Each week, ESPN.com MMA writer Brett Okamoto, ESPN Insider senior editor Mike Huang and a guest panelist tackle hot topics in the world of mixed martial arts.
This week, UFC heavyweight legend Frank Mir joins the panel.
1. Which aspect of the UFC's proposed drug policy stands out most?
Frank Mir: The UFC is addressing a problem and is taking it seriously. I think other organizations, when situations arose, they didn't really address it head-on. They tried to push it under the carpet. This is an example of the UFC being professional and addressing this head-on. What I like most about it is the year-round offseason testing for everybody. Up until recently, I thought that was the norm, but I was notified it was not. I didn't realize only certain guys were at risk for that. When I was on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), I had to [blood test] every other Saturday.
Brett Okamoto: There is, undoubtedly, a list of details that need to be ironed out in this -- but as a whole, I find it to be very comprehensive. I believe charging athletic commissions the responsibility of "enhanced testing" before every main event and title fight will be a real challenge with those who have never done it before. I think it would work better if the independent agency the UFC eventually partners with were to handle it, but I can understand the UFC's desire to not completely remove athletic commissions from the process. The single thing that stands out the most is random, year-round testing. In my mind, that was always the most necessary component of any potential program aimed at eliminating PED use.
Mike Huang: The four-year ban is huge. And I thought six or nine months was bad. But as Dana [White] said, that's career-threatening. There's a saying in the major sports of NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL -- guys don't get serious until they have a "near-death" experience. This doesn't mean they actually could have died, it more refers to the fact they could have lost it all because their career was cut short by stupidity, cheating -- whatever. A four-year ban? That's not near-death, that's death. Take away their livelihood, their passion ... these guys will think twice.
2. What are your thoughts on potential two- or four-year ban for a first-time offender?
Mir: Two-year ban makes sense to me. Most guys fight every six months, so if it's a one-year ban, guy only takes off one fight. Two-year ban, that's pretty steep. I would say the average fighter fights four times in two years. That's four paychecks you're eliminating. I think that's effective. Initially I'm inclined to be against a four-year ban. If you've got a 26-year-old fighter and you're talking about four years, that could be a career-killer. I don't think that's a fix to the problem.
Okamoto: It's outstanding to me that the UFC would publicly stand in support of a four-year ban. It really represents the company's stance that at this point, "Enough is enough, we're willing to go to extreme lengths to fix this." Now, actually implementing a four-year ban? That's a different story. The four-year maximum ban allowed within the World Anti-Doping Agency code is with the Olympics in mind. Banning a professional combat athlete four years for one failed test seems highly excessive to me -- and I see very, very little chance of it happening. A two-year suspension for a first offense, however, is not excessive. That I can see happening.
Huang: Four years seems harsh for a first-time offender, but I don't doubt it would get the job done. A two-year ban seems like it would be a proper deterrent as well, but wouldn't have the air of finality that a four-year ban has.
3. If the drug policy is implemented as currently laid out on July 1, will it work? Will PED use drastically decline?
Mir: I think so. I think if everybody knows you could get a knock on the door and have to give blood or urine at any time, it will drastically change what people are doing. I think right now, people make the mistake and feel they can do things in the offseason and just clean their system out for the fight itself. But now, if you know you could get that knock, that'll change.
Okamoto: I believe it would, yes. There will always be some willing to cheat, as is the case in any professional sport. The policies currently laid out by the UFC, though; these strike me as real, well-thought-out effective measures. I predict there will be a rash of positive tests with this and certain athletes' performances will fall off. It won't be a real fun thing to watch, but it will lead to a much cleaner sport than we have right now.
Huang: I think you'll see a gradual weeding out of fighters who use PEDs as they either lose, get caught or simply fight less or not at all ("retire" would become quite the fashionable word) knowing they'd either lose or test positive.
4. What does your gut tell you: Will Georges St-Pierre return, following the UFC's announcement?
Mir: I really don't know. He was saying so many fighters were on PEDs and I didn't think it was as rampant as he was alluding to. If you look at the physique of Jon Jones, Chris Weidman, other champions -- people are saying it's rampant and I'd say "Really?" Maybe I'm ignorant but I just didn't see it. Then again, if you had told me Anderson Silva would ever fail a test, I would have argued until I was blue in the face that would never happen.
Okamoto: I believe so. I will say that since vacating the title in late 2013, St-Pierre, in conversations I have personally had with him and also listening to other interviews he's done, seems very at ease with being away from the Octagon. I believe he still has a competitive drive that will eventually bring him back for at least one more fight, but it is far from certainty. In my mind, it is 51 percent he comes back; 49 percent he stays retired.
Huang: Yes, I think eventually he will return. I'm sure he has his own ideas as to who's a user or not. As these fighters are weeded out, perhaps St-Pierre would feel the sport was cleaned up enough. Give St-Pierre credit for calling out Dana White and wanting more drug testing.
5. The most intriguing UFC title fight announced this week is ...
Mir: I'd say the Anthony Johnson fight with Jon Jones. I think Jones is the most dominant fighter at 205 pounds ever. I think he's in the running for greatest of all time. But with Anthony, you talk about a threat and an interesting fight to watch. Yeah, I can tell you lots of reasons Jon could win that fight, but Anthony is so fast, explosive and he hits so hard. There's that question mark. He could land the shot heard round the world. .
Okamoto: Ditto on Jones-Johnson. I very much wanted to see a rematch between Jones and Alexander Gustafsson. Their first meeting is right up there in terms of the best fight I have ever witnessed. But after watching Johnson's last three fights at 205 pounds, he is a greater challenge for Jones than a Gustafsson rematch would have been at this point. I believe he has a legitimate shot at defeating Jones ... but Jones is exactly the kind of champion who will rise to that challenge. That's the kind of fight that will bring out the best in both fighters -- can't wait.
Huang: While I love me some Khabib Nurmagomedov (versus Donald Cerrone), Robbie Lawler (versus Rory MacDonald) and Conor McGregor (versus Jose Aldo) -- McGregor made me a believer against Dennis Siver -- the fight I'm looking forward to the most is Jon Jones and Anthony Johnson. "Rumble" looked so completely dominating over Alexander Gustafsson, that sheer brutality and drive is something Jones has not encountered yet. He's fought precision (Machida), guts (Gustafsson), legends (you name it), but "Rumble" has that unbridled power that could take out Jones -- even from a grazing shot.