# Wanderlei Silva: I never tested positive, I'm clean, but they want to ban me from MMA



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2015/10/...tested-positive-im-clean-but-they-want-to-ban



> wanderlei Silva released a new video to talk about Nick Diaz and his insane 5-year ban from the sport. Interestingly enough, he used the topic of Diaz failing a test for marijuana to bring up his own suspension.
> 
> "I've never tested positive for anything," Silva said. "I was always a clean fighter and they want to ban me from the sport. How does that work?"
> 
> ...


New levels of utter stupidity from Wandy. I'm sure I don't need to explain why.

But no doubt somebody will come along and justify his absurd ramblings.


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

lol @ Wandy working with the commission :laugh:


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

Wand running from a drugs test suggests he was on something, just like JBJ running from a car crash suggests he was on something.

What a CockWomble!


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Actually if you listen to Chaels last podcast he says exactly what happened. Wandy did not run from a drug test, and he never actually told his side of the story. 

Both of them were the first two fighters ever tested out of competition on the very same day. 

A guy turned up to the gym chael was training in and said he wanted to test him. He was in plain clothes, and he had no ID!! Unbelievable levels of unprofessionalism, not even carrying ID. He brought him into the gym back room, asked him to strip and then pulled out a needle for blood and also asked him to piss. Chael said he was kind of caught off guard and just complied. 
A few hours later same guy goes to Wandy's gym. Wandy did not run from him, he asked him for ID, which is normal for some stranger walking in off the street and asking for your blood. The VERY least he should have is an ID of who he is and represents. Wandy then asked him who could he call to confirm this mans identity, but he would not provide a contact person. On that basis Wandy refused the test. Now if thats not reasonable then the previous pope did not preside over the molestation of thousands of children. 

Perfectly acceptable if you ask me, yet he got a lifetime ban. The level of moron in the commission is astounding. Wandy the fool should have told his story properly when this happened instead of making his stupid rant videos.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Actually if you listen to Chaels last podcast he says exactly what happened. Wandy did not run from a drug test, and he never actually told his side of the story.
> 
> Both of them were the first two fighters ever tested out of competition on the very same day.
> 
> ...


Assuming this version of events is true, any clean athlete would have contacted the nasc to clarify and arrange a test. Not jump on a plane and disappear off to Brazil.

Besides, listening to Chael is no guide to truth. He was the one that said wandy jumped out of the bathroom window to avoid the tester. Which is the truth? He just trying to discredit his own bust.

Also, cockwomble? :laugh: that is awesome.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Assuming this version of events is true, any clean athlete would have contacted the nasc to clarify and arrange a test. Not jump on a plane and disappear off to Brazil.
> 
> Besides, listening to Chael is no guide to truth. He was the one that said wandy jumped out of the bathroom window to avoid the tester. Which is the truth? He just trying to discredit his own bust.
> 
> Also, cockwomble? :laugh: that is awesome.


Well the way Chael tells it it sounds perfectly legit, he even said he hates Wandy but what happened to him is bullshit. 
But there is always indeed a Chael Sonnen 'caveat' with every one of his tales!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> Assuming this version of events is true, any clean athlete would have contacted the nasc to clarify and arrange a test. Not jump on a plane and disappear off to Brazil.


And that warrants a life time ban by the commission in your eyes...

So, what is your opinion on a fighter not showing for a *scheduled* pre fight test, not calling anyone, having their coaches saying he missed the test *because he was training in the mountains*, LOL, then being given a *second chance* to show up and being tested, *missing this test too* and for that reason having his fight scrapped with obvious bad consequences directly for his opponent, the public, the org, his fans and the sport overall?
Let me guess...death sentence?


----------



## oldfan (Mar 14, 2010)

Wandy should shut up, move to japan, fight fedor, be a millionaire, live well.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

oldfan said:


> Wandy should shut up, move to japan, fight fedor, be a millionaire, live well.


Beautifully put my man.:thumbsup:


----------



## Leed (Jan 3, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> Actually if you listen to Chaels last podcast he says exactly what happened. Wandy did not run from a drug test, and he never actually told his side of the story.
> 
> Both of them were the first two fighters ever tested out of competition on the very same day.
> 
> ...


I have to say, if the story is true, I definitely have to agree that it's perfectly acceptable. But taking a plane to Brazil is also weird (basing this on Soojooko, didn't know the details).


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Leed said:


> I have to say, if the story is true, I definitely have to agree that it's perfectly acceptable. But taking a plane to Brazil is also weird (basing this on Soojooko, didn't know the details).


He certainly did. He didn't show to the hearing which would have been a good time for him to outline the apparent unproffessionalism from the nasc. If the story is true, his lawler would have had an easy time dismissing the case. If it was true. If.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> He certainly did. He didn't show to the hearing which would have been a good time for him to outline the apparent unproffessionalism from the nasc. If the story is true, his lawler would have had an easy time dismissing the case. If it was true. If.


