EagleKnee writes:

I realize that they have extreme policies and take a strong stance to protect the safety of our fighters but maybe thats not such a bad thing.

Peace.


====jmo, but when something is "extreme" its usally bad-because shows a lack of balance.and usually yeilds negatuve results.

just look at the results of the extreme policies in the words of a fighter and promoter:

"Brad Wall writes:

Mark, we used to have awesome fight cards, and plenty of them. In the past several years we've seen constant rule changes (I have personally seen as an athlete competing in Calgary). We've had fight cards cancelled unfairly from someone. Some athletes have been unfairly grilled by the comission. The comission even placed an article in the SUN to basically slam CAKMA. Really the what are we left to believe. How has this helped."


Brad hit the nail on the head, EagleKnee, "How have those extreme policies helped? I say they they haven't. Look at the fruit: no fight cards in a very long time. And promoter shaving been driven ont Indian Reservations. Thats a disastrous failure of leadership by the commission.


By the way, nobody is against safety. Unfortunately, you can use that word, "safety" very effectivley to silence those who are legitimately concerned about over regulating. And it usally works to shut up most people. After all, who wants to be accused of being against "safety"???? Its like accusing someone of being against motherhood.


dan