Michael Cohen - Getty Images
over 1 year ago: NEW YORK NY - JANUARY 13: Scott O'Neil President of Madison Square Garden Sports speaks during a press conference to announce commitment to bring UFC to Madison Square Garden and New York State at Madison Square Garden on January 13 2011 in New York City. (Photo by Michael Cohen/Getty Images)
The fight to legalize mixed martial arts in New York is likely to continue for some time and take more twists and turns over the coming months. When Zuffa filed a lawsuit alleging that the ban was a violation of First Amendment rights, it was surprising. What is not surprising is that New York legislators have not backed down since that development.
New York talked to a federal judge about their ban and why they feel federal involvement is unnecessary and wrong. The Hollywood Reporter has the story:
New York says that even if it's true that MMA has evolved from its no-holds-barred origins, and that the UFC has crafted rules that protect the safety and health of its fighters, the only thing that matters is whether there was a rationale behind the law's adoption at the time of its passing. To this end, New York quotes various medical experts who testified before the NY legislature in 1997 about the dangers of the sport, such as concussions, hemorrhages, lacerations and fractures. The state also says that lawmakers wanted to send a message to young people that the brutality of the sport had no place in a civilized society.
...
If the ban on mixed martial arts fighting is outdated, New York says that the democratically-elected branches of government will eventually rectify it. Any decision otherwise would invite too much scrutiny by courts, says the state's attorney general. The memorandum says:"The Plaintiffs' desired rule, which would have federal courts reexamining the validity of statutes every time a challenger asserted that a once-rational classification had outlived or failed to achieve its purpose, is at odds with the principle of judicial restraint articulated by the Supreme Court."
The gist of it all is that New York says that the state law shouldn't be overturned at the federal level since there was a "rational basis" to ban the sport in 1997 and that it will be turned over if and when they determine it is correct to do so.
You can read the full 29 page memorandum over at The Hollywood Reporter.
0 recs | 53 comments
So much BS
halitosis - January 31, 2012 via mobile
States rights?
I agree.
bigstupidsmile - January 31, 2012
Somebody was napping during history class...
OmoPlata - January 31, 2012
On its face
It looks like an uphill battle for the UFC lawyers.
Coeman - January 31, 2012
Even if you lose
the legal battle itself is a good opportunity to keep sustained attention on the issue, and maybe put some pressure on lawmakers to change the law. Not a bad tactic.
Dave Strummer - January 31, 2012
Or
It could have the negative effect, the same lawmakers will keep the fight to keep the statue which is what they are doing..
Coeman - January 31, 2012
yup.
Maybe some people in NY will tell them that instead of wasting a bunch of money fighting it in court, just let the damn assembly vote on the bill. It seems like a pretty useless waste of money to prove a law that is about to get overturned is constitutional.
Phildo - January 31, 2012
Cool so is NY going to uphold the ban on football, hockey, boxing, rugby, men's lacrosse and marathons?
Oh wait…
menckenstein - January 31, 2012
Lacrosse used to be played using the skulls of fallen war enemies
It has no place in a civilized society!
halitosis - January 31, 2012 via mobile
I will be very disappointed if you made that up.
crazybones - January 31, 2012
I'm not
That’s how Native Americans played lacrosse
halitosis - January 31, 2012 via mobile
It's true!
They used to scrawl JUST BLEED! across their chests with the blood of their opponents, too.
But seriously, I never knew that.
@KatanaClothing - January 31, 2012
the field was also a couple of miles long and they would play till someone died
(or so I’ve heard…)
The Lethal Haze - January 31, 2012
This actually happened
The skulls did not, the original lacrosse balls were as hard as a golf ball though. Also marathon runners soil themselves running. That has no place in modern society.
Andy Anderson - January 31, 2012
I was taking something I learned in 5th grade as fact
Maybe I was wrong
halitosis - February 1, 2012
umm no
Sorry buddy but not ever did that happen, maybe do a little research outside the land of imagination before you say something
kieranski - January 31, 2012
I've lived my whole life....
