# Joe Rogan calls Nick Diaz suspension 'an irresponsible abuse of power'



## Bknmax (Mar 16, 2008)

Rogan is upset 

Joe Rogan ✔@joerogan
NSAC suspending Nick Diaz for 5 years for pot is an irresponsible abuse of power. It's callous, idiotic and sickening

Joe Rogan ✔@joerogan
Unless there's scientific proof that marijuana is a performance enhancing drug that gives an unfair advantage it should not be restricted.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

To be fair, it could be on the other side. Being high in a fight could be dangerous to the guy that's high. You aren't allowed t.o be drunk or take Es before a fight either.


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> To be fair, it could be on the other side. Being high in a fight could be dangerous to the guy that's high. You aren't allowed t.o be drunk or take Es before a fight either.


If having small levels of THC in your blood is dangerous for the fighter, the dangers are going to be marginal at most. There are thousands of totally legal substances that a fighter could consume before a fight that would do him no favours. A silly but valid example: would it help a fighter to drink a pint of vinegar before a fight? At a guess, I would say feck no. They could eat 5kg of cheese. Drink an obscenely strong coffee. All totally legal. All very very bad ideas.

If it is the case that THC is actually pretty bad in some way when getting punched in the face, then I would like to see that paper.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Your examples may not be that silly... 



Soojooko said:


> They could eat 5kg of cheese.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JASONJRF (Nov 3, 2009)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> To be fair, it could be on the other side. Being high in a fight could be dangerous to the guy that's high. You aren't allowed t.o be drunk or take Es before a fight either.


While that is true. The thing about pot is that you can smoke it a week to a month out from fight night and still test positive for it. That is the issue. If you drink a beer 3 days out from fight night you will not test positive for it. That is a huge issue and it is BS


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Soojooko said:


> If having small levels of THC in your blood is dangerous for the fighter, the dangers are going to be marginal at most. There are thousands of totally legal substances that a fighter could consume before a fight that would do him no favours. A silly but valid example: would it help a fighter to drink a pint of vinegar before a fight? At a guess, I would say feck no. They could eat 5kg of cheese. Drink an obscenely strong coffee. All totally legal. All very very bad ideas.
> 
> If it is the case that THC is actually pretty bad in some way when getting punched in the face, then I would like to see that paper.


You have just added in the word small for some reason. If a dude has some beer in his pie it's not a problem either. The reason they are not allowed to fight high is because, like alcohol, it has several impairments to things like motor skills, reaction time, coordination, focus and all of that kind of stuff. Of course there's 500 variables in there, what kind of weed, who's smoking it, all of that shit in there too but that's like saying "Naaah I can drink a beer and drive, it's fine" when some dudes are legitimately pished after a pint.

Although Don, in whatever thread, is right in that it can be classified as a PED in some instances, I'd say a big issue is fighter safety.

Sure, they could do all of that other stuff too but you can then go on for an endless list of difficult to test for things that are insanely specific. Weed pops up on drug tests, dairylea doesnt.

JASON, I have NO ideas of what strength levels are like and everything so I wouldn't know anything out their regulations on if they have limits and everything like that you know?


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

This my reasoning for not understanding why someone would think weed is a PED

- Is weed increasing muscle, recovery, ability to lose weight but retain strength? It is altering your mind. So should we ban sport psychologists? What if a guy wants to be hypnotized? Is it performance enhancing? What about beer? Would it allow one to fall asleep faster with a messed up in pain body done with training? Where do we start defining a PED? A lot of things help fighters train. Different things for different people. 

-Adderall is more if a PED than weed. I know this is all subjective because like I said different things work for people. But I would say it is pretty comfortable to say Adderall is more of a PED than weed. 

I do understand you don't want a guy to come in stoned to a fight. That is pretty much why it isn't a PED. That would be hard to determine and test. 

It isn't a PED. It should be legal in bigger but still small levels. Basically so a guy has to stop it a handful of days before to make sure he was under the more laX thresholds are. Which is reasonable and helps deter any sort of day of the fight use. 

Nick was going to get in trouble even though he was under the thresholds. That's fine. But 5 years is just bullying because he didn't go up and be their puppet like Vitor. They want you to kiss their feet. If you don't they try to make you look like a fool. Has anyone seen the antics that go on during these things? They are like high school kids. Anyone who thinks 5 years is legit is out of their mind.


----------



## Glothin (Jun 8, 2010)

So they let Jon Jones fight after snorting coke, yet Diaz, who could have very well not smoked within the same window as Jones' coke test, get 5 years? 

Coke is awful when compared to weed. There is no comparison wrt performance or impact on lives.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

jonnyg4508 said:


> - Is weed increasing muscle, recovery, ability to lose weight but retain strength?


No, yes, unsure.

2 things it definitely is: bronchodilator and blocks pain receptors.



JASONJRF said:


> The thing about pot is that you can smoke it a week to a month out from fight night and still test positive for it. That is the issue. If you drink a beer 3 days out from fight night you will not test positive for it. That is a huge issue and it is BS


I totally agree with that.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I think everyone forgets that weed is federally outlawed and this actually trumps any medical exceptions. Also according to any athletic commission rules you do not do weed outside of competition or inside of competition. It is banned across all types of possible testing times pure and simple.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

kantowrestler said:


> I think everyone forgets that weed is federally outlawed and this actually trumps any medical exceptions. Also according to any athletic commission rules you do not do weed outside of competition or inside of competition. It is banned across all types of possible testing times pure and simple.


So is coke, didn't bother them one bit. 

Heck coke isn't even legal in any state with exemptions and the commissions still aren't even supposed to test for it or give any penalties. Dana made a point of how they "bungled up" testing for coke and the commissions have no right to impose a penalty for it. Yet weed is deserving of a lifetime ban because, you know, reefer madness.

It's an agenda, nothing else.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> So is coke, didn't bother them one bit.
> 
> Heck coke isn't even legal in any state with exemptions and the commissions still aren't even supposed to test for it or give any penalties. Dana made a point of how they "bungled up" testing for coke and the commissions have no right to impose a penalty for it. Yet weed is deserving of a lifetime ban because, you know, reefer madness.
> 
> It's an agenda, nothing else.


Wasn't the coke an out of competition test and they are basing the weed punishment on his levels the night of the fight?


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> Wasn't the coke an out of competition test and they are basing the weed punishment on his levels the night of the fight?


His levels haven't even been released and we have no estimate of how long before the fight he did it, or even IF he did it since the only failed test is the non-WADA one in between two he passed.

Regardless, if federal illegalities of the drug had anything to do with it, they wouldn't have said "well we can't punish for this drug". Coke was still illegal, out of competition or not.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> His levels haven't even been released and we have no estimate of how long before the fight he did it, or even IF he did it since the only failed test is the non-WADA one in between two he passed.
> 
> Regardless, if federal illegalities of the drug had anything to do with it, they wouldn't have said "well we can't punish for this drug". Coke was still illegal, out of competition or not.


Well yeah its illegal so the federal government should probably prosecute JJ for taking illegal drugs. THey have obviously deemed it unnecessary for whatever reason. But they were not supposed to test him for coke in that test it wasn't in the remit of the tester, therefore they commission couldn't technically do anything to him.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> Well yeah its illegal so the federal government should probably prosecute JJ for taking illegal drugs. THey have obviously deemed it unnecessary for whatever reason. But they were not supposed to test him for coke in that test it wasn't in the remit of the tester, therefore they commission couldn't technically do anything to him.


It's nonsense IMO, they technically couldn't do anything because of "accidental" evidence discovery. Courts don't just let murderers go when they find a 5 day old body, just because they weren't looking for a body when they went it. If it's illegal, they can punish.

These commissions can do whatever the hell they want obviously, as evidenced by this arbitrary 5 year ban. They just didn't want to with Jones because a) coke is not on the federal "demonise" agenda and not an enemy of big pharma who is lining their pockets b) Jones is a big money maker for the UFC who is also lining their pockets.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> It's nonsense IMO, they technically couldn't do anything because of "accidental" evidence discovery. Courts don't just let murderers go when they find a 5 day old hookers body, just because they weren't looking for a body when they went it. If it's illegal, they can punish.
> 
> These commissions can do whatever the hell they want obviously, as evidenced by this arbitrary 5 year ban. They just didn't want to with Jones because a) coke is not on the federal "demonise" agenda and not an enemy of big pharma who is lining their pockets b) Jones is a big money maker for the UFC who is also lining their pockets.


