight champ Demetrious Johnson does not equal a giant mountain of money when the time comes to write the checks at the end of the night. The real question is, is that necessarily wrong?

The thing about professional cage fighting is that skill – the simple yet very complicated thing that makes one fighter better than others at the task of fighting – is just one of many things that gets you paid. This is not football, where the best defensive end is also almost always the highest paid defensive end. Winning is not the only thing that matters here.

Sales matter, at least to the money men who wear the suits and run the show and decide what everyone is worth. And what those money men have told us, both with their words and actions, is that they think “Mighty Mouse” is a spectacular fighter, even though he is not worth as much to them as other, less spectacular fighters.

I agree that that sucks, but I don’t think that makes it wrong. The UFC pays fighters according to a few different criteria – popularity, competition for their services from other promoters, marketability, just to name a few – and by pretty much all those criteria, Johnson’s value to the UFC is not that great. It makes sense that his payouts would also not be that great. Even though, again, it totally sucks, but in that same way that real life often sucks.

The allegations laid out in Thomas Hauser’s story about USADA’s involvement in high-profile boxing matches are serious indeed. Among other things, the story says that USADA allowed Floyd Mayweather a retroactive therapuetic-use exemption for IV use before his fight with Manny Pacquiao. The problem with a retroactive TUE is that it kind of defeats the purpose, since the whole reason you apply for an exemption is so you can get prior permission to do something that would otherwise be against the rules.

Without naming the Hauser piece, USADA has issued a statement responding to “on-line articles” that it says contain “unfounded and false accusations.” That statement promises a more in-depth response to the “multitude of errors … at the appropriate time,” but seeks to “immediately correct the record regarding the false suggestion that Mayweather violated the rules by receiving an IV infusion of saline and vitamins.”

The statement then goes on to say that Mayweather did receive an IV infusion, which, it correctly states, is not banned by the Nevada State Athletic Commission. As you may recall, that’s why some UFC fighters were upset about the IV ban that comes with the UFC’s USADA program, because they’ve been doing it for years without running afoul of state athletic commission rules.

The problem is, even by USADA’s own admission, Mayweather didn’t apply for the TUE until after he’d already had the infusion, and the TUE wasn’t granted until well after the fight. As USADA officials pointed out when explaining why UFC fighters would no longer be allowed to use IVs to rehydrate after weigh-ins, USADA follows the WADA code, which bans infusions of more than 50 milliliters per six-hour period at all times. That ban, according to USADA’s own website, is in place “unless the athlete has applied for and been granted a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) under the applicable anti-doping rules.”

At the time Mayweather got the IV infusion, he had neither applied for nor been granted a TUE. So as he was sitting there with the plastic tube in his arm on May 1, he was in violation of the WADA code. It was only the TUE he got after the fact – on May 20, according to Hauser’s story, 18 days after the fight – that made it retroactively legal.

USADA’s statement doesn’t refute that, which is troubling. How is a fighter supposed to know whether he’s violating the code if the decision on whether he has permission to do the thing he is already doing hasn’t been made yet? How is his opponent supposed to feel about it if he doesn’t find out until after the fight that the guy he shared the ring with got permission to do something that he thought was banned?

The whole reason we have anti-doping rules is to maintain a level playing field. If one fighter gets to do something that the other fighter doesn’t, what’s the point? It’s the same problem MMA had with TUEs for synthetic testosterone. It gave one fighter an advantage that his opponent didn’t necessarily get.

And, I know, some of you are wondering what the big deal is. It’s just an IV, right? Mayweather just wanted to rehydrate after weigh-ins, the same way MMA fighters have been doing for years. The problem is, USADA’s own website clearly says that IV rehydration isn’t as effective as oral rehydration, and, since it can be used to mask the use of other prohibited substances, it is “prohibited at all times without prior TUE approval.”

That last part is actually in bold on the USADA website. As in, USADA apparently thought it was pretty important, even the word “prior.” If it would change those rules for Mayweather, how are MMA fans supposed to trust that the rules will apply evenly across the board in the UFC?

I want to see Ronda Rousey remake Patrick Swayze movies in the same way that I would have wanted to see “Road House”-era Patrick Swayze fight a professional in a cage. By that I mean, I’d definitely watch both, but not with the expectation that either would be very good.

