Which one is better? "UFC-art" or "UFC-ferocity"?
For years, I´ve been watching on TV – albeit not
without a fraction of guilt – the fights of what was originally known in Brazil
as “anything goes”, i.e., UFC, MMA, as well as other acronyms which are used to
refer to these confrontations in varied fighting styles. Fights which pit not
only "one style against a different style" - for example, boxing
against judo - but also "mixtures of two or three fighting styles"
against "endless menus of fighting styles" resulting in numerous
strikes, holds or chokings. The fighting styles have been mixed in a way that
today we can say there are in fact two ways of fighting: vertically and
horizontally. Standing up or lying on the floor.
I´d like to clarify that my guilt stems from the fact
that the constant view on television of two men – and even women, some of them
beautiful, although temporarily – trading punches on the face and kicks
everywhere except the "low areas" certainly stimulates the release of
ancestral aggressiveness, loosely contained by education or fear of the law. An
aggressiveness which is no different than that of animals. In reality, it is
worse than the animal one, because it is organized, refined and even
"theorized". You can always find a politician, scientist or
"religious" ignorant to "support it” – see the Islamic State,
for example.
The blood in these MMA fights often covers the face or
scalp of the fighters, to the point that a lady who was once in my house and
casually witnessed a particularly bloody fight on TV exclaimed - "How
awful! Aren´t the fights of roosters and dogs prohibited?"
When I answered “yes”, she then asked me – “If they
are prohibited, how can the police allow human beings to get hurt, but not
animals? Are animals worth more than men are?” – Then I explained that athletes
do it willingly, aware of the risks, which rarely result in death or crippling,
while animals are manipulated by people interested only in making money from
betting. Moreover, the animals often die in the fights, or shortly after, while
deaths or irreversible deformities very rarely occur with athletes. She did not
seem very convinced of the difference and thought it best to leave the room.
Indeed, man is a strange animal. After the fight is
over and a winner is proclaimed, it is common for the fighters, already wiped
off their own blood as well as their opponent´s, to embrace in a friendly
manner, as if they were friends meeting after a long absence. Among animals
this does not occur, as hatred is consistent, sincere, proving that man is a
very peculiar animal. Within each man, there are many different people. Each
human being is a club.
Talking to a friend who also usually follows these
fights, I argued that my sports preference – I personally never liked football
– is certainly not recommended in terms of morals, as it encourages young
people to use physical force to impose their points of view or gather
admiration, especially in the “mating phase”. The "girls" get
excited. The boys want to impress the "buddies." Thus, instead of a
discussion or argument, there comes a punch or a kick.
This same friend argued it was exactly the opposite,
meaning that the spread of these fights discourage fights among young people at
the gym because teachers insist on the prohibition of fighting in the streets.
I disagreed, after all if it is true that the student
is well indoctrinated at the gym, then the danger resides not in those students
but in the undetermined number of young men who have never attended any gym,
withholding grievances and getting stimulated by watching bloody fights in
competitions and action movies – which increasingly insist on extended sadism.
The "must" now in action movies is the use of chainsaws and axes
calmly cutting off entire fingers – while the victim screams continuously –,
gang rapes and other extreme acts of ferocity far above the animal one.
As, however, everything nowadays is decided by the
"market" and violence is everywhere, encouraging – correctly, in this
case – the young ones to learn self-defense (neither with a knife nor with a
gun, which would be worse), then there is no reason to prohibit the practice of
such fights in the rings and octagons. A slightly civilized improvement in such
fights would be, however, the prohibition of the use of the elbow, a "bone
weapon" which is especially brutal and is the biggest responsible for the
“redness” of the fight.
Now, about Anderson Silva and the possible doping
case.
The media these days has insistently addressed the
subject of the use of forbidden substances to "dope" the athletes.
The use of anabolic steroids was found in the body of Anderson Silva in a
preliminary test, as well as in a second one a few days later. According to the
newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo” from February 19, 2015, in the second test it
was also verified the presence of "substances which aim to contain anxiety
and fight insomnia." Another previous report mentioned that Nick Diaz, the
fighter defeated by Anderson on his return to UFC, smoked marijuana after a
fight.