You already used the paper bag for wrongly saying Wand did not show at NSAC hearing, so are you just trolling now? Wand did go to NSAC hearing and you know it.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> You already used the paper bag for wrongly saying Wand did not show at NSAC hearing, so are you just trolling now? Wand did go to NSAC hearing and you know it.


Ok. I accept that. He didn't show to the first hearing because he didn't need to. I stand corrected.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> Ok. I accept that. He didn't show to the first hearing because he didn't need to. I stand corrected.


You stood corrected *twice*. Because if I didn't call you, that lie would remain as a true fact for those unaware of the truth. You knew he went to the hearing and went ahead and said the opposite on purpose. Double paper bags for you.

And even though Wand always been a very exciting fighter to watch, he is obnoxious and annoying, there's no denial on that, but you want the man to be banned forever mainly because he is *obnoxious and annoying* in your eyes, not because he ran from a test, right? 

Otherwise you should have similar thoughts about this entire paragraph you accidently didn't see... or cared to address.



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> And that warrants a life time ban by the commission in your eyes...
> 
> So, what is your opinion on a fighter not showing for a *scheduled* pre fight test, not calling anyone, having their coaches saying he missed the test *because he was training in the mountains*, LOL, then being given a *second chance* to show up and being tested, *missing this test too* and for that reason having his fight scrapped with obvious bad consequences directly for his opponent, the public, the org, his fans and the sport overall?
> Let me guess...death sentence?


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> You standed corrected *twice*. Because if I didn't call you, that lie would remain as a true fact for those unaware of the truth. You knew he went to the hearing and went ahead and said the opposite on purpose. Double paper bags for you.
> 
> And even though Wand always been a very exciting fighter to watch, he is obnoxious and annoying, there's no denial on that, but you want the man to be banned forever mainly because he is *obnoxious and annoying* in your eyes, not because he ran from a test, right?
> 
> Otherwise you should have similar thoughts about this entire paragraph you accidently didn't see... or cared to address.


Saw your post. Wandy a ban length was covered before. Go find the thread. Not starting that again. Fed up of the bricks.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> Saw your post. Wandy a ban length was covered before. Go find the thread. Not starting that again. Fed up of the bricks.


No, you just avoided the direct comparison that dismantles your fake stance. Easy to understand now why you defend hypocrites so vehemently.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

After hearing Chael's version (assuming its true & accurate), I got a lot more sympathy for the amount of trouble he went through for it. I still think Wand has turned into a raving lunatic and has become beyond annoying, but for that specific "drug test dodge" issue, Chael painted a very different picture than what I thought happened.


----------



## BrazIllinois (Oct 18, 2015)

Wanderlei has definitely lost his mind and I fully believe he tried to avoid the fight with Sonnen, but if Sonnen's version of the story is true, I don't see any lifetime ban warranted. Just a misunderstanding.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> If the story is true, his lawler would have had an easy time dismissing the case. If it was true. If.


I hear his Lawler is ruthless. :wink03:


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Term said:


> I hear his Lawler is ruthless. :wink03:


Argh! You fecker! :laugh:


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

Silva saying he won't fight in Las Vegas in support of Diaz is pretty funny. He said he is retired, his contract is with the UFC and they won't release him... its not like he has much of a choice right now. 

For the record, i also will not be fighting in Las Vegas in support of Nick Diaz.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

VolcomX311 said:


> After hearing Chael's version (assuming its true & accurate), I got a lot more sympathy for the amount of trouble he went through for it. I still think Wand has turned into a raving lunatic and has become beyond annoying, but for that specific "drug test dodge" issue, Chael painted a very different picture than what I thought happened.


Which of Chaels pictures are you talking about? This latest one, or his original piece where he said Silva jumped out of a bathroom window to avoid the tester altogether?

I'm going with the latter. As did other news outlets:-
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/silva-admits-avoiding-drug-test/story?id=24186489


----------



## evilappendix (Jan 4, 2007)

Joabbuac said:


> For the record, i also will not be fighting in Las Vegas in support of Nick Diaz.


Nooo you're in your prime Joab!


As a huge Wand fan I would like to echo his statement that he never has actually failed a single test. That is a fact. I would also like to say I do not need to see a blood or urine analysis to tell he was juiced to the gills, especially in Pride.
:shame02:


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

I would fight in vegas, given the chance, but then I'll test positive on MJ in support of Nick Diaz <3

wait...


----------



## BrazIllinois (Oct 18, 2015)

I will smoke the devil's lettuce itself in the great state of Colorado to support Diaz. Simple, easy.


----------



## edlavis88 (Jul 12, 2009)

The NSAC really don't help themselves do they.

I think it's damn likely Wandy was juiced up in the UFC. He 100% was in Pride, but when you operate in such an amateur way like the athletic commission does it's very hard to get behind them.