Well I won't dispute its nonsense your pretty much right there. 

I don't think there is an agenda on big pharma, think your being a bit OTT about that. Remember the commission is a bunch of cowboys, and one of them owned a weed store he had to sell before becoming appointed. 

I think its a combination of things why he got this excessive 5 year ban.
1. He has a bad attitude - technically he should be allowed have whatever attitude he wants, but IMO he should have been much smarter with his attitude for his own good and the sake of his own bank balance and future. 

2. There is a transition going on in the sport from everyone doing whatever they want be it illegal or whatever, to majorly trying to clean the sport up. From listening to various reports in the last months the lengths of bans are only just changing now to be much more strict and scare the shit out of athletes. So when the likes of Hector Lombard got done the actual penalties were much less. 


3. Chael brought up an interesting point - Weed is on the banned list, whether or not its a PED is irrelevant. (He also said given it is a medicine it must be a PED otherwise it wouldn't be a medicine which I agree with) So the arugment of whether its a PED is neither here or there. The commission see this as Nick breaking the rules, and not giving a funk about it, giving them the finger basically. I think this is more about them saving face and showing their power then any wider conspiracy. 

Lastly I think this 5 year ban will get reduced on appeal. Hopefully they will give him 18 months and be satisfied they have scared the shit out of people enough to set a precedent on taking things on the banned list and being flagrant about it.


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> Well I won't dispute its nonsense your pretty much right there.
> 
> I don't think there is an agenda on big pharma, think your being a bit OTT about that. Remember the commission is a bunch of cowboys, and one of them owned a weed store he had to sell before becoming appointed.
> 
> ...


Not saying big pharma is lining their pockets directly necessarily, I mean they're lining the pockets of the federal govt. which in turn sets the guidelines for these sorts of commissions. The war on weed is a larger part of that agenda. 

Federal prisons are bursting with guys who did nothing but sell a herb, yet doctors in schools are pushing amphetamines on 5 year olds. And yet this is not a conspiracy, "rules is rules" and all that.

There is a tacit (paid for) acceptance and leniency in the federal govt. on pharmaceutical psychotropic drugs vs un-patented, unprofitable herbs. This trickles down to all levels of law enforcement.

The reason guys like Diaz are openly rebellious about it is because they see it for what it is. It's not him being "brain dead" stupid, it's refusing to be cowed down by a paid agenda.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Liddellianenko said:


> Not saying big pharma is lining their pockets directly necessarily, I mean they're lining the pockets of the federal govt. which in turn sets the guidelines for these sorts of commissions. The war on weed is a larger part of that agenda.
> 
> Federal prisons are bursting with guys who did nothing but sell a herb, yet doctors in schools are pushing amphetamines on 5 year olds. And yet this is not a conspiracy, "rules is rules" and all that.
> 
> ...


Yeah but the federal government is allowing Nick to smoke weed are they not? So it doesn't really make sense. Its the smaller government branch the actual commission that is setting the penalty. So there is a conflict of interest that does not tie in at all to your conspiracy theory here. 

Sure the prison issue, and quacks prescribing pills to kids is bullshit, its a sad indictment of pharma, and GP's, and the politicians who let it happen. 
But your reaching here a long way, and really ignoring Nicks personal reality given the situation. If he was some sort of freedom fighter making speeches about weed and big pharma and a voice for this maybe I could get on board. But the guy can hardly complete a full sentence. He is not a revolutionary trying to change the system. He of his own free will signed a contract dishonestly for money, and basically told everyone to go f themselves by getting high the night of the fight. 

I mean do you have kids yet? Will you tell them to not give a funk about rules throughout their life, and just do whatever they feel is right at the time? Will you tell them not to follow their bosses instructions so they will get fired? Not to follow the rules at school so they get kicked out? Not take tests, because well f**k tests? 
At some point you have to get real about the reality of getting through life and making a living in this world


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> Yeah but the federal government is allowing Nick to smoke weed are they not? So it doesn't really make sense. Its the smaller government branch the actual commission that is setting the penalty. So there is a conflict of interest that does not tie in at all to your conspiracy theory here.
> 
> Sure the prison issue, and quacks prescribing pills to kids is bullshit, its a sad indictment of pharma, and GP's, and the politicians who let it happen.
> But your reaching here a long way, and really ignoring Nicks personal reality given the situation. If he was some sort of freedom fighter making speeches about weed and big pharma and a voice for this maybe I could get on board. But the guy can hardly complete a full sentence. He is not a revolutionary trying to change the system. He of his own free will signed a contract dishonestly for money, and basically told everyone to go f themselves by getting high the night of the fight.
> ...


The Federal govt is not allowing Nick to smoke weed, the states are, that's the whole point. 

This is a burning issue in the US where many states have made weed legal, yet the federal govt. has still unconstitutionally made it illegal, something beyond their jurisdiction but they don't care. They've gone as far as sending federal officials and FBI to shut down and trash legal licensed pot sellers in such legalised states ... it's a borderline covert civil war. 

It's because a centralised govt. is always easier to bribe and buy out compared to thousands of state officials. It's not even a secret, it's actually legal to bribe these guys by openly "lobbying" them and contributing to their campaign funds, and the open contributions are only the tip of the iceberg compared to what goes on under the table and is paid in perks.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=h04

Unless you're naive enough to believe they're doing these from the goodness of their heart for political charity, they're obviously getting something back.

I do have a kid, only 2 atm. I won't tell him to walk around breaking rules willy nilly just because, but I WILL tell him to question everything or at least consult with us until he's old enough to decide for himself. If rules are detrimental to your well being and that of your loved ones, DO get around them. You don't have to be a middle-finger throwing rebel about it, but you don't have to go along with everything either.

If I had followed every govt rule for "his benefit", he'd already be a pin-cushion full of toxic vaccines, but instead he's a mostly unvaccinated 2 year old who has gotten sick a record total of twice in as many years, and that too a common cold for a couple of days. Heck, my older brother followed every doctor's "rule" for reproductive health until his wife was a bloated painful hormonal mess on vitro, and after so many years the only reason they even HAD a child is when they started questioning things and went off all the hormonal play-arounds and just went au-naturale for a few months as I suggested. If my parents had followed every rule for me, I'd probably be a drugged up mess by now, yet I turned out great (I think  ) because they questioned some things too. 

Diaz can't complete a full sentence because he was drugged up his entire life as a kid, not because he smokes some weed now. He had a tough, tough life and still achieved more than you and I so far. He's not my ideal in the sport, those are the likes of Weidman and GSP and (in the past) Fedor, but one can do worse by far.

Maybe Diaz smoked the day before the fight and that would be reckless rebellion. Maybe he smoked after a particularly painful gym session and chronic injury to get some relief, weeks before the fight. This is a tough, tough sport ... I know when I was more regular I had everything from fractures to chronic ligament tears. If Nick used weed to deal with the pain rather than prescription painkillers, he is wise, not a fool. And if he doesn't give a damn about the system demonising it, then he's just honest and transparent rather than tactful.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Am I not correct in saying that the only issue with Jones' original coke incident was PR related? I thought it had absolutely nothing against the fight with Cormier?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

I thought the Obama administration had agreed not to prosecute legal Marijuana in states that monitor its distribution inside the guidelines? 
I'm sure I've read many articles on that and that the Feds only go after people breaking the established growing and distribution rules.

Heres one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...25bfd8-10bd-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html


----------



## Liddellianenko (Oct 8, 2006)

DonRifle said:


> I thought the Obama administration had agreed not to prosecute legal Marijuana in states that monitor its distribution inside the guidelines?
> I'm sure I've read many articles on that and that the Feds only go after people breaking the established growing and distribution rules.
> 
> Heres one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...25bfd8-10bd-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html


I might be a little out of touch with the news on this tbh as I haven't smoked in near a decade and haven't hung out with friends who do in a while either. Don't really need it at this stage in my life, but don't see much wrong with it when used responsibly.

I do remember hearing about such crackdowns from friends just a few years ago though. Maybe things are changing, but part of the change is because of people standing up to and disregarding the federal demonising.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

Woodenhead said:


> No, yes, unsure.
> 
> 2 things it definitely is: bronchodilator and blocks pain receptors.
> 
> ...


