Tim Lueckenhoff was recently consulted by the promotion regarding the legality of Josh Barnett, who is currently without a license and undergoing an appeal in California following a positive test for banned substances, fighting in their heavyweight tournament. Speaking with MMAFAtv, Lueckenhoff states that there is nothing in place saying that other States should respect California’s decision to deny him a license.
“For boxing we have specific laws and procedures in place, at the federal level, for things like this. In Mixed Martial arts there really is nothing.”
While the sport of boxing has the Mohammaed Ali Boxing Reform act to go by, the sport of Mixed Martial Arts is virtually lawless on the federal level. Some have referred to it as the ‘Wild Wild West.’ It is up to each individual athletic commission to determine what is required of Josh Barnett in order to achieve licensure. Barnett may be issued a license without probation of the license or testing for steroids and other banned substances.
Additionally, the fact that Barnett’s license was denied for re-approval instead of suspended could play a huge role in achieving licensure in a state other than California. This allows Barnett’s name to remain off of the widespread suspension database that athletic commissions use as a reference in determining a fighter’s eligibility for licensure. It is doubtful there is currently anything on that database to indicate he is undergoing any licensing problems in California. Lueckenhoff states the following:
“Say Josh [Barnett] applied for a license in some random State, they don’t know him and they didn’t do any research on him – he would probably get issued a license just fine. Sometimes that can be a problem, and it doesn’t really help that there isn’t some federal law in place telling the States that they need to work together. Some commissions don’t know who these fighters even are and [Josh] is one who can slip right through the cracks.”
Lueckenhoff claims that States’ failure to update their database and provide relevant information hurts the integrity of all State commissions who rely on the information. Adding to the problem are numerous States that are content in ‘doing their own thing,’ so to speak. Lueckenhoff cites unique circumstances like Barnett’s as another example of why a federal law is needed for MMA:
“By all means, a federal law mandating that suspensions shall be followed by each athletic commission would be a benefit. There is a lot of turnover in these smaller states because these jobs are political. They do not know a fighter’s history and what is going on so they get an application in the mail and say, ‘Who’s this? Looks good to me! We’ll give him a license.’ Then they will have fifty people calling them up the next day asking them, ‘Do you have any idea who you just licensed?’”
Although Barnett has produced positive tests for banned substances on three different occasions, some believe it is a thing of the past. Similar to Antonio Margarito’s plight for forgiveness in boxing, Barnett faces a similar battle. Lueckenhoff sums up the argument for Barnett’s reprieve:
“People might say that it has been a year since his failed test in California. It has cost him. Maybe if he can prove he’s clean now then he deserves a chance to fight. I think that is the argument States will make if he gets to fight.”