Professional MMA fighter Ashlee Evans-Smith has been suspended and fined by the UFC after she tested positive for banned substances following UFC 181 in December. From MMAFighting.com:
Evans-Smith, 27, tested positive for the diuretic hydrochlorizide following her first-round submission loss to Raquel Pennington on Dec. 6 at UFC 181. The fight marked Evans-Smith's UFC debut, which she accepted on short notice due to a late dropout by Pennington's original opponent Holly Holm.
According to Bloody Elbow, "since neither Evans-Smith nor a representative was present at the hearing, the NAC took that as an admission of use."
What's particularly galling is Evans-Smith's objections to Fallon Fox. Evans-Smith beat Fox in the championship match of a tournament in 2013 after Fox came out publicly. Following the match - again, which Evans-Smith won - the woman who won the championship had this complaint:
"I don't feel like Fallon should fight dudes," she said. "I don't feel like she should fight women. I feel like there should be a unique organization for those needs. She did have an advantage. She definitely did."
So according to Evans-Smith, Fox should be banned from mixed martial arts because of a perceived unfair advantage (despite being licensed by the Florida State Boxing Commission), yet Evans-Smith went out and took banned substances to gain...an unfair advantage.
It's another example of the hypocrisy in sports, where some of the people putting out the most misinformation about the "advantages" of trans athletes are the very people actually breaking the rules to get unfair advantages themselves.
Comments
lol
God forbid someone voice an opinion! OH NOES. Stupid article.
By txguy88 on 02.23.15 2:25pm
a diuretic isn't that bad
it’s basically like a laxative to help lose weight
By peralez on 02.23.15 3:03pm
Agreed peralez, she took the fight on short notice, needed to cut weight fast...nothing to see here...moving along.
By Nahvis on 02.23.15 3:11pm
Yep
That’s why they suspended and fined her. Nothing to see. Lol.
By Cyd Zeigler on 02.23.15 3:16pm
little hypocracies
I think the main issue was that it is a routine hot test for a common diuretic used to make big weight cuts easier. They fined her, punished her, move along. She didn’t have time to tune her weight up.
And Fox, you just hate her, and want to act like she could have been using it to mask shit, and I call bullshit. You’re an XY who wants to compete with XX. Period. I believe people can be anything they want to be, assume any gender roles, etc. EXCEPT direct physical competition. I don’t care if it was your lifelong dream to get a sex change and beat up girls. Scientists can debate equivalency til the end of time, the truth is, we don’t KNOW. We know that XY =/= XX. That’s it. It’s the only relevant fact.
Every day, people of all walks of life have to realize that ALL their dreams can’t come true, because they simply aren’t suited. I’ll never be an arm wrestling champ, my clumsy cousin will never be a pro dancer.
And XY should not be competing against XX in ANY contest of physical prowess. Period. Unless we KNOW it is equal, and we NEVER can. then it should not be permitted. Or we need to make the penis irrelevant, and just call them OFFICIALLY the ‘XX League’ and the ‘XY League’. Try to squirm around that one. The genes make the person, not the penis, or lack thereof.
By joshua.indermuehle on 02.23.15 5:20pm
If you are SO honorable Fallon Fox why don't you just STOP STALKING articles about your past opponents?
I don’t see how the hormone treatment to become a woman is going to breakdown the wrestler’s frame you built up as an athletic boy. A sex change for someone who was never athletic is one thing. But you grew up as athlete, didn’t you?? And an athletic boy will develop in a way that an athletic girl just can’t, even if she did the exact same sport as a boy.athletic Boys develop more upper body strength, girls tend to develop it in the lower (Not an assumption, OBSERVATION). That’s why you can Knockouts other women when naturally born women have a harder time doing it! I’m with @deznutz1001.
By MamaLuvsMMA on 02.23.15 4:10pm
Who wrote this? She was not banned. diuretic hydrochlorizide is not a PED.
"Banned for trying to gain an actual unfair advantage" wow, what a piece of garbage, diuretic hydrochlorizide is not a PED, it helps cut weight, do you’re research. It does not make you naturally stronger like if you used to be a guy would. It doesn’t make you’re frame bigger and more dense like if you used to be a guy. And she was not banned you fool, she was suspended. Also from what I’ve heard Ashley Evans Smith actually knocked that guy out that likes to fight girls Fox Fallon or whatever his name is. Putting "trying to gain an actual advantage" in title makes me assume you don’t think men have a genetic advantage over women in a fight, which means you should not be writing about MMA. Being a man fighting a women is a WAAAAY bigger advantage then a women fighting a women after taking some stuff to help her lose a little water weight since she took the fight on short notice.
