his actions are never defensible in my opinion. All the man basically ever does is try to dick these guys out of money. Nickel and dime them beyond belief while he sails away on his yacht.
Watch this ESPN contract completely go down the toilet in the next two years because all the UFC is currently doing is refusing to put together big fights arguing over money.
Well, by defensible, it's not to say I sympathize with the man or anything. And I agree with you that he does nickle and dime poor fighters while making enormous wealth off of their hard work and suffering.
But example of what I mean is right here in this thread. A person asked if the fighter who chose to go home could sue Dana, presumably for slander, which is laughable. And the title says he twisted the facts, but he didn't. From the part I saw, Dana made two assertions, both of which were factually accurate:
1. The doctor cleared him to fight. That's true. If the fighter were not medically cleared according to my understanding, then there's no choice in the matter. If the doctor says, "You can fight, but there's a risk", then he's clearing you to fight.
2. The fighter chose not to fight, although the doctor would have allowed him to fight.
For me the problem is the conclusion which Dana draws from those facts, implying that the guy is a pussy who doesn't want to be a fighter. He doesn't care about the fighter's long term benefit, and so when the fighter makes a decision to emphasize his long term prospects at the expense of his short term usefulness to the UFC, Dana disrespects him.
