As I posted here, New York Senator Liz Krueger responded to my blog posts criticising her article on her opposition to the legalization of MMA in New York.
Here is my response:
"Dear Senator Krueger:
Thank you for your email response to my blog posts criticising your post about your opposition to the legalization of MMA in New York.
While I appreciate that you have taken the time to respond to my criticism of your blog post, I am disappointed that your blog post is still up at the New York Senate website.
Your failure to take down -- or at least amend -- your post after having read my blog is particularly troubling because it is factually inaccurate.
First, in response to my assertion that states where MMA is legalized do require protective equipment (contrary to your statement in your post), while you recognize that I have a "clearer" understanding of the relevant regulations and laws in states where the sport is regulated, thereby tacitly acknowledging the inaccuracy of your post, the post nonetheless still resides on your blog.
Perhaps more troubling is the fact that there is a specific provision in S2165 -- the bill that you so proudly opposed -- that requires specific protective equipment. Given the blatant inaccuracy of this aspect of your post, I ask, again, that you, at a minimum, amend your post to accurately reflect the substance of S2165 and the law and regulations concerning MMA generally.
Second, as set forth in my post, I ask that you point me to these purported "studies" in the United States and Great Britain. While I will not dispute that participation in MMA is not without injuries, I would like the studies that you refer to and am interested to see the analysis concerning the incidence of these injuries and what if any comparisons are drawn with other sports recognized in New York.
While I recognize that comparative analysis is not that important to you, I would be very surprised if the studies you rely on did not credibly undertake at least some comparative analysis in drawing their conclusions.
Third, you state that you have seen young kids in "organized" classes "beating" on each other and that you do not want to encourage this behavior. At the outset, nothing about S2165 changes the fact that there will still be jiu jitsu, judo, tae kwon do, muay thai, krav ma ga, and other martial arts classes taking place in New York. In this regard, are you even sure that these "organized" class "beatings" were in an MMA class, as opposed to a boxing or tae kwon do class, which have been taking place in this state for decades? Moreover, how do you define "beatings?" Were the children not wearing protective equipment in these "organized" classes?
Please send me links to these videos so that I (and your voters) can judge the conclusions you have drawn.
Finally, as I stated at my blog, I certainly appreciate that there can be informed debate on the pros and cons of legalization of MMA and I recognize that there will be those who are opposed. Nonetheless, given some of the inaccuracies and the lack of detailed analysis in your post (admittedly, your email does at least attempt to cure the lack of analysis), I do not think your blog post credibly advances the debate.
In this regard, I would like to set up a debate or round table discussion with a member of the Assembly (or Senate) who is in favor of the legalization of MMA in the state. Are you willing to participate in such a debate?
Please let me know.
Very truly yours,
Justin Klein"
I will keep you posted.
Fight Lawyer