(except 4 years of college) within 30 miles of MSG. I work for the company now and am looking at the building as I type. I would love nothing more than to watch UFC at MSG (and I hate going to UFC shows.)
But I kind of hope Zuffa just says “F*ck it. You don’t want us, we don’t need you. We’ve grown tremendously in the past 5-6 years without you. Forget it.” Then every time they have a big show in a big city, send them an economic report of what they brought into the city.
FightCardHammer - January 31, 2012
For a lot of those within the state of New York, MMA is bigger than UFC
Especially the gyms, coaches, fighters and fans. The completely unnecessary criminalising of some of its own citizens who wish to take part in a professional sport within their home state is what is ethically wrong, far more than any beef certain entites have with UFC or its Zuffa owners.
KJ Gould - January 31, 2012
Yup
There is a huge fanbase here in NY and it can only get bigger withe an event at MSG. Not to mention high profile trainers like Ray Longo, Matt Serra, Phil Nurse, etc.
halitosis - January 31, 2012 via mobile
Oh I agree
Being in MSG makes the sport that much more legitimate. But it comes to a point where you just say “We are wasting our time, let’s move on.”
MMA will be legal in NY soon. But screaming from the rooftops isn’t working. Try and new strategy. Just poke the bear a little.
FightCardHammer - January 31, 2012
@FCH
…you are alone in taking that position….
BrothersGottaAndyHug - January 31, 2012
I doubt they would go to New York to often anyway
I think the taxes they would have to pay would be crazy.
My main issue isn’t that the UFC can’t put on a show at MSG or the soon to be opened Barclays Center (although having a UFC in Brooklyn would be awesome), it’s the stupidity of the ban.
You compete in judo, wrestling, boxing, muay thai, kickboxing, and bjj competitions in New York, but god forbid you decide to mix any of these legal arts.
discoandherpes - January 31, 2012
them not going there a lot doesn’t mean it isn’t important. 1 PPV/Fox show in MSG and 1 cable card in Buffalo or Brooklyn will be huge. Not to mention all the smaller show that will pop up.
Phildo - January 31, 2012
So to simplify things, the State is flashing a middle finger at the federal government in defiance?
jack knight starman - January 31, 2012
That's not uncommon.
Andy Davis - January 31, 2012
no they aren’t. They are making an argument in court.
Phildo - January 31, 2012
So because when the ban was made it was from a "rational basis" it shouldn't be overturned by the courts?
Legislative side of our government moves slow anyway and its the courts job to declare laws on any level right or wrong.
MaZZacare - January 31, 2012
At certain points in history, very wrong things fell under the law on a 'rational' basis
At certain points, lawmakers believed it was rational for segregation or to deny women the vote. How ridiculous would it be for a state to say “Well, if there’s nothing wrong with it now, it’ll work itself out in due process”. That’s exactly when the federal government should step in and kick them up the ass for not doing their utmost to uphold constitutional rights, that protect all citizens of all backgrounds.
KJ Gould - January 31, 2012
Our legal system is becoming very ineffective
Not to mention all of the greed and exploitation that go against what our country was founded on.
halitosis - January 31, 2012 via mobile
This might be the result of different political philosophy,
but the purpose of courts isn’t to decide if laws are right or wrong, but if they’re constitutional.
Andy Davis - January 31, 2012
your right meant right or wrong constitutional not right or wrong in a moral sense
MaZZacare - January 31, 2012
Sadly, that is an applicable standard given some of the claims that have been put forward in the case.
Brent Ducharme - January 31, 2012
Today’s politics has no place in a civilized society.
jalami - January 31, 2012
Man, you’re deep like the ocean.
Ak.Death - January 31, 2012
That's a bold statement
The way the government is being run isn’t ideal, but it does maintain much of the important things we have today.
halitosis - January 31, 2012
Disagreed
During the last couple of years the government has decided that it is legal to assassinate or detain American citizens without trial, and to monitor and bug American citizens at will.
We are starting to live in an oppressive society without all the benefits of a dictatorship. If you don’t think the shit is going to hit the fan in the next decade, you’re crazy.
discoandherpes - January 31, 2012
Can you deny that life could be much worse if we had no government?