Helps pain for sure you got me there. But so do many other things that are perfectly legal. So I don't get it. It is a PED in the sense of over the counter pain relievers. Those hypobaric chambers or whatever they sleep in.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Helps pain for sure you got me there. But so do many other things that are perfectly legal. So I don't get it. It is a PED in the sense of over the counter pain relievers. Those hypobaric chambers or whatever they sleep in.


I think pretty much everything that does anything is on the banned list, even a paracetamol.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> I think pretty much everything that does anything is on the banned list, even a paracetamol.


Caffeine? 

Also glancing over the Mir Adderall thing looks like you get exemptions for Adderall. Why not Marijuana?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Caffeine?
> 
> Also glancing over the Mir Adderall thing looks like you get exemptions for Adderall. Why not Marijuana?


According to Chael if you drank some really strong coffee before getting tested you would fail a test.

I think Mir didn't get the exemption for it in the end? 

In many ways I see this as a turning point in the sport. Diaz is the scapegoat for scaring the shit out of every other fighter.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

The way I see it is that the the limits when testing for marijuana need to be adjusted so that the only time you fail a drug test for marijuana is if you smoked the day of or day before the fight. It is ridiculous that you can't use something as mild as tHc for recovery or for recreational purposes. But that's a moral comment. From a legal standpoint it is obvious why there is so much red tape around marijuana use. 



DonRifle said:


> Well yeah its illegal so the federal government should probably prosecute JJ for taking illegal drugs. *THey have obviously deemed it unnecessary for whatever reason.* But they were not supposed to test him for coke in that test it wasn't in the remit of the tester, therefore they commission couldn't technically do anything to him.


You can't prosecute someone for admitting they took a drug in the past.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

As I've said before weed is illegal because it is a federally banned substance in the US. Technically anyone is Washington and Colorado can still be busted by the DEA. Also when someone submits an application for a licence to fight in a state commission they say you cannot test positive in competition or out of competition for a banned substance.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> As I've said before weed is illegal because it is a federally banned substance in the US. Technically anyone is Washington and Colorado can still be busted by the DEA. Also when someone submits an application for a licence to fight in a state commission they say you cannot test positive in competition or out of competition for a banned substance.


This is not the reason I have seen comissions typically give. State athletic commissions aren't really there to enforce federal law. The reasons I have seen commissions give is that it is a mind-altering substance and thus affects performance in the cage, for better or worse.

Definitely they would have a tougher time making the case if it were 100% legal, but that's definitely not a requirement as plenty of cough medications you can buy off the shelf etc are also banned, as is alcohol.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well the justification for their reasoning is that someone on weed can't properly protect themselves. Also remember that once someone has smoked weed it is not only in their blood stream but also in their joints. A simple pop could release weed back into the blood stream and make it's way back into the brain causing a high.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Well the justification for their reasoning is that someone on weed can't properly protect themselves. Also remember that once someone has smoked weed it is not only in their blood stream but also in their joints. A simple pop could release weed back into the blood stream and make it's way back into the brain causing a high.


Uh, no. No it can't. What are you talking about?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

kantowrestler said:


> As I've said before weed is illegal because it is a federally banned substance in the US. Technically anyone is Washington and Colorado can still be busted by the DEA. Also when someone submits an application for a licence to fight in a state commission they say you cannot test positive in competition or out of competition for a banned substance.


Its not true, only if they are not distributing the product properly will the DEA come after them, ie, letting minors get hold of it etc


----------



## rabakill (Apr 22, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Well the justification for their reasoning is that someone on weed can't properly protect themselves. Also remember that once someone has smoked weed it is not only in their blood stream but also in their joints. A simple pop could release weed back into the blood stream and make it's way back into the brain causing a high.


send me some of what you're smoking


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> Well the justification for their reasoning is that someone on weed can't properly protect themselves. Also remember that once someone has smoked weed it is not only in their blood stream but also in their joints. A simple pop could release weed back into the blood stream and make it's way back into the brain causing a high.


This. All of this. Spot on.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

kantowrestler said:


> Well the justification for their reasoning is that someone on weed can't properly protect themselves. Also remember that once someone has smoked weed it is not only in their blood stream but also in their joints. A simple pop could release weed back into the blood stream and make it's way back into the brain causing a high.


Is there some info to support this claim? Would be insane if it were true and give Nick Diaz a pretty nice defense!


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

My 2 cents on a few topics here:

1. *Weed being banned.*

First of all, weed is not banned outside of competition. Meaning, as long as the weed is out of your system fight night, a fighter is allowed to smoke as much weed as they like with no possible ramifications from the commission. It is only banned during competition, meaning 24 hours before and a few hours after the fight. It is controlled the EXACT same way that alcohol is. 

Now the tricky part is that weed stays in the system for quite a while, many weeks longer than the THC affects the brain/body. The testing that is currently in use has no way of differentiating a fighter that is high from a fighter that WAS high 3 weeks ago.

My personal opinion is IF YOU WANT TO BE A FIGHTER, PUT THE JOINT DOWN FOR A MONTH. 


2. *The cocaine debate*

Cocaine has the same restrictions as weed. It is not tested for out of competition and there are no COMMISSION penalties for using it out of competition. It IS banned on fight night, just like weed. That is why Jones was not penalized for it at all.

3. *Nick Diaz Suspension*

If Nick Diaz was clearly caught violating the substance abuse policy for a 3rd time, I have no problem with a 5 year ban. A 3rd strike is clearly saying "I have no respect for your rules and have no intention of ever following them"

BUT, the water gets QUITE muddy in this case. When there are 2 negative tests from a ADA approved testing facility and only 1 positive from a non-approved facility, there is no clear evidence of anything. 

DUE PROCESS would allow Nick and his team to challenge the validity of the bad test (which any lawyer worth his salt could do easily), yet the NSAC did not allow this, completely disregarded the negative results and banned Nick based on what could easily be argued to be flawed evidence.

4. *Good will come of this*

I think that Nick and his team are going to take this to court and show how abusive the NSAC was in this case. I can see the courts coming down hard on the NSAC for not allowing due process and simply witch hunting Nick out of his chosen career.

5. *Personal Thoughts* 
I think weed should be legal on a federal level. I think it should be regulated the exact same way a alcohol.

Even with that in mind I still dont think it should EVER be allowed in competition!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

kantowrestler said:


> Well the justification for their reasoning is that someone on weed can't properly protect themselves. Also remember that once someone has smoked weed it is not only in their blood stream but also in their joints. A simple pop could release weed back into the blood stream and make it's way back into the brain causing a high.


You are absolutely wrong.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

DanTheJu said:


> My 2 cents on a few topics here:
> 
> 1. *Weed being banned.*
> 
> ...


Alternately, the commission could use blood tests for cannbinoid detection. They are much more reasonable and reliable as indicators of when someone actually last smoked and whether it's still affecting them.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Why people are caring so much for the Diaz negative test? Wasn't clear enough they just ignored Anderson negative test as well and used the positive one only?


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Ok the whole getting high thing is wrong on my part but as mentioned above Nick Diaz did violate the rules a third time. Also as mentioned above, he should've been smoking for at least a month before the fight. If he tests positive from an in competition test that means he broke the rules regardless of how far back he smoked weed, he broke the rules pure and simple.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> I think everyone forgets that weed is federally outlawed and this actually trumps any medical exceptions. Also according to any athletic commission rules you do not do weed outside of competition or inside of competition. It is banned across all types of possible testing times pure and simple.


Ever hear of the tenth amendment?



DonRifle said:


> Wasn't the coke an out of competition test and they are basing the weed punishment on his levels the night of the fight?


Diaz passed two tests for thc by one lab and failed one test by the same lab that did Cung Le's testing.

Just saying...


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I don't get why people are trying to prove that Diaz wasn't high. It's Nick Diaz, we already KNOW he was high.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

ClydebankBlitz said:


> I don't get why people are trying to prove that Diaz wasn't high. It's Nick Diaz, we already KNOW he was high.


I pointed out that he passed two tests and failed one by a different lab, that should be concerning.

I look at this way, we have two tests telling us he was under the THC cap and one that says he's over.

Its not about what you or I think its about the fact that either one test is wrong or two tests are wrong. 

So personally the fact that we know Nick smokes is irrelevant. The odds that the two tests are both wrong and the singe test is right are a lot less likely than the idea the one test was wrong. 

Either way, I think they have a duty to figure it the fuk out before they hand out suspensions.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

slapshot said:


> So personally the fact that we know Nick smokes is irrelevant. The odds that the two tests are both wrong and the singe test is right are a lot less likely than the idea the one test was wrong.
> 
> .