My personal rule when picking a winner in a bout between two aging heavyweights who look better with their shirts on? I go with the guy who can do more things, and do them better. For me, that’s Josh Barnett. No offense to Roy Nelson, who has gotten a lot of mileage out of a relatively limited attack that he limits even further by relying on a few select weapons and eschewing his other strengths, but a big, aggressive grappling specialist with a solid chin seems like kind of a nightmare match-up for him. If it weren’t for the fact that Barnett hasn’t fought in almost two years, I’d like his chances even more.

I’m still not sure how McGregor vs. Jose Aldo will play out, but I do know that I’d watch almost any pairing featuring McGregor and anyone in the top five at either featherweight or lightweight. That’s the genius of McGregor, isn’t it? Even if you think he’d get murdered in any of those fights, there’s no way you’d want to miss it.

We’ve all been there, man. A fighter bursts on the scene with a lot of vague praise from important people promising big things, delivers a highlight reel finish via spinning stuff, and the hype train gets moving so fast that he’s on a two-fight losing streak before you can apply the brakes. That’s just going to happen from time to time in any sport where we try to draw broad conclusions about the athletes based on seeing them for 15 minutes or less every couple months.

In Paul Felder’s case, however, I’d argue that while he maybe isn’t the killer he was made out to be after his spinning backfist knockout of Danny Castillo, neither is he the overinflated flash in the pan that some people want to dismiss him as now that he’s lost two in a row.

For starters, either or both of his last two decision losses could have easily gone Felder’s way. His losses to Edson Barboza and then Ross Pearson were both extremely close, and though I agreed with the judges in both cases, I don’t know if we want to give up on a guy just for losing a couple of squeakers against two dudes with giant edges in terms of high-level experience.

That’s the other thing about this. Want to know how to avoid drinking the Kool-Aid too soon, or too quickly? Start by not just looking at a fighter’s record, but the records of the people he’s fought. If you really want to dig in, look at the records of the people those people have fought. Do that for Felder, and you see that before arriving in the UFC, he fought some guys with very little experience, guys with losing records, or guys with just barely winning ones.

That’s not necessarily uncommon for an up-and-comer on any local MMA scene, but it should still give you pause when you’re looking at a fighter who had eight professional fights – six of them in one organization – before signing with the UFC.

Still, just because you got carried away on Felder too soon, don’t make the same mistake in the opposite direction and abandon ship just because of two close fights against two very good, very experienced opponents. This guy can still fight. What will be interesting to see is how he responds to this disappointing turn. Just saying, not sure I’d want to be the next one in there with him.

Yes and no. The internet, in general, fosters a hyper-critical culture that often substitutes snark for insight. That’s just how it works, at least right now. And hardcore MMA fandom has, for pretty much the entirely of its existence, lived on the internet. It makes sense that the people who populate MMA Twitter would be tough to please in a situation like this.

Still, I suspect that if UFC executives hadn’t promised the title shot to Miesha Tate before taking it away, there would have been less backlash. Sure, some fans might have wept for the injustice of it all, but when UFC President Dana White said we’d already seen what a fight between Tate and Rousey looks like, he was right. He just should have gone with that explanation first.

My default answer in these situations is yes, definitely, no matter what the fighter who is potentially rusty says to the contrary. On the other hand, Dominick Cruz did look pretty great in his last return from a long layoff, albeit against an opponent who was no T.J. Dillashaw.

If there’s anyone who can power through the problem of too much time off and come in looking like he never left, I believe it’s Cruz. But even Cruz at his best might still have trouble with Dillashaw. The champ’s mix of speed and power should be a match for Cruz’s ability to disguise his intentions as he keeps opponents guessing. But as long as the fight really happens, and without any unfortunate delays, I don’t care who wins.

I’m sorry, what were you saying? I was distracted by new favorite jam, “Red Panty Night.” And by favorite I mean I hate myself for liking it, and each time I listen to it I swear to myself that it will be the last time, even though secretly I know it probably won’t be. That’s more or less how I feel about McGregor’s routine at this point. It’s abrasive, repetitive, a little bit annoying, and I look forward to my next opportunity to sit through it.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Follow him on Twitter at @BenFowlkesMMA. Twitter Mailbag appears every Thursday on MMAjunkie.