Dana White's official statement on Rogan's Hendricks remarks

source: ufc.com

First Rampage got a little odd with a reporter. Then Joe Rogan posted a response on the UG to the ensuing brouhaha, that included an off hand remark about Yahoo! Sports reporter Maggie Hendricks, who had called for Rampage's head.

I think Rampage occasionally gets out of line, and I think some of what he does in interviews [is] unfortunate. I also think that's a part of his charm. He's not a f*cking dentist, he's a cage fighter, and he's one with a very unique personality. I don't think he should be given a free pass for some of the questionable things he does, but I do think that this woman in question is all kinds of c*nty. The Skywalker broke down everything that's wrong with her and her sh*tty, c*nty brand of writing to a f*cking T. That, was worthy of the #BOOM.

Read entire thread...

Rogan apologized, and offered an explanation of his words on the UG, but a variety of reporters including Hendrick's colleague at Yahoo, Kevin Iole called for Rogan's head (in addition to Rampage's).

Rogan's words were extraordinarily inappropriate, particularly as the very public mouthpiece of a billion-dollar company. The UFC needed to make a strong, public condemnation of Jackson's behavior and Rogan's choice of words, but has thus far failed to do so.

Instead, late Thursday UFC spokeswoman Caren Bell privately called Hendricks and issued an apology. And while it is commendable that the UFC offered any kind of apology at all, it was made privately at a time when Hendricks was under heavy siege publicly because she stood up for what was right. A public apology would have meant more and carried far more weight.

UFC President Dana White has now offered a brief statement, via UFC.com

Joe Rogan recently made an offensive statement reflecting a personal opinion that does not represent the UFC in any way. I have addressed this directly with Joe.

It remains to be seen if this results in media calls for White's resignation.

Read entire release...

Related MMA gear from the UG Store

RVCA Vitor Belfort UFC 142 Pullover Hoodie

Only $51.99

RVCA VA Reversible Beanie

Only $27.99

tags-: UFC Joe Rogan Dana White

Get the MMA Underground app. for iPhone and Andriod devices.

Recent Comments »

Log in to post a comment

6/8/11 7:20 PM by Dr Violence

That's fair enough guy, I appreciate the way you've articulated your viewpoint. To me Bryant was edgy but I felt she made it clear about her marital status while allowing him save face. It's a bit unfair to blame her for responding to Rampage when Rampage sent his douchey message to her. I thought she handled it very well. As for Rampage's "alpha" schtick, I think it's pretty silly but basically just a joke. I don't think he genuinely has a dangerous sociopathic worldview in the same way that Mike Tyson or War Machine used to. The daughter/mother/sister thing I still find difficult, based on, firstly, it not actually being your mother/sister/daughter, secondly that different lines of respect/disrespect are drawn by different people in a subjective way, and thirdly and most uncomfortably, sometimes a woman in your life does things you don't like, that you may consider are degrading to herself, but ultimately you can't infringe on their freedom to do as they please whether or not you approve of it.

6/8/11 6:44 PM by Pernicious

I don't know how we got to place where you're implying there is is a racial element, and then going further to put a racist tone to what I've written, but here we are.I don't deny your historical points regarding white opinion of the sexualized black man, and can only say that that certainly isn't where I'm coming from, and I don't think I've written anything that can be construed as such.I see your point about the anti-feminism angle, but it would be a stronger argument if Bryant would have been the initiator and everyone would have called her a slut for it. I think there is a moral element to someone making the move on a married person, regardless of gender, though the blame ultimately lies with the person violating spousal trust. I find Bryant's tweets distasteful in that there is an obvious sensitivity that she doesn't mind taking to the very edge. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with class. My distaste for Rampage's actions are all about the "alpha" thing he's peddled recently. This concept that you can do whatever you want, regardless of law, consequence or decency, because you're bigger and stronger than most people I find regressive. I suppose it's one of the reasons I was drawn to early MMA and 170 pound Royce beating bigger men with technique and skill.To me, the "women in my life" argument is pretty simple: I love them and respect them and would never want them disrespected. Every woman is somebody's daughter or mother or sister, so it's just easy upon reflection.

6/8/11 5:50 PM by Dr Violence

Sure, sure, but why did you stop there? Because what naturally follows from that is that we are all free to criticize the media for criticizing his speech. And that's what has happened, right? The only sketchy part of the equation is where the media decided they could try and tell the employer what to do. Usually with a vague threat about 'never becoming mainstream' and the attention of some pressure group or another.