Its not irrelevant though legally. He has previously been caught and demonstrated a consistent behaviour of breaking the rules. And people have many ways to dodge tests. 
You can hardly give him the benefit of the doubt in this case unless you are Ghandi or something!


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

It also didn't help that he pleaded the fifth amendment during the whole hearing. He was in no way incriminating himself it he answered half of those questions. UFC 183, not incriminating at all.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> It also didn't help that he pleaded the fifth amendment during the whole hearing. He was in no way incriminating himself it he answered half of those questions. UFC 183, not incriminating at all.


A lot of those questions were also ridiculous and rhetorical, serving no purpose other than to get words onto the transcribed record. Did he fight at UFC 183? derp. His lawyer explained that he wouldn't be answering anything.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Yes the question were rhetorical and answering them wouldn't have been a problem. Nick Diaz partially screwed himself over by not answering them. Pure and simple that's partially why he got what he did.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> Yes the question were rhetorical and answering them wouldn't have been a problem.* Nick Diaz partially screwed himself over by not answering them.* Pure and simple that's partially why he got what he did.


He screwed himself by using his constitutional rights¿ If not answering the questions, pleading to the 5th amendment, screws you in a legal process, then the jury is ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL which is way worse than anything Diaz has ever done in his entire life. Ignoring constitutional rights is basically attacking the very fundamentals of the legal system of the nation.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

For a bunch of law hating anarchists on this site you sure do preach the amendments quite a lot.

Probably up there in my favourite jokes of all time is Jim Jefferies when an American was pissed off at him after an anti-gun joke. The American said "You can't change the second amendment!" to which he replies "Yes you can....it's an amendment".


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

All he had to do was plead the fifth amendment for all of the weed related questions. Answering whether he fought in UFC 183 is not incriminating. Also answering when he submitted a license application is not incriminating in a legal case.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> All he had to do was plead the fifth amendment for all of the weed related questions. Answering whether he fought in UFC 183 is not incriminating. Also answering when he submitted a license application is not incriminating in a legal case.


So what? If they know all the answers to those questions (certainly they have the application on file, right?) then they are pointless questions and there is even less reason to give him an unheard of punishment for pleading the fifth. Punishing someone for exercising their constitutional rights is ridiculous.



ClydebankBlitz said:


> For a bunch of law hating anarchists on this site you sure do preach the amendments quite a lot.


It's a list of guaranteed freedoms for the people, not restrictions on them, so it doesn't really conflict with principles of social anarchism that I can see. But I am not an anarchist so I might be missing something.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

kantowrestler said:


> Ok the whole getting high thing is wrong on my part but as mentioned above Nick Diaz did violate the rules a third time. Also as mentioned above, he should've been smoking for at least a month before the fight. If he tests positive from an in competition test that means he broke the rules regardless of how far back he smoked weed, he broke the rules pure and simple.


Whether he's guilty or not still isn't established, it was just granted to him very subjectively.

first WADA test 9:30'ish: test score of 49; Pass

Second Quest test 10:30'ish: test score of 700; fail

third WADA test 11:30'ish: test score 50 something; Pass

So two passed tests by a superior entity and one failed, super out there number. Regardless whether we know Nick smokes in his daily life, whether he behaved properly and stopped in time for testing has more going for him then against him. 

If you took out Nick's name and inserted Chris Weidman and tell people Chris passed 2 tests in a 3 hours period from a superior drug testing entity and failed 1 in hour 2 of the 3 tests and they busted him base on the failed test, it would be an uproar.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Don't think there would be uproar. Drugs are rife in the sport one way or another, as are test dodging strategies


----------



## Soojooko (Jun 4, 2009)

VolcomX311 said:


> If you took out Nick's name and inserted Chris Weidman and tell people Chris passed 2 tests in a 3 hours period from a superior drug testing entity and failed 1 in hour 2 of the 3 tests and they busted him base on the failed test, it would be an uproar.


Even though I believe this is very harsh. Even though I believe NSAC are a bunch of jokers. I do still appreciate that in Nicks case there are some aggravating factors. This is his 3rd offence. Its not small thing. So really, you cant use Weidman as an example. If Chris had been popped twice already, there wouldn't be any more an uproar.

To be clear, I do NOT agree with how cannabis use is handled in MMA. I think its absurd. But then, I think lots of things are absurd regards the way shit is handled. This case is particularly shady. But thats a different topic. Right now, under current rules, Nick has his 3rd strike = always a very big deal in sports. Hes going against the tide before hes had a chance to say anything.

In a nutshell, totally dont agree with it. But hardly surprised either.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

I love all the guys over the last week saying "he knows the rules, too bad!". 

Yet the commission doesnt even follow the rules they focking are allowed to make themselves.

So a brand new system of harsher punishments states 3rd offence for MJ is 3 years suspension. Yet they hand out 5.

But please all you knuckleheads lets hear about the rules and how we all need to follow them.

How about we start with the NAC themseleves.

ier 1: Sedatives, Muscle relaxants, Sleep aids, Anxiolytics, Opiates, Cannabis

1st offense: 18-month suspension, fine of 30-40% of fighter's purse
2nd offense: 24-month suspension, fine of 40-50% of fighter's purse
3rd offense: 36-month suspension, fine of 60-75% of fighter's purse
4th offense: Lifetime suspension, fine of 100% of fighter's purse


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Like I said he ruffled some feathers by using the fifth on every question, most of which weren't incriminating. Also Quest is a reputable place and that's what the NSAC used before they used WADA labs. The fact of the matter is the state athletic commissions have to keep the rules for weed in place because they genuinely don't know if someone is dumb enough to smoke it and come in high or if someone smoked weed a few weeks before and simply had the antibodies in their system. If someone high they can't follow the rule of protect yourself at all times, pure and simple. Nick Diaz is being made an example and reminder, he's done this twice before.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

Who cares if he ruffled feathers? It's irrelevant. The courts, or whatever the NSAC get called in this case, don't get to make judgements on people based on their appearances. 2pac turned up to court wearing a football jersey and bandanna, got off, then swaggered out of the court to make fun of the system. Of course, a guy like him as kind of asking for a bit of hassle as a result but Diaz can show whatever disrespect he wants to these people. The law has never worked based on respect, it works on the rules. Obviously different in some situations but not in this. The important thing here is following the rules, and on face value it doesn't look like they did. We obviously only have limited knowledge of how these things work but we'll see how it plays out with some proper lawyers and everything.

The law doesn't get to make examples of people. They get to uphold the law. NSAC proved their lack of class with the Anderson Silva case, which actually still feel like HAD to be faked or something cause that's too strange, but they proved they aren't the kind of people who would let certain stuff happen without class or honour of the law.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

With the rules as it is, a judge could maybe drop the suspension down to those three years and maybe drop the fine down a little but he's still going to have to serve time. It doesn't matter if weed is actually a PED or not the fact of the matter is it's a banned substance. He was not supposed to have ANY of it in his system come fight time. There's no excuse for testing positive for it three times no matter who does the test or not, he broke the rules pure and simple.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> Like I said he ruffled some feathers by using the fifth on every question, most of which weren't incriminating. Also Quest is a reputable place and that's what the NSAC used before they used WADA labs. The fact of the matter is the state athletic commissions have to keep the rules for weed in place because they genuinely don't know if someone is dumb enough to smoke it and come in high or if someone smoked weed a few weeks before and simply had the antibodies in their system. If someone high they can't follow the rule of protect yourself at all times, pure and simple. Nick Diaz is being made an example and reminder, he's done this twice before.


It doesn't really matter if they were incriminating or not. Instead of consulting his team after every question they chose to just plead the 5th and leave no room for error. He is allowed to plead the 5th. 

If the questions were there like Don said "just to put it and keep it on record for further use". Then how hard is it to write down plead the 5th ???x? If it is just for record then put the focking 5th down on record. 

Do I think eased up levels of cannabis is the right way to regulate it and pretty much ensure no one is coming in high? Yes. It isn't that hard to ensure a guy isn't ripped going into the fight. He is popped for what is it called? THC metabolites? In other words traces of the stuff. 

But it isn't and under the rules I expect there to be punishment.

But give the guy a fair shake instead of throwing 5 years at him. He apparently passed 2 of the 3 tests. There was apparently some of a case to be made on the collection and actual levels of the tests. 

But either way how do you explain giving him 5 when in their own writing 3 offences for MJ gets 36 months. A system that was just put into place and spread out to the media and news outlets and a big story. 