Anyway props to Ashley for knocking that dude out when she had to fight him.
By Sm0keyMcP0t on 02.23.15 4:59pm
watch out.
Keep referring to ‘men’ fighting ‘women’ and they’ll say you’re ‘mis-gendering’ her. It’s, like, the HUGEST insult in the Transgender lexicon I think. Or seems to be. But nobody can deny what genes they carry.
By joshua.indermuehle on 02.23.15 5:34pm
Gene's don't dictate sex
A woman born with XY gene’s is technically a man but if successfully treated with hormones might actually grow a womb and give birth if an operation to remove male genitalia is successful (if needed). And yes purposely insulting someone by misgendering them is hurtful..(like if I called you a girl)
http://www.medicaldaily.com/hayley-haynes-woman-born-without-womb-gives-birth-twin-girls-hormone-therapy-320482\n\
So what’s the hubbub? While hydrochlorothiazide is not itself a performance-enhancing drug, it may be used to mask the use of performance-enhancing drugs, and is classed by the World Anti-Doping Agency as a "specified substance",,,,, and since she didn’t bother to contest the suspension its pretty clear why and isn’t so ironic that she accused another woman of cheating for doing what she did in order to win?
By planetrans on 02.23.15 7:18pm
So you're saying
Fallon Fox got a sex change to win? Your last statement as written makes no sense, but I think I get your point,
And my comment stands. XX or XY. I don’t care what you sprout. XX=XX and XY=XY. No amount of dialectic magic is going to change either of those expressions. They are different. And by virtue of that difference they CANNOT be equal in ALL ways. Period. Nothing we say or do can change that. SOMEONE has an advantage. We don’t know who, as we are pitting two completely different animals against each other. How is it so hard for you to understand that a man who gets a sex change is not REALLY a woman? They can assume a female identity, have their penis removed and assume the appearance of a woman, but they are still PHYSICALLY a person who WAS a man. They aren’t a man any more. But they are NOT ACTUAL, menstruating, child-bearing women. And the people she fights ARE. That seems different to me. But that’s none of my business, lol.
By joshua.indermuehle on 02.23.15 7:54pm
I'd like you to...
Watch the video in this article. If after watching it, listening to her voice, seeing her explain to you who she is, and you still think that she’s a man, an in between, or anything else but a woman, you have some serious issues.
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/story/24721266/2014/02/13/texas-courts-rule-in-favor-of-transgender-widower#.VN60oB0FWNA.twitter
Do you mean to tell me that the shape of a cromosome, something so small that it took a great feat of recent modern science to detect, is the determining factor in your mind as to if I’m a woman or not? That is highly offensive. As offensive to me if you were to say that my dark skin removes me from the category of human. Which is what they used to say I believe… Because, they just didn’t want to accept people like me as equals in that regards. So, they nit picked, and categorized those others whose shape, form, function, and behaviors of sentient humans into another category. Said they couldn’t do the same things the others could. All because of this one difference. A difference so minuscule, and had no function that logically would be a reason to segrate away from that category of human.
I fall within the category of woman in shape, form, function and behaviors of other women. I am a woman… That small difference that you can not see. That shape of my XY cromosomes. That difference, has no affect on my muscles, my bones, my mind, or anything else you may be thinking that is sports related. It has no affect on my sex either. They have done their job. They did it before I was birthed and they do nothing more there.
As I alluded earlier. My XY cromosomes are as irrelavent to me being a woman, as my brown skin is irrelavent to me being human.
By Fallon Fox on 02.23.15 9:07pm
For the TL;DR crowd...
Her XY chromosomes are utterly useless.
Keep on keepin’ on, Fallon. Some of us realize high school-level biological concepts don’t apply to this circumstance.
By Weston James on 02.23.15 10:33pm
Nope...
High School level biological concepts do apply to this circumstance, as do University level genetic concepts. And both levels and disciplines will tell you that XY is male. It’s that simple.
By Forever Young... on 02.24.15 1:40pm
It's simple for simpletons.