The prohibition of the use of anabolic steroids is at
a first glance clearly justified, after all steroids artificially increase the
strength of the user, giving him an unfair advantage over an opponent who uses
only the strength and abilities derived from his own nature, training and a
regimented life. Should doping be authorized or "ignored" by the
organizers of sporting events, there would always be two competitions in one: a
"muscular" one and a "chemical" one. In other words, there
would be two simultaneous competitions, one between athletes and another
between laboratories.
"Poisoned" fights would certainly become
more and more "exciting" in terms of energy and aggressiveness.
Usually quiet athletes would become killer pit bulls when entering the ring.
The strictly personal value of the athlete would be stuck to the background, as
the chemical engineering progresses faster than the slow and uncertain genetic
mutations related to physical strength, aggressiveness and speed.
In addition to the distortion of sports competitions –
laboratories, more than athletes, "fighting" among themselves – an
early death would be the common destiny of fighters, as these
"magical" chemical charges demand a high price: they ruin the body of
the user who doesn´t abandon addiction in time.
It just so happens, however, that the relation between
cause and effect in the drug use in sports competitions has been misunderstood
or wrongly explained in recent media, especially regarding Anderson Silva´s
case.
It is important to remember firstly that only drugs
that can improve an athlete's performance in a competition involving strength
and / or speed are able to invalidate that competition´s result. Substances
that do not have such effects cannot be taken into account, because they do not
influence the result.
In Anderson Silva´s case, for example, the fact that,
according to the newspaper, the second test reveals the use of drugs against
anxiety and insomnia, it obviously may not have the least impact in his
victories. On the contrary, the use of sedatives or antianxiety drugs can even
reduce the strength and speed of those who use such products and then engage on
heavy blows. The same thesis applies where a citizen smokes “marijuana”, using
its common denomination. Such was the case of Nick Diaz, who had smoked the
herb after his fight against Brazilian Anderson. I am against the use of
marijuana for reasons that would be too long to number here, but from what we
know, this product does not help its user to fight better. Its main effect is
to put its user into a "peace and love” mood.
As most people say, the pothead becomes
"soft", laughing for no apparent reason, "in a good mood",
less energetic, fast and strong in blows. In other words, precisely the
opposite of what it takes to win any competition which is not of comedy.
Only chemicals that increase the strength and / or
speed of the athlete can invalidate his victory. Whatever is ingested or
assimilated in any form after competitions shall result only in an advice for
the athlete to stop smoking, drinking or eating too much, i.e., "to be a
good boy". It is a matter of private life. The sports organization to
which the athlete belongs may even expel him if something like that is
expressed in the contract they have, but it can never invalidate a victory
despite the fact the athlete´s body still show signs of the drug. If the
athlete has won, then he has done so “in spite of” the drug.
Before writing this article, I did a small research on
Google and read about some drugs which configure doping and somehow show the
presence of derivatives of testosterone. Some of them - I did not bother to
write their names down – are recommended to speed up the healing of wounds. It
is expected that Anderson Silva´s lawyers examine, with the careful help of an
endocrinologist, which "effect in strength and / or speed" has
favored the fighter in his fight which has had its outcome invalidated (or
about to be).
Another observation from a non-specialist, perhaps a
not pertinent one, to be honest: let´s say Anderson Silva has had a small
deficiency in the natural production of testosterone since birth, something
which would explain his high-pitched voice, something which seems rather
incompatible with his courage and energy to fight.
Should Anderson have some hormone deficiency –
something which in no way would mean he´s a homosexual, as homosexuality is
more in the brain than in hormone production – it would be perfectly legal for
him to try to offset such natural dysfunction using synthetic testosterone.
Some older men currently undergo, for medical reasons, hormonal reinforcements
which bring beneficial effects to their health. Such testosterone injections do
not mean in any case "doping". Something similar occurs in the
insulin injection taken by diabetic people. If the pancreas of the patient is
deficient, it is perfectly appropriate to make up for it through an injection.
It is possible that this supposed hormonal deficit
offset by injections of testosterone has already been examined by Anderson
Silva´s advisors, or maybe not. If it is now found through a new blood test
that Silva does indeed have a low, birth-related, level of testosterone, that
would make the presence of synthetic testosterone legal, making any punishment
improper.