How is a guy with traces of THC albeit the 3rd offence, but how does he get 5 years when a repeat offender like Vitor get a slap on the wrist for roids/ridiculous levels of T turning him into a human highlight film...illuminated by his sudden frailty once apparently off his youth juice. Hiding in Brazil away from the NAC to boot......how is that logically possible? The repeat roider who ran to another commission on his rise back to the title gets NOTHING???? 

And I'm sure the heads of the NAC care a ton about these guys. I mean they display such respect at every hearing. If a guy went in stoned and got knocked the F out, they would make a joke of it..

I'd love for States to go against Nevada. Must be political reasons. A state like California should. 

I'm not sitting here saying Diaz shouldn't get time according to the rule book. I'm saying I am shocked at how many people just dismiss an unfair "trial" "hearing". Like it is no big deal that the commission seems to make up penalties on the fly in accordance to how you rub them.

It is obvious the commission does not like Nick nor cared for the way he wanted to go about his case. The guy got 2 more years than in the rule book because he didn't do it how they wanted him too.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508;3392378
I'm not sitting here saying Diaz shouldn't get time according to the rule book. I'm saying I am shocked at how many people just dismiss an unfair "trial" "hearing". Like it is no big deal that the commission seems to make up penalties on the fly in accordance to how you rub them.
It is obvious the commission does not like Nick nor cared for the way he wanted to go about his case. The guy got 2 more years than in the rule book because he didn't do it how they wanted him too.[/QUOTE said:


> Your shocked that people have common sense? Turning up to a punishment hearing with a good attitude? What an uncool thing to do that is! What is Nick, an unruly 13 year old?


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> Your shocked that people have common sense? Turning up to a punishment hearing with a good attitude? What an uncool thing to do that is! What is Nick, an unruly 13 year old?


Do you have an example of what he did with a bad attitude? Pleading the 5th via his lawyers advice is a bad attitude?

What are you even talking about? You hear Matt Hughes call him a punk and you go by that? Helwani just bashed Hughes for calling Diaz a punk. Saying what are people talking about he acted like a punk? Yes Mr. UFC himself Ariel Helwani. 

You don't even know what you are talking about. Just out your ass it comes. Have you read or watched anything on this?


Damn how much hog do you suck on a daily basis to assure your day goes smoothly?


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> Do you have an example of what he did with a bad attitude? Pleading the 5th via his lawyers advice is a bad attitude?
> 
> What are you even talking about? You hear Matt Hughes call him a punk and you go by that? Helwani just bashed Hughes for calling Diaz a punk. Saying what are people talking about he acted like a punk? Yes Mr. UFC himself Ariel Helwani.
> 
> ...


When did you become such a childish little brat jonny? 

I stated my opinion the day of the ruling, long before hughes statement. 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand when you are sitting before a disiplinary committee that is going to decide your future and your livelihood, your ability to earn money and feed yourself, that you carry yourself with some composure, and you attempt to show respect to those deciding your fate and don't take all day to even state your name. You use your common sense to get the best result for yourself. 
Basic common sense. Is it right that he has to do that? Maybe not. Are the commission idiots? Yes they are. Does it mean Nick should also be a moron? No it doesn't.

Your crying about taking records in disciplinary hearing, what kind of level of naivety do you subscribe to? You think you need to confer with lawyers to answer whether you fought at UFC 183? Bone thick, just like the lawyers who advised him to plead the 5th to a straightforward basic question which would obviously antoagnise any reasonable person, let alone people deciding your fate. 

At times you post good stuff but now you are just coming off like a complete dickhead. If you want to be abusive and can't be mature enough to have a simple debate then go fu*k yourself.


----------



## Term (Jul 28, 2009)

kantowrestler said:


> Also Quest is a reputable place and that's what the NSAC used before they used WADA labs. The fact of the matter is the state athletic commissions have to keep the rules for weed in place because they genuinely don't know if someone is dumb enough to smoke it and come in high or if someone smoked weed a few weeks before and simply had the antibodies in their system.


The problem I have with that is if it is to protect a fighter from fighting high, how does it do that. They don't get the results until after the fight. If they want to make sure fighters aren't high then there should have to do some type of sobriety test prior to fighting.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> When did you become such a childish little brat jonny?
> 
> I stated my opinion the day of the ruling, long before hughes statement.
> 
> ...


So do you have an answer? Where was he acting like a punk, 13 year old, disrespectful? Do you have an answer? Is your answer by listening to his lawyers tell him to plead the 5th. A very good lawyer at that. 

As stated earlier I said if they just need it for the record then focking record "plead the 5th". How hard is that? If he goes off swearing and throwing up middle fingers....you record it. If he goes on a rant you record it. If he pleads the 5th you record it. WHy get all egotistic over it?

We don't even know if his tests were truly legally positive. And they didn't even care to listen to evidence or consider it. So what sort of "hearing" is this? It is a joke and Nick didn't act in any sort of way.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

jonnyg4508 said:


> So do you have an answer? Where was he acting like a punk, 13 year old, disrespectful? Do you have an answer? Is your answer by listening to his lawyers tell him to plead the 5th. A very good lawyer at that.
> 
> As stated earlier I said if they just need it for the record then focking record "plead the 5th". How hard is that? If he goes off swearing and throwing up middle fingers....you record it. If he goes on a rant you record it. If he pleads the 5th you record it. WHy get all egotistic over it?
> 
> We don't even know if his tests were truly legally positive. And they didn't even care to listen to evidence or consider it. So what sort of "hearing" is this? It is a joke and Nick didn't act in any sort of way.


This is how this thing went down in my eyes. 

Diaz tested positive just before the fight, in the eyes of the commission that is a positive test. Theres no doubt, or assumption that because the other two were clean this one was wrong. Their assumption is more like he dodged the other tests and we nailed him on this one. They dont assume Test 2 was wrong or consider it, especially with no defence. He is guilty and he has been summoned by them to provide a defence and answer questions. 

The Commission had a hearing to determine whether he was guilty, and his level of guilt, its equivalent to a court case because while they cannot send him to jail, they can take away Diaz's livelihood. They probably thought he was guilty already reading the information, but Diaz has the right of due process. But Nick Diaz chose not to defend himself. This is his right, but just because its his right to do so, it does not mean its in any way smart to adopt this strategy. Should I plead the fifth to every question in a deposition if the prosecutor has a murder weapon with my prints in a murder case? Or should i put up a defence and try and make a plea deal? Take death row, or negotiate for a life sentence? 

As mentioned before if you are going to court and your facing a notorious judge who is say heavily religious, or left wing, or a disciplinarian you defend yourself in a certain way. In the most recent case of Anderson Silva, the Commission demonstrated that they thought Anderson Silva was full of shit by what they did with the phones. Highly unprofessional but they did it all the same. AS had committed his first offence and was coming back from a disgusting leg break so his punishment would have taken into account those things in the eyes of the law. Mitigating circumstances. 

In Diaz's case he has broken the rules a number of times and knowingly and dishonestly signed contracts for money to fight in the state and adhere to certain rules. Thats not cool in anyway, you shake on something you follow through on it, be it a contract or a bet with a friend. Just because the rules are shitty and say you cant smoke weed at X time, it doesn't negate the fact this is what Nick Diaz signed on and gave his word to do. 
He's a repeat offender, therefore there can be no leniency in the laws eyes So Diaz should know he's in deep trouble straight away given they have a positive test through the roof right before the fight. 

He doesn't get a free pass because he picked a couple of guys who belong in a circus for his lawyers. He chose them, he allowed them to dictate his strategy and hold his career in their hands. He agreed that he would not put up a defence. His lawyers didn't even prep him for the hearing, instead they just came across as petulant and patronising accusing the commission of not understand the laws. He had to be advised on the spot to plead the 5th. He looked ill prepared. 

He should have turned up in a suit and tie like you would at court. He should sit up straight and look the commissioner in the eye. He shouldn't be looking around him and playing with his shoes while he's being asked questions. This is what a child does or someone who has no respect does. 
If you had a kid who was up in court lets say you had a 15 year old who got caught selling drugs. The judge could very well send him to a detention centre. Do you tell your kid to dress casual, look disinterested, and not seem apologetic in any way? Like hell you do, because you want the best for your kid, you don't want him falling foul of some idiot judge that will f up his life. 

