Argumentationen är intressant:
"From an opponent's point of view, he would be limited to largely grappling with Maynard, limited by the amateur rules to punches to the body and to attempting to tie him up in some type of submission hold.
"He can defend against any technique that can be used against him and actually has somewhat of an advantage in some cases," his attorney said. "A lot of the techniques the fighters use focus on the arms and legs - arm bars, knee bars. It grossly limits the ability of the other fighters to attack him.
"He's fought against competitors with full arms and full legs his entire life. Whoever he fights probably hasn't fought against somebody like Kyle.""I understand the concerns. Every fighter, able-bodied or not, has a chance of something happening. I understand there's a risk involved, but I don't think my risk is any greater than anyone else's."
Instead, he emerged a philosophical question rather than a fighter: Where does a person's right to set his own level of risk end and the state's obligation to protect him begin?
"Who are we and who is the state to say he can't challenge himself?"
Jämfört med Freddis permobilsorientering bör en MMA-amatörmatch vara rena semestern, och med tanke på att orienteringen var skattesponsrad så känns kommissionen väldigt huvudklappande. Kyle kommer säkert att gå någon match någonstans trots kommissionens utlåtande, precis som han säger, och matchen kommer alldeles säkert hamna på Youtube oavsett resultat.