5 year bans and lifetime bans are not punishments that should be handed out lightly. You have got to have 100% irrefutable proof that the offence is deserving of the punishment and the NSAC rarely has any concrete evidence of anything as they operate like a 1930s mafia group.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I think the NSAC is a little more professional then a 1930s mafia since they don't go and hit people. As for Silva's lifetime ban being lifted, that's the precedent as to why Diaz's ban could get lifted. He goes before the right judge and boom.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

edlavis88 said:


> The NSAC really don't help themselves do they.
> 
> I think it's damn likely Wandy was juiced up in the UFC. He 100% was in Pride, but when you operate in such an amateur way like the athletic commission does it's very hard to get behind them.
> 
> 5 year bans and lifetime bans are not punishments that should be handed out lightly. You have got to have 100% irrefutable proof that the offence is deserving of the punishment and the NSAC rarely has any concrete evidence of anything as they operate like a 1930s mafia group.


You are spot on when you say NSAC operates like mafia, because they are and the UFC is their partners, money talks, nothing else.

It is more than clear these lengthy/permanent suspensions have nothing to do with their incompetence. They get rid of who they don't want loudmouthing them or make them lose money or campaign for them to spend more money, simple as that. 

Wand was criticizing UFC already and then came that Sonnen fiasco, with the TUF brawl and consequent fight cancellation. Bad publicity, bad run in UFC, burnt. Nick Diaz the same. He once was a draw, very popular, but after so much whining and not willing to show up to fights even when healthy, UFC got tired of giving him so much opportunities and got rid of him with the help of his NAC partners.

In the other hand, they will do everything for those who bring more money to them. Jones got busted for cocaine before a fight, they knew it and they licensed him anyway. Sonnen was a draw with his mouth, got busted with ridiculous high T ratio and got a TUE to continue to fight. Other examples, but it's late here, I won't dig now.

It is my opinion UFC and NAC walk hand in hand defending their own financial interests.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I would like to think that things aren't THAT BAD, but there are groups trying to change that like the MMAFA. Then when things go to court they can be flipped. While I do agree some of these punishments are excessive I do think there should be some kind of punishment involved.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

BrazIllinois said:


> I will smoke the devil's lettuce itself in the great state of Colorado to support Diaz. Simple, easy.


The devils lettuce? :laugh:
Thats a new one to me, and that's saying something.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

Soojooko said:


> Which of Chaels pictures are you talking about? This latest one, or his original piece where he said Silva jumped out of a bathroom window to avoid the tester altogether?
> 
> I'm going with the latter. As did other news outlets:-
> http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/silva-admits-avoiding-drug-test/story?id=24186489


His latest version from his Podcast.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

You do know that the NFL has said any players in a team in Colorado or Washington are not to test positive for weed right? Also is it true that taxed weed is expensive out there? One of my friend's boyfriends said he has a friend who is begging him to get him weed on his medical card because it's expensive.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> You do know that the NFL has said any players in a team in Colorado or Washington are not to test positive for weed right? Also is it true that taxed weed is expensive out there? *One of my friend's boyfriends said he has a friend who* is begging him to get him weed on his medical card because it's expensive.


Dude, just grow it yourself :thumb02:


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Not going to do it and have no intention of making sucha suggestion considering I'm not a big fan of weed. It smells BAD and I don't trust myself when I'm buzzed let alone drunk of high. Will not and will never happen unless it's a way of killing cancer.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> You do know that the NFL has said any players in a team in Colorado or Washington are not to test positive for weed right? Also is it true that taxed weed is expensive out there? One of my friend's boyfriends said he has a friend who is begging him to get him weed on his medical card because it's expensive.


It's not expensive IMO.

This dispensary is just a few miles from my house in Oregon.

https://www.leafly.com/dispensary-info/nectar/menu

It's all extremely high qual stuff. Non-medical buyers can only buy a quarter at a time, they range between $50-70. It's not really any cheaper than buying from a dealer, but its easier, especially for people who don't have hookups. 

Only reason I'd go to a medical patient for help is they can buy up to an ounce at a time and get better deals.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I guess that was the case here but either way I'm not buying any and its still a nationally banned substance so it shouldn't be allowed. Sure there is sketchiness with the Nick Diaz test but the principal is the same here. If things didn't go the way they are supposed to yes it'll be thrown out.


----------



## hadoq (Jan 6, 2011)

kantowrestler said:


> Not going to do it and have no intention of making sucha suggestion considering I'm not a big fan of weed. It smells BAD and I don't trust myself when I'm buzzed let alone drunk of high. Will not and will never happen unless it's a way of killing cancer.


well, it seems that it very well may be a way to help with cancer, if not cure it.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/tre...ects/chemotherapyeffects/marijuana-and-cancer

just sayin...