Any lawyer worth his salt would not let a client appear in court and behave like that. This is how he acted like a punk. For you maybe its not acting like a punk, but if your sitting in front of a commission determining your future you sit up straight and look at them at the very least. You try not to piss them off. You try to appear remorseful. You put up a defence that you medically need this stuff and its not a PED, that the middle test was wrong, that you adhered to the rules and have no idea how this happened. Or you defend yourself properly, as opposed to looking like youd rather be somewhere else, refusing to answer questions and letting your lawyers patronise the commission. 

What do you think NIck said to his lawyers when they walked out? Well done guys! You did a great job, you just cost me my career! Or did he say "you fu**kin clowns look what your moronic strategy of obstinance got me!, my MMA career is done!" 

Nick has to take a portion of the blame for that, his lawyer take a portion, but he hired them. He made the choice to appear disrespectful.

If the commission are a bunch of dicks its irrelevant. If the rules are unfair its irrelevant. You play the game for your own personal benefit. Nick Diaz doesn't care about other fighters, hes not a revolutionary, he's not making speeches about weed and fighting the system for the good of the people. He wants his money. Thats who Nick Diaz is. If he wants his money he needs to smarten up.


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> This is how this thing went down in my eyes.
> 
> 
> In Diaz's case he has broken the rules a number of times and knowingly and dishonestly signed contracts for money to fight in the state and adhere to certain rules. Thats not cool in anyway, you shake on something you follow through on it, be it a contract or a bet with a friend. Just because the rules are shitty and say you cant smoke weed at X time, it doesn't negate the fact this is what Nick Diaz signed on and gave his word to do.
> ...


I agree with the sentiments of most of what you're saying, but to be fair on the repeat offender point. They proposed that a 3rd strike on cannabis is a 2 year ban, so even if they are considering the repeat factor, they still gave him more than double what they proposed themselves back in May 2015.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

VolcomX311 said:


> I agree with the sentiments of most of what you're saying, but to be fair on the repeat offender point. They proposed that a 3rd strike on cannabis is a 2 year ban, so even if they are considering the repeat factor, they still gave him more than double what they proposed themselves back in May 2015.


Sure they are clowns who wielded a bigger axe then they actually possessed it seems. I expect Nick to hire a new lawyer and on appeal get it down to two years


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> Like I said he ruffled some feathers by using the fifth on every question, most of which weren't incriminating. Also Quest is a reputable place and that's what the NSAC used before they used WADA labs. The fact of the matter is the state athletic commissions have to keep the rules for weed in place because they genuinely don't know if someone is dumb enough to smoke it and come in high or if someone smoked weed a few weeks before and simply had the antibodies in their system. If someone high they can't follow the rule of protect yourself at all times, pure and simple. Nick Diaz is being made an example and reminder, he's done this twice before.


If they hold it against him that he plead the 5th Amendment, they directly show that they don't respect the Constitution of the country and its amendments. This is WAY worse than any crime Diaz could have ever done in his entire life. Anything Diaz could ever have done would only have a negative effect on a limited amount of persons directly involved, but if the very people who are in charge for making sure that the laws of the country are followed don't follow the laws themselves, there is no reason why anyone should follow those laws.

They have been given a particular power over the people that live in the country, this power also comes with a particular responsibility.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

You have to look at it context of the situation. Remember nick is guilty, he has not defended himself against the charges. Therefore they are not abusing his right at all. They are simply finding him guilty of charges based in the evidence in front of them


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> You have to look at it context of the situation. Remember nick is guilty, he has not defended himself against the charges. Therefore they are not abusing his right at all. They are simply finding him guilty of charges based in the evidence in front of them


The question of guilt can be debated with those two tests Diaz has passed against the one test he failed from a lab with a somewhat dodgy past.

But even if he could be considered guilty and it were considered his 3rd offense, the penalty for cannabis would still just be a 2 years suspension. So apparently those 3 extra years stem either from complete incompetence or hurt egos and abuse of power. In both cases those people should be pulled from their positions and in the second case they even should be charged legally.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

For the record....

For anyone who hasnt read the results.

Diaz tested neg at 7pm before the fight. WADA credited collectors. He then pissed hot at 10pm but for whatever reason fot a different collection company who is not credited by WADA. Then at 11 something pm he had to take yet another test which from what ive heard is unheard of. And it was neg....by the same company as the first.

So the outlier is the 2nd test not c4edited by WADA. Basically saying he somehow smoked tight around the fight....popped....then somehow got clean in an hour. That is not possible. 

The 2nd test has a bunch of mishaps and flags o. How it was collected.

Yet NAC didnt care to look into this odd finding and decided oh who cares lets throw 5 at him. While one of the kunts mentioned a lifetime ban.

Doesnt get anymore corrupt-unprofessional than that.

The NAC should be investigated actually.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

It can be debated but he chose not to debate it remember? He did not provide a defense. 

Also those written guidelines could have changed in the last 3 months. If I remember right Novitsky said something about 5 year bans on Rogans podcast a few weeks ago



jonnyg4508 said:


> For the record....
> 
> For anyone who hasnt read the results.
> 
> ...


Why didn't Diaz challenge those results?


----------



## arkanoydz (Mar 15, 2010)

Forgive my ignorance on the matter but could Diaz fight in other countries for other organisations during those 5 yrs?


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

DonRifle said:


> It can be debated but he chose not to debate it remember? He did not provide a defense.
> 
> Also those written guidelines could have changed in the last 3 months. If I remember right Novitsky said something about 5 year bans on Rogans podcast a few weeks ago



Lawyers presented evidence....NAC didnt consider anything. Not sure what you mean 

Maybe it has changed after they JUST overhauled it. Wasnt sent out to media outlets like the guidlinea we have provided. Seems we would have heard aomething.

A women mentioned a lifetime ban originally. You think they were thinki g fair when something like that is mwntioned? 

The intentions were to try and make Nick look like a fool answering questions. They didnt get the rise out of him thry wantedm. Thry pouted. They handed over a suspension based on not being happy with how he went anout it.

Thats corrupt as hell.


----------



## Woodenhead (Jan 5, 2010)

Silence is implied consent. Apparently?

And for those of you arguing that they went against their own rules, I suggest you actually read the entire section, not just the list of penalties. Here's the part everyone keeps leaving out; it's kind of important. My highlights:


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

That is a good point in that the penalties are guidelines only. Meaning at minimum Diaz should've gotten two years of suspension. The commission decided to go with more then the minimum.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

arkanoydz said:


> Forgive my ignorance on the matter but could Diaz fight in other countries for other organisations during those 5 yrs?


As far as I know, yes.

The problems arise in that some organisations will not want to cross the NSAC because who knows how important they might be to them in the future? If BAMMA wanted to get on Fight Pass, but they let Nick fight for them, that might end up being a problem.

But even more so, Nick's signed to the UFC. If they, out of the goodness of their heart, allow him to fight for One FC, okay. But the UFC doesn't owe anything to Nick after all the problems with him, and beyond that they might not want a solid draw to fight elsewhere.

Overall, if the UFC releases Nick he'll fight elsewhere. If they don't, they won't. I think the UFC will go the latter route because at the end of the day it's Nick's fault he's in this mess.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

I think he might try out Metamoris cause it's not regulated by an athletic commission. Chael Sonnen grapples with that organization so who knows, they might give him a shot. Not a huge pay check but maybe it'll help him pay the bills to a degree.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

My 2 cents, again (does that make it my 4 cents???)

*The 5th amendment*

"_nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself_"

What this means is that any citizen accused of a crime CAN NOT be forced to answer ANY questions. If they chose not to testify, that CAN NOT be held against them.

In the court of law, if the defendant does not testify (this is most commonly the case) the judge will instruct the jury that it shall not be held against the defendant and that it is NOT an admission of guilt in ANY WAY.

*The NSAC hearing and the 5th amendment*

Near the start of the hearing Nick's attorney informed the commission that Nick would NOT be testifying at all based on his constitutional rights not to testify in a criminal case.

The commission stated that the hearing was NOT a criminal case, but was in fact a civil hearing so the 5th does not apply.

Nick's attorneys argued it did, but the commission over ruled their objections.

Because they over ruled the objections, Nick was OBLIGATED to testify. If he did not, he would be in contempt of the hearing (could lead to even more harsh punishment), so his attorneys advised him to ONLY answer by pleading the 5th, no matter what the question was.

His attorneys did so because they firmly believe that the 5th amendment does extend to civil hearings and if they lost the case would leave the case wide open for Judicial Review. 

