UFC's Diaz challenges suspension

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » UFC's Diaz challenges suspension
grappler0000
9/27/12 10:25:25AM
Nick Diaz never has been one to go down without a fight.

An attorney representing the Ultimate Fighting Championship star filed a motion Wednesday in a Las Vegas courtroom seeking a review of a disciplinary order made against Diaz by the Nevada Athletic Commission after a hearing in May.

Keith Kizer, executive director of the NAC, said he thinks this is the first time a fighter has challenged an NAC disciplinary ruling in a courtroom in his nearly 15 years with the commission...

Full Story
Bubbles
9/27/12 11:40:29AM
and this wasn't addressed back in the earlier court dates?
grappler0000
9/27/12 11:54:14AM

Posted by Bubbles

and this wasn't addressed back in the earlier court dates?



It was, but a NSAC trial isn't run like a court of law. The AC's are the judge, jury, and executioner in their own courtroom.
Manak
9/27/12 12:02:47PM
and this is why you never take an athlete retiring serious.. they always come back

but i thought he already lost the case in the 1st appeal
Kpro
9/27/12 12:06:20PM
The only reason they won the hearing is because they are their own judge and jury.

The NSAC is horrible at what they do.
ghandikush
9/27/12 1:23:43PM

Posted by Kpro

The only reason they won the hearing is because they are their own judge and jury.

The NSAC is horrible at what they do.



Theyre excellent at never losing. Good old Nevada.
scoozna
9/27/12 2:54:50PM

The attorney further claims medical marijuana is not an over-the-counter medication, nor is it a prescription, because physicians can only recommend it to a patient.


Haaa...then what is it? I hope they are not going to argue that it is just a plant and not a drug.

And I wonder *how long* before a fight the NAC would require a fighter to stop taking Marijuana. If 8 days is not enough, how about 12? 16? 1 year?

Challenging an $80k fine is good, but I just hope this lawyer doesn't sponge off of Diaz for too long.
Bubbles
9/27/12 3:54:49PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Bubbles

and this wasn't addressed back in the earlier court dates?



It was, but a NSAC trial isn't run like a court of law. The AC's are the judge, jury, and executioner in their own courtroom.


then what is the point of trying to fight them? Could they not appeal the original suspension through the court of law?
Kpro
9/27/12 3:57:55PM

Posted by scoozna

*how long* before a fight the NAC would require a fighter to stop taking Marijuana. If 8 days is not enough, how about 12? 16? 1 year?




That's the conundrum. The NSAC is fine with athletes using marijuana out of competition and have specifically said so, but they won't give a time-table on `out-of-competition` though if you listen to interviews years ago they say they only want to make sure no one his feeling the effects during a fight because it could be dangerous. By the time your body has metabolized the thc and you test positive for metabolites all psychoactive, hallucinogenic, painkilling, or whatever else they feel may give an unfair advantage has been proven to have no active effects that can increase or decrease a fighter's performance. The hearing was a farce, the 2-3 hours full hearing is on YouTube but it's really a waste of time.
grappler0000
9/27/12 4:10:05PM

Posted by scoozna


The attorney further claims medical marijuana is not an over-the-counter medication, nor is it a prescription, because physicians can only recommend it to a patient.


Haaa...then what is it? I hope they are not going to argue that it is just a plant and not a drug.

And I wonder *how long* before a fight the NAC would require a fighter to stop taking Marijuana. If 8 days is not enough, how about 12? 16? 1 year?

Challenging an $80k fine is good, but I just hope this lawyer doesn't sponge off of Diaz for too long.



Basically, a doctor gives you a license to use marijuana. He doesn't recommend it. He doesn't write a prescription. He gives you the option to seek it out on your own as an alternative to other methods of treatment.

As the rules are currently written, the length of time "shouldn't" matter, as long as it's not active in the system at the time of the fight...and metabolites only prove past use. The problem here is that the NSAC just does a little word magic and sweeps it under the rug, rather than look at the logic behind the argument.

I hope Diaz takes this as far as needed TBH. I'm tired of the AC's screwing fighters just to save face.
ghandikush
9/27/12 4:12:35PM

Posted by grappler0000


Posted by scoozna


The attorney further claims medical marijuana is not an over-the-counter medication, nor is it a prescription, because physicians can only recommend it to a patient.


Haaa...then what is it? I hope they are not going to argue that it is just a plant and not a drug.

And I wonder *how long* before a fight the NAC would require a fighter to stop taking Marijuana. If 8 days is not enough, how about 12? 16? 1 year?

Challenging an $80k fine is good, but I just hope this lawyer doesn't sponge off of Diaz for too long.



Basically, a doctor gives you a license to use marijuana. He doesn't recommend it. He doesn't write a prescription. He gives you the option to seek it out on your own as an alternative to other methods of treatment.

As the rules are currently written, the length of time "shouldn't" matter, as long as it's not active in the system at the time of the fight...and metabolites only prove past use. The problem here is that the NSAC just does a little word magic and sweeps it under the rug, rather than look at the logic behind the argument.

I hope Diaz takes this as far as needed TBH. I'm tired of the AC's screwing fighters just to save face.



grappler0000
9/27/12 4:16:33PM

Posted by Bubbles


Posted by grappler0000


Posted by Bubbles

and this wasn't addressed back in the earlier court dates?



It was, but a NSAC trial isn't run like a court of law. The AC's are the judge, jury, and executioner in their own courtroom.


then what is the point of trying to fight them? Could they not appeal the original suspension through the court of law?



Everything has a process and an order. You have to adhere to that order or everyone (with money) would just go directly to the Supreme Court anytime their was an unfavorable ruling.
Bubbles
9/27/12 7:02:16PM

Posted by grappler0000

Everything has a process and an order. You have to adhere to that order or everyone (with money) would just go directly to the Supreme Court anytime their was an unfavorable ruling.


I'm saying that rather than having that initial hearing through the NSAC where there is obvious bias, take it to a general court where the judge/jury isn't also the prosecutor.
grappler0000
9/27/12 8:36:14PM

Posted by Bubbles


Posted by grappler0000

Everything has a process and an order. You have to adhere to that order or everyone (with money) would just go directly to the Supreme Court anytime their was an unfavorable ruling.


I'm saying that rather than having that initial hearing through the NSAC where there is obvious bias, take it to a general court where the judge/jury isn't also the prosecutor.



That would be leaping the appeal process with the NSAC.
Related Topics