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> Sure there is sketchiness with the Nick Diaz test but the principal is the same here.


Yes, what about the principle of a constitutional state: "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt"?


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> Yes, what about the principle of a constitutional state: "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt"?


He was arrested! :jaw:


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Wait when did this happen?


----------



## Rauno (Nov 20, 2009)

I don't even have to read the OP anymore. As soon as i see Wanderlei Silva in the title, i can post this:

_Go away Wanderlei._


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yeah it is kind of hard to take him seriously when he talks about something now. I get the feeling that all the hard hits he took caused brain damage. Obviously not as bad as Gary Goodridge, that might come to light later.


----------



## PheelGoodInc (Jul 23, 2009)

Voiceless said:


> Yes, what about the principle of a constitutional state: "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt"?


This applies to the court, and certainly does not apply to personal opinions.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I should like to note that technically the NSAC isn't a court and neither was the commission hearing. Granted that as I've mentioned earlier a judge could overturn the verdict like Wanderlei's was. However, that might take a while anyways.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

While the NSAC is not a judicial court, I'm pretty sure they cannot declare someone guilty of an offense without proving it, legally, through a test or similar means. In Wanderlei's case of course he sidestepped the testing and threw all his credibility to the wind.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> In Wanderlei's case of course he sidestepped the testing and threw all his credibility to the wind.


Just like Nick Diaz, in two consecutive occasions.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

^Roiding = smoking weed?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Just like Nick Diaz, in two consecutive occasions.


Bleh. For weed. 

Comparing weed to roids is ridic. It's like pointing at a jaywalker and a serial killer and saying "they're both criminals, they're the same!"


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> ^Roiding = smoking weed?





HexRei said:


> Bleh. For weed.
> 
> Comparing weed to roids is ridic. It's like pointing at a jaywalker and a serial killer and saying "they're both criminals, they're the same!"


I am not comparing roids to weed. Pay attention you both. Both fighters missed a freaking test, that's the comparison.

Nick Diaz never tested positive for roids, yeah, guess what, neither Wanderlei Silva. You can't say what people were on or off when we don't get to test them.

Now we want to excuse people from showing up for test because we "believe" they are not roiders?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I am not comparing roids to weed. Pay attention you both. Both fighters missed a freaking test, that's the comparison.
> 
> Nick Diaz never tested positive for roids, yeah, guess what, neither Wanderlei Silva. You can't say what people were on or off when we don't get to test them.
> 
> Now we want to excuse people from showing up for test because we "believe" they are not roiders?


Nick Diaz has never even had his name in the same damn sentence as an actual PED. Wandy didn't admit to the roids but he did admit to using diuretics (that was the reason his camp gave for fleeing the test). So that's definitely a step up from the cannabis that we all know is Nick's reason.

Also, refresh my memory, but did Nick literally run out the back of a building while the tester was standing right around the corner like Wanderlei? Or did he just not show up? There is a difference.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> Nick Diaz has never even had his name in the same damn sentence as an actual PED. Wandy didn't admit to the roids but he did admit to using diuretics (that was the reason his camp gave for fleeing the test). So that's definitely a step up from the cannabis that we all know is Nick's reason.


So what? Anderson Silva *"has never even had his name in the same damn sentence as an actual PED"* also until he got caught at 39 years old and so many are saying he was a roider his whole life *precisely* because *he wasn't tested enough"* People lie, tests don't. When you are not tested, God knows what you have in your blood, what you don't. 

Wand was banned for not taking the test, not for the diuretics he said he was using. He was probably on roids, but this is irrelevant. He got a life ban for running from the test.



HexRei said:


> Also, refresh my memory, but did Nick literally run out the back of a building while the tester was standing right around the corner like Wanderlei? Or did he just not show up? There is a difference.


Oh, you bet there's a difference. Wand at least could play the "oh, that was a test?" card for while, where Diaz had an appointment to be tested and did not show, thus no sample was taken. They gave him another chance to show up, he missed again, and his coaches told "he was training in the mountains", LOL.

So, you want to compare "I had stuff to take care in Brazil" with "He was training in the mountains", be my guest. BS excuse is BS excuse.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> So what? Anderson Silva *"has never even had his name in the same damn sentence as an actual PED"* also until he got caught at 39 years old and so many are saying he was a roider his whole life *precisely* because *he wasn't tested enough"* People lie, tests don't. When you are not tested, God knows what you have in your blood, what you don't.


You're being obtuse. You can't just say Nick is guilty of using a banned substance because he missed an appointment. 


> Oh, you bet there's a difference. Wand at least could play the "oh, that was a test?" card for while


 No he couldn't. He knew it was a test, and in fact was walking back to the bathroom to be tested , with the tester right behind him, when he ran out the back door instead. 


> Diaz had an appointment to be tested and did not show, thus no sample was taken. They gave him another chance to show up, he missed again, and his coaches told "he was training in the mountains", LOL.


