Hypocrisy: This Brock Lesnar Hatred is Getting Old

Brock Lesnar couldn't train right now if he wanted to.  After being brutalized by Cain Velasquez en route to a first round TKO loss at UFC 121, Lesnar was given was was essentially a three-layer suspension:

1.  No fights for 45 days, no contact for 30 days due to TKO loss.

2.  No fights for 60 days, no contact for 60 days due to left cheek laceration.

3.  No fights for 180 days, no contact until cleared by ophthamologist due to possible eye injury.

This alone pretty much negates the Meltzer-generated "if he was really serious he'd buy Holland and fly it to the Midwest in-between blizzards" criticism of Brock's lack of training since the loss - he's not allowed to.  I can't speak to the rumored lack of communication between Lesnar and Zuffa, or Lesnar's purported desire to participate in Wrestlemania in a one-off event.  I don't know enough to refute it, but until I hear something from one of the principals, I'll regard them as what they are: rumors that, while from a reliable source, have yet to be substantiated by anyone directly involved.

However, I want to focus on the fans - and the writers that so reliably stoke their passions - for a minute here.  Let's assume for a moment that it's all true - that Brock is willing and wanting to delay his return by a few months (assuming he could return to fight by April but would instead fight mid-summer, getting a full camp in after the WWE event) in order to make a few million dollars off of his former employee with no future obligations whatsoever.  I'm against it because I think it sets a poor precedent.  It's entirely possible - hell, likely - to get injured during the preparation or execution of a pro wrestling match, and there's a very specific reason that Zuffa contracts (God love 'em) are big on exclusivity.  I don't want other fighters to start chomping at the bit whenever Vince is feeling down.

It's this line of criticism that Brock returning to the WWE for a one-off PPV means he's a quitter, not a real fighter (what's your record?), or muddying the name of MMA to associate it with pro wrestling.  Do I stay up at night thinking of MMA/pro wrestling analogies?  No.  However, for those into that sort of thing, they can bring this up:

For those of you too squeamish to hit "play", Rampage has been handcuffed to the ring by tax man villan IRS, which used to stand for the delightfully anti-Semitic name "Irwin R. Shyster".  By the way, that's awesome that you found Jonah Goldberg's fat ass saying that shyster isn't anti-Semitic.  Words are what people make them, especially when referring to lawyers and professions involved with money.

Where was the outrage here?  Six months ago, Rampage Jackson (and his fellow cast members from The A-Team remake that everyone here saw [pfft]) hosted an episode of Raw, and even performed a choke slam while there.  This was in promotion of the movie that he postponed the Rashad fight (after shooting an entire season of TUF, nonetheless) to shoot.  And don't forget Josh Barnett, the much vaunted piece of Strikeforce's heavyweight division that hasn't faced a top ten foe in four years, STILL isn't licensed in California, has tested positive for steroids on THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS and has dabbled in pro wrestling as recently as this year.  If he's not a disgrace to the sport that you wish would leave and never come back, why is Brock?  If Ken Shamrock's return to the UFC from the WWE didn't forever damn MMA to negative comparisons, why would Brock's?  What, other than pro wrestling, Brock's actual medical suspension, the hunting season and the fact that Rampage's layoff was much longer than Brock's could potentially be, is the difference between what Rampage did and what Brock is accused of contemplating?

I'll wait.