Now in McCarthy v. Arndstein, the Supreme court ruled that the 5th amendment DOES extend to civil cases if the defendant would have to say anything that could implicate himself in a criminal trial. (Using weed is still a crime)

*This case is ripe for judicial review*

Not only is this case ripe for judicial review because Nick was forced to testify but because of the clear and overwhelming lack of credible evidence. 

The commission clearly decided that they were only going to weigh any evidence that supported their stance against Nick Diaz (they even said they were disrespected by Nick and decided to punish him more harshly because of it). The also decided to ignore evidence of his innocence (even when there was more of the latter).

*My opinion*

The commission has ALWAYS had issues with Nick Diaz and they felt it was time to smack him around and "put him in his place". They CLEARLY abused their power in a vengeful manner. 

I am not a Nick Diaz fan, and if there were 3 positive results I wouldn't even be upset if he was banned for life (I have over and over again stated "if you want to be a pro fighter put down the joint for a month"). He clearly values smoking pot more than he values being a fighter.

BUT, he had 3 tests, 2 negative by a WADA approved facility using WADA collection procedures, 1 positive by a non WADA approved facility. 

There would never be conviction in a criminal court or even criminal charges pressed if a defendant had 2 reputable witnesses proving his innocence and 1 questionable witness stating he is guilty. The weight of the reputable witnesses would be overwhelming in the face of the questionable one!

EVEN NICK DIAZ DESERVES DUE PROCESS!!!


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I feel like I dont know enough ever so can I just tag in Dan who confirms all of my feels with actual facts every time?


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Personally I think Quest Diagnostics is a credible resource for drug testing. Based on that I think it is the credible evidence needed. I agree there is a chance that Nick's suspension might be reduced but I don't see it outright getting thrown out.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

DanTheJu said:


> My 2 cents, again (does that make it my 4 cents???)
> 
> *The 5th amendment*
> 
> ...


But couldn't Diaz' lawyers now appeal the NSAC claim that it was a civil case¿ It wasn't a civil entity making a law suite against another civil entity (like Goldman v Simpson), but a *state* commission making the law suite for breaking *state* commission's rulings. Also the punishment doesn't seem typical for civil cases. In above mentioned Goldman v Simpson, O.J. Simpson was found guilty in the civil law suite concerning a *murder* case, yet only had a monetary punishment. Diaz, besides the monetary punishment, gets a ban from a *state* commission regulated sport.



kantowrestler said:


> Personally I think Quest Diagnostics is a credible resource for drug testing. Based on that I think it is the credible evidence needed.


Well, wasn't Quest the lab that apparently messed up the testing with Cung Le not long ago¿

And still, there are still TWO WADA approved tests that speak in favor for Diaz and weren't taken into account. That's fishy as hell.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Personally I think Quest Diagnostics is a credible resource for drug testing. Based on that I think it is the credible evidence needed. I agree there is a chance that Nick's suspension might be reduced but I don't see it outright getting thrown out.


What, in your opinion, makes quest credible enough to completely ignore 2 negative tests from a WADA approved facility that uses much stricter collection and testing procedures? 

If a teacher with a Doctorate graded your paper twice and gave you a passing grade while a teach with a bachelors degree graded it and failed you, dont you think you may want to consider the passing grade?

Also quest has a history of being corrupt and knowingly buying/selling/using faulty testing equipment. AND they are not WADA certified for a REASON! Its not a "thin blue sky guess" that I call one testing lab more credible than the other.



Voiceless said:


> But couldn't Diaz' lawyers now appeal the NSAC claim that it was a civil case¿ It wasn't a civil entity making a law suite against another civil entity (like Goldman v Simpson), but a *state* commission making the law suite for breaking *state* commission's rulings. Also the punishment doesn't seem typical for civil cases. In above mentioned Goldman v Simpson, O.J. Simpson was found guilty in the civil law suite concerning a *murder* case, yet only had a monetary punishment. Diaz, besides the monetary punishment, gets a ban from a *state* commission regulated sport.


No, it was not a criminal trial. It is still civil. While it was a state run organization holding the proceedings, and banning him from his chosen profession, that does not cross over into criminal law. It would be no different than a post office terminating somebody for a failed drug test (still civil even though it is a government run organization)


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well in all fairness, Wanderlei Silva's lifetime ban was lifted in an appeals court. Also while I do think Quest is a legitimate testing source, if all you say about it is true then that'll come out in court. Civil court proceedings do come out.


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

Everyones ignoring the hydration levels in Diaz's body that directly affected the Wada test results. This is the whole case of the prosecutor. Everyones just assuming because WADA does things differently that its better and the be all and end all. They don't even do an initial screening for Marijuana, and the guy who testified on behalf of WADA stated this and stated that body hydration levels directly affect marijuana metabolite detection. 

"Diaz was extremely hydrated before the fight" (IV) , and in the third test also "at the higher end of hydration then we normally see". 

They also did not ask for the B sample to be tested, clearly something an innocent person would to to prove there was a mistake with the A sample. 

For some reason people are thinking (Nicks lawyers whole defence) if the word WADA gets mentioned enough it makes Nick innocent. WADA WADA WADA WADA Nada....

The answer to why the 2 tests came back negative, is not "Quest is an inferior testing facilitiy"


----------



## VolcomX311 (Aug 18, 2009)

DonRifle said:


> Everyones ignoring the hydration levels in Diaz's body that directly affected the Wada test results. This is the whole case of the prosecutor. Everyones just assuming because WADA does things differently that its better and the be all and end all. They don't even do an initial screening for Marijuana, and the guy who testified on behalf of WADA stated this and stated that body hydration levels directly affect marijuana metabolite detection.
> 
> "Diaz was extremely hydrated before the fight" (IV) , and in the third test also "at the higher end of hydration then we normally see".
> 
> ...


Nick also had a doctor testify that the amount of water he would need to drink to flush out that much marijuana would almost kill him. I'm not necessarily trying to defend Nick to the end, but the hydration argument was already debunked.

Furthermore, he was more dehydrated at his second WADA test, than he was at his first WADA test. Quest doesn't even test for hydration levels. Quest actually does an inferior test, as they just test urine. WADA tests blood, which is a whole lot more accurate to test anything, in comparison to urine.

I'm not saying Nick's an angel, but the evidence is certainly more in his favor than not, "in this instance."


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

VolcomX311 said:


> Nick also had a doctor testify that the amount of water he would need to drink to flush out that much marijuana would almost kill him. I'm not necessarily trying to defend Nick to the end, but the hydration argument was already debunked.
> 
> Furthermore, he was more dehydrated at his second WADA test, than he was at his first WADA test. Quest doesn't even test for hydration levels. Quest actually does an inferior test, as they just test urine. WADA tests blood, which is a whole lot more accurate to test anything, in comparison to urine.
> 
> I'm not saying Nick's an angel, but the evidence is certainly more in his favor than not, "in this instance."


The doctor Nicks lawyers presented was a quack. They stated he analysed 25,000 urine samples a month which as I said was around the clock work anaylsing 2.5 samples a minute every month. The statement from Nicks lawyers is ridiculous and immediately destroys credibility as soon as it came out of his mouth. 

This is also after two respected scientists from both testing labs confirmed hydration directly affects results. Then the lawyers bring in this guy obviously just paid to to skew that testimony, a tactic used forever by crap lawyers. 

Obviously he was more dehydrated in the second test. He has just rehydrated by IV before the fight, there is no other possible explanation for being 'extremely hydrated' before a fight the day after a weight cut and weigh in.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

People still trying to defend Nick Diaz didn't smoke weed this time? :laugh:


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

DonRifle said:


> The doctor Nicks lawyers presented was a quack. They stated he analysed 25,000 urine samples a month which as I said was around the clock work anaylsing 2.5 samples a minute every month. The statement from Nicks lawyers is ridiculous and immediately destroys credibility as soon as it came out of his mouth.


Do you have a link for this? Are you sure he wasn't saying that the lab he oversees analyzes 25,000 samples a month?


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

That's still quite a bit of samples to do even in a month to get accurately done.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

As for what the evidence shows and what the team could of done or wasnt done by the NAC Im not sure....im not a lawyer.

But every peson in mma beaides mighty mouse has backed Nick.

Nick just now said the UFc set him up with lawyers and is backing him vs the nac.