You have your shit ass backwards. There are a lot of innocent reasons to miss an appointment. I cannot think of a single innocent reason to run out of the building when the tester walks in.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

HexRei said:


> You're being obtuse. You can't just say Nick is guilty of using a banned substance because he missed an appointment.


I am not saying that, but Wanderlei was life banned for that exact reason.



HexRei said:


> No he couldn't. He knew it was a test, and in fact was walking back to the bathroom to be tested , with the tester right behind him, when he ran out the back door instead.
> You have your shit ass backwards. There are a lot of innocent reasons to miss an appointment. I cannot think of a single innocent reason to run out of the building when the tester walks in.


Nick Diaz knew it was a test too. Before hand. The testers were there waiting for him and he did not show, on purpose. They were there waiting for him in a second opportunity also, Nick Diaz did not show again, in spite his coaches saying he would. Then they provide the reason he was "training in the mountains". So, he wouldn't miss weigh ins for being training in the mountains, would he?

He missed the test on purpose because he knew he wouldn't pass, and that's old news. 99% chance it was weed, of course, but it doesn't matter, he skipped the test, twice.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

MMA Sportsman, do you think it's fair that Jon Jones didn't get a DUI for driving under the influence because he ran away from the scene?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> MMA Sportsman, do you think it's fair that Jon Jones didn't get a DUI for driving under the influence because he ran away from the scene?


You are reversing my point. I am not saying Nick Diaz should be considered guilty of taking whatever is available on the black market for skipping the test. I am pointing out people defend Wand being life time banned for that exactly reason when Nick Diaz got nothing, all this before the new rules were implemented.

But answering your question, of course it is unfair, but Jones played well, avoided any implication and got away, according to the law, so people can only lament the system allow these situations to happen.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I never get how you cant split these situations apart.

People are in favour of Wanderlei Silva getting a lifetime ban because he ran away from a drug test (as a result of being on steroids). In addition, Wanderlei is not at the level he once was, so it doesn't hurt to never see him fight again.

People are not in favour of Nick Diaz getting a 5 year ban because Nick broke a rule that they feel shouldn't be enforced in the first place, and he has and hasn't ever cheated. In addition, he just had a close fight with one of the greatest fighters of all time.

The situations aren't that similar.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I never get how you cant split these situations apart.
> 
> People are in favour of Wanderlei Silva getting a lifetime ban because he ran away from a drug test (as a result of being on steroids). In addition, Wanderlei is not at the level he once was, so it doesn't hurt to never see him fight again.
> 
> ...


I will not break it down for you. You mixed up everything, again. Who is talking about Diaz recent suspension. You tire me out.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> I will not break it down for you. You mixed up everything, again. Who is talking about Diaz recent suspension. You tire me out.


Ah sorry, although to be fair it took you like 4 replies to realize I was talking about his failed drug test so you're no genius either. :thumb02:

There's still a big difference between roiding and weed so that's the difference between lifetime and getting in trouble but yeah, Diaz not showing up to a drug test was pretty bad. Different from ducking a drug test though. The severity of Wanderlei's situation was a lot worse (although thinking of it, Diaz just got suspended for weed for 5 years so I guess that situation is more severe than we thought).

You ever realized that you're the only one defending Wanderlei and Cyborg on here?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Ah sorry, although to be fair it took you like 4 replies to realize I was talking about his failed drug test so you're no genius either. :thumb02:
> 
> There's still a big difference between roiding and weed so that's the difference between lifetime and getting in trouble but yeah, Diaz not showing up to a drug test was pretty bad. Different from ducking a drug test though. The severity of Wanderlei's situation was a lot worse (although thinking of it, Diaz just got suspended for weed for 5 years so I guess that situation is more severe than we thought).
> 
> You ever realized that you're the only one defending Wanderlei and Cyborg on here?


Nick Diaz wasn't banned for the weed alone no matter how much this will be repeated for maximum absurdity and repercution and thus making it look he suffered major injustice. Pat Lundvall herself mentioned this very no show for his mentioned drug test when suggesting a life time ban for him, among other things that made evident he had no respect for the rules imposed to all fighters.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Nick Diaz wasn't banned for the weed alone no matter how much this will be repeated for maximum absurdity and repercution and thus making it look he suffered major injustice. Pat Lundvall herself mentioned this very no show for his mentioned drug test when suggesting a life time ban for him, among other things that made evident he had no respect for the rules imposed to all fighters.


Maybe Nick deserved it. He knew the rules and didn't care, regardless of what the rules were. But people defend him because of the base fact "Nick Diaz got 5 years for weed". If Diaz got some form of decent ban for no showing a test, people would find it harder to defend him for it. I don't actually know if he did get many repercussions for that did he? The situation's slipped my mind a good bit.

