Joe Rogan Blasts NSAC Over Forcing UFC 232 Location Move

Joe Rogan isn’t pleased with the NSAC for forcing the UFC to move UFC 232 from Las Vegas to Los Angeles at the last minute. Rogan discussed the situation on his Joe Rogan Experience podcast (per MMAjunkie), which saw the company move the PPV after the NSAC was unable to license Jon Jones over his atypical drug test result. Highlights are below:

On the NSAC’s response to the situation: “What the (expletive) are you doing? You’re going to let him fight in California? Let him (expletive) fight in Nevada. It’s stupid. It’s stupidity. In this case, it’s stupid. I’m upset. I just wanted this fight to take place without any bull(expletive) behind it. I just want it to be a great fight. It’s an amazing matchup.”

On the show being moved because the NSAC couldn’t investigate in time: “I don’t understand why they couldn’t just do this in Nevada. I guess they’re on vacation or some (expletive). That’s crazy. Figure it out. Let’s make a phone call. Isn’t there one person? One person should say, ‘OK, is it, to the best of your knowledge, absolutely from the original test?’ ‘Yes sir, by all the science, we’ll submit the science, show you the science, tell you the number.’ ‘OK, let him fight.’”

On CSAC director Andy Forter granting Jones a license: “Andy Foster – I have a great deal of respect for that guy. Very proactive with weight-cutting, very proactive with weight classes, very proactive with a lot of the rules. He’s really good. If he believes this is scientifically proven to be the same exact thing that he’s already been punished for, I agree with him. That guy knows what the (expletive) he’s talking about. Same with (Jeff) Novitzky, same with all the other people saying it’s legit.”

On the possibility Jones is receiving preferential treatment: “Here’s the question: Have other people still been punished for the exact same crime? Have other people tested positive for the exact same thing? This is what I do not know. Is this preferential treatment? That’s what the argument would be: Is it preferential treatment? Because tainted supplements are a legitimate problem.”