With bias swirling in the words of most who commented, I couldn't help but see the irony - especially in those who adamantly hated on GSP.
The champ has received lavish praise for the way he has revolutionized MMA training in all areas. The UFC has featured him training with Olympic gymnast coaches, with state-of-the-art ACL rehab technology, etc. The praise comes, of course, not only because he has done things differently, but because he's pushed the boundaries of MMA training. Let's not forget that diet and supplementation are huge parts of MMA training.
And this is what has happened. Many of the same people who applauded GSP for looking at all aspects of training as a total science, have now condemned him for wanting to know every single ingredient that a drug test will be testing him for. Johny Hendricks says it shouldn't matter, but it does.
For those jumping to conclusions and calling GSP "dirty," well, maybe he is. But where's the line between an athlete viewing his sport like a science - this includes taking every performance-enhancing supplement that is currently legal under NSAC rules - and an athlete who is "dirty?"
Some additional questions:
-He could afford cutting-edge ACL rehab technology, but many other fighters could not. Is this ethically wrong?
-Likewise, Tito Ortiz could afford a private training camp in Big Bear, California. Any problems with that?
So why would there be beef against a fighter who likely has a team of researchers to ensure that he is maximizing his performance through taking every legal (or currently not illegal) dietary measure?