Anyways, Wanderlei is the whole package of someone to hate. He claims fights are fixed in the UFC without proof, claimed Chad Mendes took a dive Vs Conor McGregor, says he wants out of the UFC contract he's signed and benefitted from, CLEARLY ducked Chael Sonnen not just in TUF but from Metamoris as well and on top of it all, running from the drug test. Wanderlei Silva deserves no one's defence. He's banned for life right? Want's out of that right? He's STILL signed to the UFC and won't fight for them. What does it matter if he's banned or not in the first place? Principle?


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Actually Wanderlei got his ban lifted in an appeals court but I personally think the UFC is basically cock blocking him by still keeping him under contract. That basically benefits no one cause he won't fight but they are keeping him from doing other stuff. As for Diaz at least SOMEONE is siding with me!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

^It benefits the UFC. It proves that, like with Tim Kennedy, you can't sign a contract and then talk your way out of fulfilling it.

Imagine the UFC just decided to stop paying someone. Would they be cool with that? Cause that's essentially what Kennedy and Wanderlei are doing; breaking the terms of their contract by not fighting.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> ^It benefits the UFC. It proves that, like with Tim Kennedy, you can't sign a contract and then talk your way out of fulfilling it.
> 
> Imagine the UFC just decided to stop paying someone. Would they be cool with that? Cause that's essentially what Kennedy and Wanderlei are doing; breaking the terms of their contract by not fighting.


Thats a poor comparison Clyde. Kennedy is a fighter the UFC want to continue fighting for them, but he doesn't want to. In that context, you have a point. But with Wandy, they don't want him back and they will also stop him fighting anywhere else. Thats a bit mean from the UFC if im honest.

Still, Wandy does my head in so im not too fussed about his treatment. I still feel what he did warranted a very harsh punishment.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> Thats a poor comparison Clyde. Kennedy is a fighter the UFC want to continue fighting for them, but he doesn't want to. In that context, you have a point. But with Wandy, they don't want him back and they will also stop him fighting anywhere else. Thats a bit mean from the UFC if im honest.
> 
> Still, Wandy does my head in so im not too fussed about his treatment. I still feel what he did warranted a very harsh punishment.


Wanderlei retired due to "discontent" with the UFC. I'm sure the UFC would have no problem putting him in with an overmatched opponent to bleed his hype.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Wanderlei retired due to "discontent" with the UFC. I'm sure the UFC would have no problem putting him in with an overmatched opponent to bleed his hype.


My point is, the UFC we're happy to go with Wandys NSAC ban. In Kennedys case there was no ban. He wasn't happy with the UFC directly and refused to fight. Two very different scenarios.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> My point is, the UFC we're happy to go with Wandys NSAC ban. In Kennedys case there was no ban. He wasn't happy with the UFC directly and refused to fight. Two very different scenarios.


Kind of, but ends with the same result.

Both fighters want to leave the UFC without fulfilling the fights on their contract. The UFC won't release them until they do.


----------



## BrazIllinois (Oct 18, 2015)

Really it's fascinating how bias influences opinions and blocks all logic.


----------



## Spite (Jul 7, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> ^It benefits the UFC. It proves that, like with Tim Kennedy, you can't sign a contract and then talk your way out of fulfilling it.
> 
> Imagine the UFC just decided to stop paying someone. Would they be cool with that? Cause that's essentially what Kennedy and Wanderlei are doing; breaking the terms of their contract by not fighting.


Slightly off topic but...

What if a fighter signed a contract before the Reebok deal, but now refuses to fight because of significant financial loss. Which is what I believe Kennedys gripe is.

Surely then you should be allowed out of your contact? I know if I was working for a company and I got a massive pay cut I'd start looking for a new job pronto.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Anyways, Wanderlei is the whole package of someone to hate. He claims fights are fixed in the UFC without proof, claimed Chad Mendes took a dive Vs Conor McGregor, says he wants out of the UFC contract he's signed and benefitted from, CLEARLY ducked Chael Sonnen not just in TUF but from Metamoris as well and on top of it all, running from the drug test. *Wanderlei Silva deserves no one's defence.*


So, because he is annoying he deserves no one's defence? While people running through pregnant women and leaving them behind while high as hell do deserve to be defended? Don't be ridiculous.

Nick Diaz can be the "whole package of someone to hate" too.

Multiple brawls outside the rings, one inside a hospital.
No show in many professional appointments where other fighters have to go, being a pain or not.
No show for his drug test, got offered a second chance, no showed again, causing his fight to be cancelled with obvious impact to his opponent, public and org.
Multiple drug test failures.
The biggest whiner about low payment of all time. (Puts Wand and the whole "union to be " at shame)
Has his own Bleacher Report "Most outrageous moments" webpage.
Multiple DUI.

I am sure there's more. Total package.

You only defend him so much because you are all weed fans. :smoke01:


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> You only defend him so much because you are all weed fans. :smoke01:


No shit, sherlock.

