General UFC Chit Chat/News

ASOT

It'll be overturned, he took three tests that day at 7,10&11 the 7 & 11 tests went to the WADA labs and came back clean, the 10 test went to some other lab in new Jersey and came back positive yet no B test was asked for then, that won't hold up in a court if law when it gets appealed.

Mr. Manager

It sucks that the person they make an example of is Nick Diaz.

Only upside to this is that some other people might see the consequences and decide against taking anything else. Hopefully this is the first step in cleaning up the roster.

Mellor

ASOT wrote: »

It'll be overturned, he took three tests that day at 7,10&11 the 7 & 11 tests went to the WADA labs and came back clean, the 10 test went to some other lab in new Jersey and came back positive yet no B test was asked for then, that won't hold up in a court if law when it gets appealed.

Source for that?

I read last week, that he arranged his own tests before the fight and they weren't clean. He knew he could pass and tried to apply for a TUE, but it was too late.
I find it hard to believe that a WADA lab failed to detect weed, or was it a case that they measure it below the allowable threshold - which could easily happen.

jjdonegal

John_D80 wrote: »

Whats so difficult to understand about this ruling really? Diaz got caught taking a performance enhancing substance, THREE TIMES. Its absolutely not the same as a guy getting caught for steroids for the first time. People can go on all they want and say things like 'but its just a little weed'. Bollocks to that, its a performance enhancing substance. Just because its not a 'steroid' doesn't make it any less against the rules. The commissions don't differentiate between, or grade, the different types of PED's, yet afaik. Although I do believe there will be a tiered punishment system implemented in the future.

He knew the risk he was taking and, even worse he knew well in advance thta he was probably going to be tested. I'll miss him but lets be real, he played with fire big time here and he got burned.

Exactly my sentiment. I've no qualms with the ban. 3rd time; only himself to blame.

ASOT

Mellor wrote: »

Source for that?

I read last week, that he arranged his own tests before the fight and they weren't clean. He knew he could pass and tried to apply for a TUE, but it was too late.
I find it hard to believe that a WADA lab failed to detect weed, or was it a case that they measure it below the allowable threshold - which could easily happen.

http://www.mmafighting.com/2015/9/14/9326445/nick-diaz-suspended-five-years-for-failed-ufc-183-drug-test

It's what his attorney was pressing through the whole hearing but it was ignored. If that's actually the case it'll easily be overturned in a court of law. There's also questions about how the failed sample was handled how it actually had Diaz name on it when it wasn't suppose to.

John_D80

Cereal Rapper wrote: »

It sucks that the person they make an example of is Nick Diaz.

To be fair I dont think at all that they would have been any more or less strict/lenient on anyone else if they were getting done for a third offence and not co-operating with them.

I certainly dont think they are making an example of him. His punishment seems to be in line with recently approved guidelines for repeat cannabis offenders. The guidelines reccomend minimum 36 months. I only watched a few minutes of the hearing here and there but there was a few occasions where the Commission representatives cited examples of his non-compliance with various rules and regs. Id imagine thats where the extra 24 months came from. And 'pleading the fifth' probably did ingratiate him with the commission either.

He knew he was looking at 3 years minimum.

John_D80

ASOT wrote: »

http://www.mmafighting.com/2015/9/14/9326445/nick-diaz-suspended-five-years-for-failed-ufc-183-drug-test

It's what his attorney was pressing through the whole hearing but it was ignored. If that's actually the case it'll easily be overturned in a court of law. There's also questions about how the failed sample was handled how it actually had Diaz name on it when it wasn't suppose to.

His attorneys came across as absolute pro's in fairness. They were sh1t hot. I reckon they were angling towards an appeal from the start. There was a few occasions where they pretty much let the commision people hang themselves so they could call them out on national and state constitutional laws. All stuff that can be used to get and/or win an appeal.

My own personal feeling is the ban will be reduced to 3 years on appeal but he wont be cleared.

ASOT

John_D80 wrote: »

His attorneys came across as absolute pro's in fairness. They were sh1t hot. I reckon they were angling towards an appeal from the start. There was a few occasions where they pretty much let the commision people hang themselves so they could call them out on national and state constitutional laws. All stuff that can be used to get and/or win an appeal.

My own personal feeling is the ban will be reduced to 3 years on appeal but he wont be cleared.

Yeah 100%thats what they were gunning for, by overturned I meant reduced, I don't expect him to get off completely but I can see the ban and fine being massively reduced because of this!