An ordinary man – whether or not a fighter – who has a
deficit in his natural production of testosterone, thyroid or adrenal gland
hormones, or any other hormone for that matter, has the full and ethical right
to compensate for such deficiency, something which was not caused by himself,
through the use of the corresponding synthetic hormone. If this is Anderson
Silva´s case, then when taking a supplement of the hormone he lacks he could
never be accused of doping, but only of "curing" himself. The mere
presence of "traces" of the hormone found at random, at any time, is
a matter of quantity, not quality, and is not directly related to the fight.
Let´s say that Anderson Silva has its hormone
production within "normality", but in a very low rate, barely above
the lowest limit of normality. If, in a scale of 0 to 10 within the range of
"normality", Anderson´s testosterone level is, for example, 1 or 2 –
i.e., within the "normal" rate, but still weak – it seems reasonable
to conclude that he could receive some synthetic reinforcement, considering he
enjoys what he does and has the ability and aptitude for practicing a sport
which unfortunately requires - more than any other - a heavy dose of
aggressiveness.
It is good to remember that in order for MMA to grow
and remain civilized and less primitive, it would be useful not to value only
aggressiveness and the shed of blood. It is not unlikely that fights too
irrigated by blood running down the fighters faces end up sickening or grossing
out a more educated audience. It is somewhat animalistic to praise a fighter
who aims to punch an opponent right at a part of the body which has already
been broken or is bleeding. I am not saying the athlete should be worried about
not aggravating an injury of his opponent. But to focus his blows on a point
which already bleeds is a testament to the regression brought up by an
essentially brutal sport which can, in the long run, be regarded as
"second class, suitable only for broncos."
It is clear that an athlete who is excessively and
naturally full of “natural” testosterone – some kind of
"fighting-beast" – shall please more the most avid viewers of
brutality. Other viewers, however, value more the "artistic fighter
", who shows more imagination and efficiency in the art of winning fights.
Probably, the latter has a lower level of natural testosterone and therefore he
is more humane, reasonable and less aggressive even in interviews.
Someone might object to that, saying that the athlete
who has a lower natural aggression – due to a less robust hormonal production –
can go swim or play chess, golf, volleyball or ping pong, leaving the
"anything goes" battles to the "macho" ones, who do not
need any supplements to "trounce" or drool over an opponent.
Among the admirers of fights there are those who
believe that the athlete's ability to win a fight faster is something to be
valued. A boxer who knocks out the opponent in a few minutes deserves more
admiration than the one who can only win his fights - when he can - in the
tenth round, covered in blood. The guy is probably a dumb-ass, but at least he
is proud of his ferocity, the only "quality/defect" he can display.
Although I´m giving my opinion on the matter merely as
someone who´s curious about the subject, it may be fair for the Commission
which assesses Anderson Silva´s doping case to find out what the athlete´s
natural hormonal production is and, if it finds out that his body is relevantly
deficient, cancel any punishment. It is unfortunate that the doping tests are
only qualitative, not quantitative.
The safest technique for an "organic"
moralization of the sport of fighting would be collecting the athlete´s blood
an hour before any competition and then confining the athlete to a room guarded
by cameras and inspectors so that he cannot inhale or swallow any kind of drug.
The amount of precious red liquid to be extracted from the athlete´s vein
before the fight would be in a volume which would not hinder his performance,
of course. After all, he would probably lose five or ten times more of his
"precious liquid" through the elbow blows he might suffer during the
fight.
The use of cocaine, however, does indeed deserve
double the amount of attention and punishment. If used just before the fight,
the temporary power provided by the drug can powerfully influence the outcome
in the five rounds which a fight lasts.
Jon Jones, the current light heavyweight champion of
UFC, was caught on a blood test made at random and where the presence of
cocaine was found. Had the cocaine been inhaled before a fight in which he was
the winner? It is unknown. Hence the need for such tests to be made through
harvesting the blood of the athlete before each important fight. Then, a few
days after the fight and after the blood sample was properly analyzed, the
winner would receive the prize or not, depending on whether he had fought doped
or not.
Asking for your pardon for my intrusion into a subject
which is not my traditional cup of tea, I close my remarks here, believing,
however, that some of my points have been right on the nose.
(Translated from Portuguese by Rodrigo Haddad)
(February 20, 2015)