Its not even the weed fans. Most people just don't consider weed use in sport a problem. Its one of those rules that has zero support with the fans. Unlike peds or car crashes etc. Whether its right or wrong is irrelevant. That's what the general opinion is.

To add, Nicks moans about pay have a different flavour to the usual whining. Its purely selfish and altogether far better comedy. He doesn't trumpet fair play for all. Doesnt play the wage hero for all MMA fans, like some. He just says "Im not fighting unless they give me a shit ton of money". And thats exactly what hes gone and done. Hes like something out of a tarantino movie. I just find it side splitting.

But yeah... hospital brawls bring him down. Not that I dont also find them comical ( as long as nobody gets hurt too bad )... but hard to argue such an event as a plus point.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Spite said:


> Slightly off topic but...
> 
> What if a fighter signed a contract before the Reebok deal, but now refuses to fight because of significant financial loss. Which is what I believe Kennedys gripe is.
> 
> Surely then you should be allowed out of your contact? I know if I was working for a company and I got a massive pay cut I'd start looking for a new job pronto.


Obviously it's somewhere in the contract. Guys like Kennedy brag about being smart businessmen but apparently he's not even close. Do your fights, be on a winning streak (ie. be a bitch and pick your opponents wisely), leave UFC after your contract, use the renegs to boost up your Bellator deal, make a fortune from them and make all your sponsorships on top of that....boom, you're now a solidified top 10 fighter making a fortune. I'm not even lying, I have a fiver in my pocket right now and that's ever penny I own, and even I know Kennedy's doing bad business here.



Sportsman 2.0 said:


> So, because he is annoying he deserves no one's defence? While people running through pregnant women and leaving them behind while high as hell do deserve to be defended? Don't be ridiculous.
> 
> Nick Diaz can be the "whole package of someone to hate" too.
> 
> ...


If you can show me a single person who defended Jon Jones, in saying that he shouldn't have got reprimanded at all (from this forum) I'll change my nationality to Brazilian or some shit. People said Jones should never fight again based on actions outside of the cage for fk sake. Btw, you don't know Jones was high as hell. Obviously he was, but you'd defended Wanderlei by saying we don't know he was on anything. That's a two way street mate.

Nick Diaz is 50/50, bit like Conor. Most hate-able guy in the world to you...or coolest guy in the world. Many will agree with you that he's really hate-able. 

Also, you REALLY need to take a page of out @Liddellianenko. I can debate with him about fighters and he'll mention some shit I said in a different thread like six months ago. I'm defending Diaz? @jonnyg4508 described me as a "Diaz hater" like a month ago in a thread you were in. I've debated weed loads of times on the forum. Just cause I think Wanderlei is a cheat and liar, doesn't mean I'm somehow in a completely irrelevant way a biased Diaz / weed lover. Actually the fk do they even have to do with Wand being a fk nugget in the first place?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

LOL, reprimended, Jones is already reinstated and will be fighting again in no time. He is annoying as fvck too, but.... he worths $$$$$.

LOL 2. Comparing Diaz to Conor. 

I am tired again. :bye01:


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I didn't compare the nationality of Conor. I compared the fact that many people hate both of them. You really need to step up your understanding of this shit. You'd swear I compared their moral fibres or something. You can compare anything. I can say Wanderlei Silva's dick tastes worse than Pepperoni Pizza, but I guess you'd be the man with the inside knowledge there.

Anyways, Jones got basically every single opportunity to break the records of MMA taken from him. He got the belt he worked his entire life for taken from him. He has a criminal record and probably got a fairly bad fine. That's all fairly bad. If you think he should of got more, take that shit up with the police. The UFC were fair with how they handled Jones.

Jones isn't even in the same landscape of annoyingness as Wanderlei.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

True because even though Jon Jones is a smack talker he doesn't talk bad on the UFC or very many drug tests. Then again he can't really talk about it considering how guilty he is himself. But yeah Wanderlei is just annoying now.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> Also, you REALLY need to take a page of out @Liddellianenko. I can debate with him about fighters and he'll mention some shit I said in a different thread like six months ago. I'm defending Diaz?


Lol and you really need to learn the meaning of "take a page (leaf) out of someone's book".

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+a+page+from+someone's+book

It means you WANT him to follow my example and do things like me, like bringing up past unrelated (in your mind) posts. 

Unless I'm not understanding you, that's the exact thing you DON'T want him to do i.e. you want him to stop taking a leaf out of my book. My first "mention" and it isn't even correct :laugh:.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Liddellianenko said:


> Lol and you really need to learn the meaning of "take a page (leaf) out of someone's book".
> 
> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/take+a+page+from+someone's+book
> 
> ...