Roar

John_D80 wrote: »

Diaz got caught taking a performance enhancing substance, THREE TIMES.

Weed isn't a performing enhancing substance. It's a banned substance. It isn't performance enhancing. The only thing that it enhances is a desire to eat crisps and watch cartoons for a few hours.

John_D80

Roar wrote: »

Weed isn't a performing enhancing substance. It's a banned substance. It isn't performance enhancing. The only thing that it enhances is a desire to eat crisps and watch cartoons for a few hours.

According to the NSAC, cannabis is (rightly) considered a performance enhancing substance.

Roar

rightly? LOL. How would marijuana enhance ones performance, out of interest?

Saipanne

Roar wrote: »

rightly? LOL. How would marijuana enhance ones performance, out of interest?

You are incurious.

https://www.google.ie/search?q=marijuana+as+performance+enhancing+drug&oq=marijuana+as+ped&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l3.9532j0j4&client=ms-android-htc-rev&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8

John_D80

Roar wrote: »

rightly? LOL. How would marijuana enhance ones performance, out of interest?

Most drugs, natural and manufactured, have many varied uses and effects.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+cannabis+a+performance+enhancing+drug%3F

That_Guy

I expected Diaz to get a minimum of 2 years. 5 is absolutely excessive when you consider Anderson Silva only got a 1 year suspension for PED's.

It seems to be a personal vendetta against him. If this was anybody else I'm sure it would have been 1-2 years suspension.

One of them calling for a lifetime ban was just ridiculous.

Davei141

Lots of tools commenting (why am i surprised here) who haven't even watched or read about the hearing making definitive statements. If you watched that hearing and still believe that ban should be upheld there is no hope for you. His defence tore the NSAC and Chris Eccles shoddy and rubbish practices apart. But by all means because you don't like Nick Diaz then screw the fact this is a disgrace.

The commission ignored 2 WADA accredited lab tests and went with the one test that wasn't accredited that turned up a ridiculously high result. One of the commissioners even said "we can't afford to use WADA accredited labs, we wish we could but it is not possible, so we will go with the lesser lab."

The Quest lab result had Diaz's name on the form which is a huge no-no. The commission just simply ignored all the evidence, which is fine if you don't like Nick Diaz i suppose.

DrPhilG

When the NSAC announced stricter sentences on drugs, including heavy sentences for repeat offenders, everyone cheered.

Now they follow through and everyone boos?

Davei141

DrPhilG wrote: »

When the NSAC announced stricter sentences on drugs, including heavy sentences for repeat offenders, everyone cheered.

Now they follow through and everyone boos?

Huh? cheering stricter sentences for weed? A few on this forum maybe? Certainly not a single MMA fighter.

BTW the NSAC's announced "stricter sentences" were 24 months less than what Diaz received. 3rd time popped for weed = 36 months in the "stricter sentences".

Yeah lets just lump "drugs" together.

MartyMcFly84

In my opinion pot is not performance enhancing, but that is not really the point.

Undeniably Nick has broken the rules three times. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. He is a professional athlete has has to abide by the Athletic Commission rules if he wants to fight professionally.

The commission needs to enforce its own rules. Nick Diaz purposely disregarded them multiple times. Really Nick did not give them much of choice. The dude prefers to smoke pot coming up to fights more than he wants to have a professional career.

All he has to do is not smoke pot for a month and he would not have any issues. He has no one to blame but himself.

John_D80

Davei141 wrote: »

Huh? cheering stricter sentences for weed? A few on this forum maybe? Certainly not a single MMA fighter.

BTW the NSAC's announced "stricter sentences" were 24 months less than what Diaz received. 3rd time popped for weed = 36 months in the "stricter sentences".

Yeah lets just lump "drugs" together.

36 months was only a guidline. The commission obviously took his repeated non compliance into account when coming to a sentence of five years.

John_D80

Davei141 wrote: »

Lots of tools commenting (why am i surprised here) who haven't even watched or read about the hearing making definitive statements. If you watched that hearing and still believe that ban should be upheld there is no hope for you. His defence tore the NSAC and Chris Eccles shoddy and rubbish practices apart. But by all means because you don't like Nick Diaz then screw the fact this is a disgrace.

Eh I like Nick Diaz. A lot actually, an I will miss seeing him fight. I watched the hearing (as much as I could anyway) and I still think he should have got at least 3 years.