Ufc's own drug czar said it was wrong what NAC did to Nick Diaz.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

jonnyg4508 said:


> As for what the evidence shows and what the team could of done or wasnt done by the NAC Im not sure....im not a lawyer.
> 
> But every peson in mma beaides mighty mouse has backed Nick.
> 
> ...


This is bullshit. I find it extremely hard to believe that the UFC would do anything good for anyone ever.

- Half the site.


 But nah hopefully Nick gets a lot of the time removed. 2 years at most would be fair, not including the massive amount of money (That shit to me works like higher tax brackets. I don't get them. Because you are more financially successful...you get more money taken from you? Diaz had to hand over more than most fighters get paid just cause he got a big pay day. Fees like that should be flat).


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> That's still quite a bit of samples to do even in a month to get accurately done.


How do you know that? Are you involved in medicine or labwork in some way? And if you are, shouldn't it be obvious to you that it completely depends on the size of the lab? 

I personally don't know that much about the process but I've administered some of the tests I see in the NIH descriptions such as ELISA, they aren't that time consuming, and if you give me enough centrifuges I could spin hundreds of samples at once all by myself. Based on my limited information I don't think it's crazy that a lab could analyze 25,000 samples a month.

edit: for that matter I'd bet you money that even a small Quest lab does far, far more than that.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

I still find it hilarious that people are trying to prove that Nick Diaz WASN'T high.

Hey, you guys remember that time when Malcom X was white?


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Hope you're not talking about me; I challenge you to find where I made that argument


----------



## DonRifle (Jan 18, 2009)

HexRei said:


> Do you have a link for this? Are you sure he wasn't saying that the lab he oversees analyzes 25,000 samples a month?


@ 1h37m of the case video. Then a minute or two later you'll hear the doctors credentials which sound like they are out of a rice crispies box in comparison to the two scientists who testified before him. 

Diaz's lawyer also states its medically impossible and factually impossible for his hydration levels to be so different, when obviously an IV hydration is the reason. Probably his lawyer is either dumb and knows nothing about MMA and how fighters cut weight and rehydrate or is just assuming the commission are dumb. Either way throwing terms around like medically impossible and getting a quack to support the claim is almost insulting. 

And notice right at the end of that little speech he gives how he insults the commission twice - calls them ostriches 'at best' :laugh:, intimates they should be prosecuted and then says 'with all due respect' like he just hasn't insulted them. Its a farce defence that got what it deserved.


----------



## RangerClydeTheBlue (Jul 11, 2012)

HexRei said:


> Hope you're not talking about me; I challenge you to find where I made that argument


I'm not, it's just a big topic everyone's having. "Two out of three tests". Hell we threw the book at Anderson just because of his training partner's last time.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

What do you mean by his training partner's last time?


----------



## King Daisuke (Mar 25, 2013)

Again, this has nothing to do with whether Nick smokes weed or not. Of course he does, everyone knows that. It's all about the NSAC's abuse of power. They gave him five years because they felt disrespected. That's not right, especially when there was clear evidence that Nick passed the test.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well if there are issues with the Quest Diagnostics test then it'll come out in an appeal. Also I don't see Nick denying it at all. If he passed the test then why isn't he saying so?


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

kantowrestler said:


> Well if there are issues with the Quest Diagnostics test then it'll come out in an appeal. Also I don't see Nick denying it at all. If he passed the test then why isn't he saying so?


It is Nicks constitutional right to answer no questions, as it is with anybody accused of a crime. So a remaining silent (a right we all have) should never be held against a defendant. 

Read the bill of rights, it is quite interesting and informative!


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

It is also the right of the board to continue to ask as many questions they want/need, regardless of Nick's lawyers stating they were doing that just to embarrass their client. 

Nick should just have stated he would remain in silence during the whole hearing and citing the 5th amendment just one time. Actually, if he wouldn't say anything at all, as advised by his lawyers before hand, he shouldn't even be present at the hearing and let his lawyers do all the job representing him.

But he went to the hearing, he was seated behind his lawyers and came forward to seat between them just to say nothing but 5th amendment a zillion times. :confused02:
Just crazy.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> It is also the right of the board to continue to ask as many questions they want/need, regardless of Nick's lawyers stating they were doing that just to embarrass their client.
> 
> Nick should just have stated he would remain in silence during the whole hearing and citing the 5th amendment just one time. Actually, if he wouldn't say anything at all, as advised by his lawyers before hand, he shouldn't even be present at the hearing and let his lawyers do all the job representing him.
> 
> ...


Actually, his lawyers told the commission that Diaz wouldn't answer any question but plead the 5th and asked them to stop the questioning procedure and to take that to the record. They didn't want to.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Well the board has the right to ask for the record on everything. His lawyers could say that but they wanted the get the record down. Yes he had the right to deny it but other fighters have made a better defense before even though they lost.


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

Voiceless said:


> Actually, his lawyers told the commission that Diaz wouldn't answer any question but plead the 5th and asked them to stop the questioning procedure and to take that to the record. They didn't want to.


Wasn't that exactly what I said? The point is the lawyers allowed him to be there parroting 5th amendment. Pat Lundvall was the one who said she would make the questions anyway to make the record of the hearing, what is not only her right, but the obvious thing to do.

It's called a "hearing" for a reason. Why Diaz would be present at a hearing if he had in mind nobody would hear nothing from him? Let alone step forward to joining his attorneys just "not to be heard" a little closer to the board.


----------



## Voiceless (Nov 8, 2010)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> Wasn't that exactly what I said? The point is the lawyers allowed him to be there parroting 5th amendment. Pat Lundvall was the one who said she would make the questions anyway to make the record of the hearing, what is not only her right, but the obvious thing to do.
> 
> It's called a "hearing" for a reason. Why Diaz would be present at a hearing if he had in mind nobody would hear nothing from him? Let alone step forward to joining his attorneys just "not to be heard" a little closer to the board.


I'm not an expert in US laws, but maybe not saying anything is not allowed without explanation and you would to explain that you retract from saying anything by referring to the laws that allow it.


----------



## DanTheJu (Mar 3, 2007)

Sportsman 2.0 said:


> It is also the right of the board to continue to ask as many questions they want/need, regardless of Nick's lawyers stating they were doing that just to embarrass their client.





kantowrestler said:


> Well the board has the right to ask for the record on everything. His lawyers could say that but they wanted the get the record down. Yes he had the right to deny it but other fighters have made a better defense before even though they lost.


But that is not how the 5th amendment works. In a criminal case (which this is not, but Diaz's lawyers are stating the 5th still applies, and I agree it should) the accusing party is not even allowed to ask a single question of the defendant if the defendant so chooses.

The accusing party DOES NOT have a right to ask ANYTHING of the defendant. Thats how it works!



Voiceless said:


> I'm not an expert in US laws, but maybe not saying anything is not allowed without explanation and you would to explain that you retract from saying anything by referring to the laws that allow it.


No explanation is required. In fact, in a criminal trial, if the prosecution even calls the defendant to the stand that is grounds for an IMMEDIATE mistrial. So while civil cases are a little different, they should still not be allowed to call the defendant to answer to anything.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

Like I said if the appeal works then it could get reversed like Wanderlei's sentence.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm pretty sure fighters are expected to be at the hearings. Every hearing I have ever watched or heard had the fighters present...a few times they are not there. But that is almost always just for a license.

Any high profile hearing or big suspension hearing always has the fighter present.

And I'd imagine him not showing up would be even worse as the commission wanted him there to make a mockery of him. They would have banned him for life if he was not there. 

I have no idea how it works. But logic says Nick didn't want to be there or answering questions. His team did not want that either via their advice. So doesn't logic state that if Diaz didn't have to be there and answering in some form that his team would have exploited that since that is what they preferred and warned the recorder to just skip the rest because of the permanent 5th plea. 

I don't know how one comes to the conclusion that Diaz just ran up there and wanted to answer the questions and was a "punk" because of it...


----------



## Sportsman 2.0 (Jul 10, 2012)

jonnyg4508 said:


> I'm pretty sure fighters are expected to be at the hearings.


I'm pretty sure they are expected to be heard at the aforementioned hearings too.


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

And this forum upgrade is trippy.


----------



## jonnyg4508 (Jan 30, 2010)

kantowrestler said:


> And this forum upgrade is trippy.


I'm literally tip toeing through this place.

I am now typing this post with my toes.

:happy03:
WAR 209!!!


----------



## kantowrestler (Jun 6, 2009)

What in the world is that supposed to mean?


----------