6/8/11 5:42 PM by Dr Violence

Thanks Pernicious, I find it very interesting because from my perspective there are aspects of your viewpoint that I find disturbing, and of course vice versa as we've seen. For me, the anger directed at Rampage seems to tie into a lot of ugly incidents in American history where black men were accused of sexual transgressions against white women and lynched, tortured, murdered, mutilated etc by mobs of white people as a result. There's an extensive history of this sort of thing, and an ingrained fear/hatred of black masculinity that runs through Western culture. In fact there's a line of thinking in feminism that would actually put you as the bad guy, in the sense that you are trying to suppress and control female sexuality. It ties into racism because the women must be kept out of the hands of black males, and black men who transgress the boundary need to be punished. Then the way you talk about Karen Bryant seems to indicate that you think she is some kind of unscrupulous whore with a moral deficit. I think the most disturbing part for me is where you say 'she'd like to have sex with Rampage' even though you seem to understand she was joking, you still mention that in a way that implies a woman showing desire for a black man is objectionable. My own interpretation of that twitter exchange was that it was just a bit of flirting between two people who are very good at it. The followup tweets show that, with each person saving face gracefully and flattering each other. I'm certainly not going to try and make Rampage out to be innocent, I think he is a great fighter who is slightly nuts and occasionally acts like a douche, but I don't put him in the same category as someone with a serious pathological hatred of women like Mike Tyson. I've seen plenty of interviews where he is not jumping on the female reporter, and I think he's always playful within the boundaries they set for him. Trouble is other people want to set the boundaries tighter because of the way it riles them when they watch it. The trouble with the mother/sister/wife/daughter argument is that to me it's more of an incitement to male rage than a coherent principle. It's the sort of thing they used to use on war propaganda/recruitment posters because of the way it manipulates a man's desire to protect the sexual sanctity of his women with violence. I mean I don't like the idea of a guy putting his dick in my mother's pussy but obviously if my old man hadn't done it I wouldn't be here right now. And - ugh - she may even have liked it.

6/8/11 4:43 PM by HexRei

meaning they are welcome to criticize him for his speech. joe's first amendment protection doesn't prevent media from criticizing his speech. I already explained this.

6/8/11 4:28 PM by Pernicious

I certainly appreciate your candor. You're right in your observation about what our culture subjects women to, and in turn the way they act among themselves. But for others to imply that Hendricks' (or any other person's, for that matter) disgust comes solely from jealousy of the pretty girl is at minimum shallow, and at worst, a perpetuation of the very problem being addressed.I think Karen Bryant very much enjoys being the center of attention, as she has continued to milk this incident for every ounce of publicity she can. She has also mentioned she'd like to have sex with Rampage, regardless of his marital status, although she was probably joking.But breaking down these individual incidents and dismissing them ignores a larger pattern, specifically by Rampage, where sexual harassment is ok because he's "alpha." Whether we like it or not, it creates a hostile work environment for other female reporters, who shouldn't have to be put in the position of demanding that he not act that way. The onus has somehow been shifted to the victim. Ultimately, I think about my mother, my sister, my wife and my daughter and how I would like them treated.

6/8/11 4:23 PM by Dr Violence

^but even if you add 'speech', which I did do mentally, it still says: "Members of the media can criticize him for almost anything, free speech doesn't apply here either" which I still don't understand.

6/8/11 4:16 PM by HexRei

I said practically anything. I guarantee you that cunty isn't an exception. And great if Dana decided not to do anything about it. The point is he could, so the 1st amendment won't protect Joe in such a case.second, that should have said free speech. I think you knew that, since it was similarly formatted (beside the missing word) to the sentence prior.

6/8/11 4:10 PM by Meohfumado

Actually, EVERY one of the company mandated sexual harassment courses and seminars I've had to take specifically says that if said behavior does not cause offense to the person affect, it DOES NOT constitute harassment.TO constitute harassment, it has to be unwelcome, and the victim has to clearly establish boundaries and state as such, and then the wrong behavior (or similarly harassing behavior...particularly retribution) has to continue for it to become actionable as sexual harassment.So while grossly inappropriate in a professional environment, it was not harassment since Bryant didn't mind, and was flirtatious both during, and afterwards.

6/8/11 3:53 PM by Dr Violence

Well I wouldn't want to issue a general apology to all women, as that would be patronizing, but taking each observation in turn, based on personal experience and extensive social interaction: - unattractive women tend to be bitter about attractive women getting attention, and even attractive women get bitter about slightly more attractive women getting slightly more attention. Women in this culture are thrown into a fiercely competitive looks-based pecking order, and naturally some of them become resentful of it (justifiably imo). - I think Bryant and Rampage clearly had a friendly rapport and they should be able to play around on camera without other people dictating to them how they can't or can't behave, this is just a basic right that we have in a free society - I think if someone is getting into your space there's very clear words and actions that express 'get away from me and don't do that' , and then there's behavior that plays along, welcomes and encourages it, and the two are very obviously different, and the 'dry-humping' reporter chose the latter, then decided in retrospect she would make a story about it since it seemed to have legs. Again, I'm not one to deliberately offend, denigrate or hate on women, but nor am I one to hide from ugly truths about human nature that apply to both genders. Humans are pieces of shit, women are humans, ergo...

View all comments in forum >>