I don’t know what collegiate biology class you took, but I’d ask for a refund. The notion XY = male is wrong as it is not absolute, not an infallible system.
Keep on applying those primitive biology concepts to an extremely complex topic!
The Complicated Issue of Human Sex Determination
By Weston James on 02.24.15 11:33pm
I was speaking to simpletons...
So I dumbed it down for you. There are specific gene sequences that determine the development of everything. Those that determine gender are located on the X and Y chromosomes. Obviously this is not an absolute as genetic mutations of all varieties exist. But unless you can show me that your gene sequence possesses a rare mutation, its pretty safe to say that if you are XY you are a male. You trying to justify transgenderism scientifically by pointing out that genetic abnormalities exist is ridiculous.
By Forever Young... on 02.25.15 3:06pm
Actually, it isn't.
Especially considering the empirical evidence linking gender dysphoria to having a biological basis. Of course, you’d actually know this if you weren’t intellectually lazy and knew how to use Google. Even YouTube. Plenty of studies/peer-review papers floating around.
By the way, I wasn’t using the journal article to justify the existence of transgender people. It was being used to discredit your oversimplification of sex determinism.
I didn’t even touch upon the fact our chromosomes aren’t used to assign sex whatsoever….unless you’re naive enough to believe every newborn has their karyotype tested. Very few of us are ever made aware of what chromosomes are present.
Sex is assigned based on presence of genitalia and gonads; it’s purely from an observational standpoint. There really isn’t any science involved. Sex is assigned based on arbitrary physical parameters that are considered statistically normative. In other words, it’s based on society and statistics, both of which are fallible.
You really shouldn’t insert yourself into a debate when you haven’t done your due diligence.
Sex and Gender
Sex is not binary. It’s spectral. The same can be said of gender.
By Weston James on 02.26.15 12:03am
Now your mixing confusing sex with gender.
Sex is the same regardless of what is "assigned" at birth. And karyotypes are generally only tested when abnormalities exist. ABNORMALITIES. Sex is not affected by what is ascribed by a parent, a doctor, or society in general.
Either way, none of this is pertinent to attempts to change the phenotype from what is coded in an individual’s genome.
By Forever Young... on 02.26.15 3:51pm
Actually, I'm not confusing them at all.
Did you even bother reading the material?
By Weston James on 02.26.15 6:21pm
Again, more about abnormalities.
It all comes down to sex being a characteristic of functional physiological importance. There is an infinite spectrum of variability with regards to the human genome. There are examples of genetic error all around us. Theses abnormalities that you insist on focusing on are viable errors. This doesn’t mean that they are functional errors.
Your little study there is only expressing a need to provide means for categorizing the intermediates. This does not mean that those intermediates are necessarily male or female. They are generally sterile abnormalities as I have previously mentioned. But we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings so we generally allow the ambiguous to label themselves however they choose. But a thing is not determined by its label.
By Forever Young... on 02.27.15 1:34pm
Wow, you are completely full of sh**
Sex is most certainly Not assigned based only on presence of genitalia nor is it "purely from an observational standpoint." I actually laughed out loud when I read that! As articulate as you may sound, ow are completely full of shite. How DARE you tout your misinformation as if it were fact. Excuse me, WHAT THE FLOCK ARE YOU SPOUTING? You stated: "Sex is not binary." Yes, it most certainly is. In fact there are two distinct categories: Male and Female. Any other "spectral" parameters would be biological anomalies and are extremely rare-with one sex being dominant and therefore: identifiable. In other words, even a hermaphrodite is assigned a single sex. You stated: "Sex is assigned based on arbitrary physical parameters that are considered statistically normative." This is the only thing you said that is ALMOST true. Sex is assigned based on physical parameters, but they are easily identifiable (in live, cadaver and skeletal specimens) which are definitely NOT "arbitrary." Completely inaccurate. You stated: "In other words, it’s based on society and statistics, both of which are fallible." Good Lord, what are you TALKING ABOUT?!! I’m still laughing as I try to respond to your ridiculous assertions. Your verve for the subject is admirable, but it is you who ought to "do your diligence" and stop picking on people who may not be as articulate as you, but who appear to have a much better grasp on facts than you do. So how about them apples, you bloody idiot.
By JRamm on 01.26.16 10:01pm