As I said, it isn’t ideal, but until people start getting picked off in the streets by government sponsored snipers, I see no reason to worry.
halitosis - February 1, 2012
Rec'd because I have no clue what it means.
Brent Ducharme - January 31, 2012
MMA events have been held in NY before
a bit off topic but if the ban happened in 1997 how are there events recorded in 1999? some events as late as 2001. the promotion was “Vengeance at the Vanderbilt”. Plainview, NY.
all this is way before my time as a fan.
PeopleWatching - January 31, 2012
any chance thats a reservation?
hewsdaddy - January 31, 2012
Nah, the Vanderbilt was a nightclub/concert hall on Long Island. I saw Paul Westerberg there back in 2002, haha. I’m pretty sure the Vanderbilt has since closed down.
Unctorious - January 31, 2012
Just to add, I found some information about one of the Vanderbilt shows, it looks like they were circumventing the ban by holding matches in different formats which remained legal. In this brief writeup, it states some of the matches were freestyle grappling, some were kickboxing, and others were “international rules”. I think one of the guys who ran it (Lou Neglia) went and formed an MMA org in New Jersey, I think Ring of Combat it’s called.
http://fcfighter.com/post/vengeance-at-the-vanderbilt-9
Unctorious - January 31, 2012
I wonder if there are any Native American reservations in New York?
Or if I could start an MMA organization under the guise of a Pro Wrestling organization like the USWF
discoandherpes - January 31, 2012
There are reservations in NY – off the top of my head there is the Seneca Niagara reservation in Niagara (well that’s the name of the casino at least), and the Poospatuck in the Mastic area of Long Island.
Quick search, here’s a list, there’s like a dozen or so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_Indian_Reservations_in_New_York
As an aside, the Shinnecock have been lobbying for a casino out in eastern Long Island for years, but I didn’t realize they had a reservation out there.
Unctorious - January 31, 2012
There are plenty of MMA fights at the Seneca Niagara Casino
Raging Wolf Promotions I think they are called?
Andy Anderson - January 31, 2012
I find this simultaneously persuasive but incomplete. Their point on rational basis is well taken, and I never thought the UFC had much of a chance on those grounds. But the motion fails to address the UFC’s strongest argument—that the law is unconstitutionally over broad. I did a quick skim, but I did not even see this argument addressed. As such I really don’t see this case being dismissed at this stage.
Michael Rome - January 31, 2012
This is a winning legal argument
The Zuffa suit is just PR
Stiff Jab - January 31, 2012
fuck you NY pols who oppose mma
if I want to watch violent shit all I have to do is turn on the news so stop telling us what we should be watching and go back to lying and stealing because it is what most of you pols do best
biggant - January 31, 2012 via mobile
Rational Basis Test
The rational basis test is whether or not a government restriction is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. They’re argument rests on the fact that MMA is too “brutal”, in their words, due to the injuries sustained by the fighters. But the problem with that is that boxing is sanctioned in New York, which has a far higher rate of brain hemorrhages and brain injuries in general. Shit, I think cheerleading has some of the most serious in all of sports, and they let very young girls do it.
nomomrnicekyle - January 31, 2012
What about football?
I mean boxing is obvious but football is pretty hard on the body and there’s a lot of data coming out about it.
DankNabbot - January 31, 2012
“The Plaintiffs’ desired rule, which would have federal courts reexamining the validity of statutes every time a challenger asserted that a once-rational classification had outlived or failed to achieve its purpose, is at odds with the principle of judicial restraint articulated by the Supreme Court.”
You know there was a time when certain legislative bodies thought that there was a “rational classification” for slavery.
OmoPlata - January 31, 2012
Just for your edification, there are different rules for analyzing laws based on race or sex-based classifications.
Michael Rome - January 31, 2012
TAKE THEM TO CON. LAW MR. ROME.
TAKE THEM THERE.
Brent Ducharme - January 31, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bloody Elbow to post a comment.