If you want to get to me in an argument, it's an effective as fk way to do it. We all skew off on irrelevant tangents when arguing but your irrelevant tangents have included "That's probably why you and your dad dont get along". Granted you got that one wrong, but imaging I actually did have a bad relationship with my dad? We were talking about like Myles Jury or some shit haha.

You'll remember if I ever have hypocrisies. If I was to go out telling someone what they can and cant eat, I'd have to look both ways for you before posting. Keeps me in check  Works two ways. You sometimes try and use it to invalidate an unrelated opinion, but you also use it to keep my bullshit from boiling over.


----------



## Joabbuac (Jan 31, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> If you want to get to me in an argument, it's an effective as fk way to do it. We all skew off on irrelevant tangents when arguing but your irrelevant tangents have included "That's probably why you and your dad dont get along". Granted you got that one wrong, but imaging I actually did have a bad relationship with my dad? We were talking about like Myles Jury or some shit haha.
> 
> You'll remember if I ever have hypocrisies. If I was to go out telling someone what they can and cant eat, I'd have to look both ways for you before posting. Keeps me in check  Works two ways. You sometimes try and use it to invalidate an unrelated opinion, but you also use it to keep my bullshit from boiling over.


This has nothing to do with your misuse of the phrase.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Joabbuac said:


> This has nothing to do with your misuse of the phrase.


Aye it does? I WAS saying that Sportsman should do what Liddell does, that way he's not gonna be accusing me of being a Diaz worshipper or weed fan just because I disagree with him.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> If you want to get to me in an argument, it's an effective as fk way to do it. We all skew off on irrelevant tangents when arguing but your irrelevant tangents have included "That's probably why you and your dad dont get along". Granted you got that one wrong, but imaging I actually did have a bad relationship with my dad? We were talking about like Myles Jury or some shit haha.
> 
> You'll remember if I ever have hypocrisies. If I was to go out telling someone what they can and cant eat, I'd have to look both ways for you before posting. Keeps me in check  Works two ways. You sometimes try and use it to invalidate an unrelated opinion, but you also use it to keep my bullshit from boiling over.



You're saying you appreciate me bringing up past posts, and that you'd want Sportsman to do the same? 

I misunderstood then, that's cool, thanks .


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

So...that crazy Wanderlei huh?........


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Liddellianenko said:


> You're saying you appreciate me bringing up past posts, and that you'd want Sportsman to do the same?
> 
> I misunderstood then, that's cool, thanks .


I secretly love you man. I mean I'd love you more if you would have a steak dinner with me but it's the closest love a man can have over a salad.



CupCake said:


> So...that crazy Wanderlei huh?........


You're obviously a fan of weed to say something like that.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I secretly love you man. I mean I'd love you more if you would have a steak dinner with me but it's the closest love a man can have over a salad..


Ah well there's always this :drink02::drink01::thumb02:


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I secretly love you man. I mean I'd love you more if you would have a steak dinner with me but it's the closest love a man can have over a salad.





Liddellianenko said:


> Ah well there's always this :drink02::drink01::thumb02:


Or you guys could just have Spaghetti...


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

1. There's a meatball on that plate.
2. Yeah it's not a steak dinner without 20 cans....steak optional.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Where in the world did this conversation go?


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

kantowrestler said:


> Where in the world did this conversation go?


Clyde is out of his medication again that's where.


----------



## LizaG (May 12, 2008)

CupCake said:


> So...that crazy Wanderlei huh?........


I think this sexy bitch was on to something!

Lets talk about the Wanderlei situtation huh?

http://www.mmaweekly.com/wanderlei-silva-court-imposed-re-hearing-delayed-due-to-snafu



> Wanderlei Silva‘s lifetime ban is set to be lifted, but he’ll have to wait at least another month to learn the final outcome of the reconsideration of his Nevada-Athletic-Commission imposed sanctions.
> 
> The commission has been forced by a Nevada district court judge to reconsider Silva’s lifetime ban and $70,000 fine for evading a random drug screen in May of 2014. The judge ruled it was “in excess of the statutory authority of the agency.”
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Clyde is out of his medication again that's where.


Wanderlei Silva can't go without his, so he jumps out windows to avoid getting caught.


----------



## BrazIllinois (Oct 18, 2015)

Did not Wanderlei admit to using diuretics?
Genuinely curious as I have no knowledge of it


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

BrazIllinois said:


> Did not Wanderlei admit to using diuretics?
> Genuinely curious as I have no knowledge of it


He did, but he could have said anything, really, even saying he had nothing illegal in his system, since there was no test, so of course he did elect to say something more "harmless", hoping to fool someone to believing in him, given he was "admitting" doing something wrong. 

It doesn't really matter, though, because diuretics are the most common masking agents directly linked to the use of steroids. He was a monster at the time.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

So he was basically admitting to using something that is illegal but wouldn't be as bad as steroids which are more illegal? Sounds like a desperate attempt all around. Either way he clearly ended his career on a bad note.


----------

