I don’t know about you, but I’ve had about all I can take of the GSP Vaseline controversy.
That said, we’ve given presented you with all the facts and comments of those involved up to this point, so I suppose it’s only right that we pass on the comments from the actual governing body that will determine what, if any, wrongdoing occurred in GSP’s corner last Saturday night. So, here’s NSAC head Keith Kizer’s comments on the situation.
“The first round, one of the inspectors that was on the outside of the cage came over to me and said it looked to him that when the cornerman, who I think in that case was Phil Nurse, put the Vaseline on Georges’ face then rubbed his shoulders — which you see the guys rubbing the other guy’s shoulders to help him out — he didn’t wipe off his hands between doing that. I said, ‘Well, I’m going to watch very closely after this round.'”
“At the end of the second round I watched, and then another cornerman who I believe was Greg Jackson, he put the Vaseline on Georges’ face, and then he put his hand on his back to do the breathing thing they always do,” Kizer said. “As soon as I saw that, it looked like there was still some Vaseline on his hand. Not a lot, but still some.
“Tony Liano and I immediately yelled at him, and I don’t think he heard us because of the noise. So I actually went into the octagon, and I said, ‘Take your hand off of his back. What are you doing?’ We wiped it down. We made sure it was wiped down after the third round as well. This was after the second when I was in there. I was very upset. I don’t know if they were doing it intentionally or not. Either way, they shouldn’t have done it.”
“It wasn’t like [St. Pierre’s cornerman’s] hand was covered in Vaseline, but he went directly from the face to the shoulders,” Kizer said. “By itself it’s not a problem, but if there was still some Vaseline residue on, which there very well could have been, you’ve got to be more careful than that.”
“If [the Penn camp does] file something, we’ll obviously deal with it in due course,” Kizer said. “Whether or not the commission wants to do anything on their own initiative, other than what we’ve already done, obviously, in giving them a very, very stern warning, (I don’t know).
“Anytime you have disciplinary action, it could involve a suspension. It could involve a fine. It could involve a revocation. But it’s a little premature to be talking about that.”
Basically, the people who will determine what disciplinary actions to take against the individuals involved were the ones who were there to witness it personally, which is really the best possible scenario you could ask for.
What I don’t understand is why the commissions seem to need a formal complaint from someone to push an investigation. The same thing happened with StandGate and the FSBC. They kept saying over and over again that they had no reason to investigate the situation unless a formal complaint is filed. After the media pushed the story hard enough, they eventually decided to look into it themselves, albeit half-assed. Point being, aren’t the commissions in place to ensure the safety of the athletes and a level playing field? If they’re legally able to pursue it without a complaint, then why do they seem to require one in order to properly deal with the matter, especially in this instance where the primary witnesses of the alleged actions were NSAC officials?
Nevertheless, the last word out of BJ’s camp was that they would be filing a formal complaint, so hopefully, the matter is dealt with properly, but more importantly, let’s hope measures are put in place to ensure these actions don’t occur again, intentionally or not.