To be fair, while yes his defence were good, a lot of the time they were trying to argue totally moot points and they were obviously angling for an appeal from the start as they knew they were never gonna get a result yesterday.

Davei141

How can you watch that hearing and come out with the opinion he deserved 3 years? If facts were taken into account and it wasn't a kangaroo court he wouldn't have got close to that or even anything at all. He got 5 years for having the audacity to defend himself with an extremely competent defence who showed up the NSAC. You think it is fair that somebody gets their career ended by defending themselves and driving a bus through the holes in the prosecution?

If that was even remotely close to the professionalism of a court of law he would be off. In one hour he managed to drop from 733ng/ml to 61ng/ml without super hydrating. The WADA tests were completely consistent while the Quest test was off the charts, the Quest test that was taken by someone with no experience and didn't even fill out their forms correctly. It also had his name on the form! How ridiculous can you get?

John_D80

I think its absloutely fair when someone who has repeatedly ignored rules and regulations is taken to task and punished. Diaz, the NSAC and everyone involved knows he did wrong. Repeatedly. And now its bit him in the arse.

He's far from the crusader some people are trying to make him out to be. And weed is far from being harmless when considered as a PED. He knowingly and willingly used performance enhancing/recreational drugs in the lead up to a fight. If he wanted to pass ANY test (WADA approved or otherwise) he could have very easily done so by not taking drugs.

Davei141

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

In my opinion pot is not performance enhancing, but that is not really the point.

Undeniably Nick has broken the rules three times. Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant. He is a professional athlete has has to abide by the Athletic Commission rules if he wants to fight professionally.

The commission needs to enforce its own rules. Nick Diaz purposely disregarded them multiple times. Really Nick did not give them much of choice. The dude prefers to smoke pot coming up to fights more than he wants to have a professional career.

All he has to do is not smoke pot for a month and he would not have any issues. He has no one to blame but himself.

Great. Another person who hasn't bothered to read anything about the hearing firing off their opinion. It was deniable, and very well denied by his legal team and WADA accredited lab tests.

John_D80

Davei141 wrote: »

Great. Another person who hasn't bothered to read anything about the hearing firing off their opinion. It was deniable, and very well denied by his legal team and WADA accredited lab tests.

Two previous judgements against him from the same commission. Sorry mate but that is pretty undeniable in anyones book. The judgements were passed and the time to appeal them is long gone.

Are you seriously trying to say Nick Diaz DIDN'T use Cannabis in the run up to the fight with Silva?

Or the other two times he was caught for it? C'mon man, you cant be that naive seriously.

Davei141

John_D80 wrote: »

I think its absloutely fair when someone who has repeatedly ignored rules and regulations is taken to task and punished. Diaz, the NSAC and everyone involved knows he did wrong. Repeatedly. And now its bit him in the arse.

He's far from the crusader some people are trying to make him out to be. And weed is far from being harmless when considered as a PED. He knowingly and willingly used performance enhancing/recreational drugs in the lead up to a fight. If he wanted to pass ANY test (WADA approved or otherwise) he could have very easily done so by not taking drugs.

The part in bold pretty much says it all about your mindset the fact you keep trying to blur the lines like as if he was taking steroids. I guess it is easier to justify ending someones career if you lump them all in together I suppose.

Davei141

John_D80 wrote: »

Two previous judgements against him from the same commission. Sorry mate but that is pretty undeniable in anyones book. The judgements were passed and the time to appeal them is long gone.

Are you seriously trying to say Nick Diaz DIDN'T use Cannabis in the run up to the fight with Silva?

Or the other two times he was caught for it? C'mon man, you cant be that naive seriously.

Eh you do know it isn't prohibited to use Cannabis right? There is a threshold of 150ng/ml. So constantly repeating eh he used Cannabis means nothing. Explain the drop of 733ng/ml to 61ng/ml in one hour for me. A medical professional said it was highly dangerous and implausible to hydrate that much to explain the drop. Lets not let the facts get in the way. 5 year ban based on the worst evidence possible but it is cool because you know Nick Diaz smokes weed! Brilliant reasoning.

John_D80

Davei141 wrote: »

The part in bold pretty much says it all about your mindset the fact you keep trying to blur the lines like as if he was taking steroids. I guess it is easier to justify ending someones career if you lump them all in together I suppose.

My mindset? Riiiight. My mindset as you call it is based solely on the fact that he broke the rules. No blurred lines there at all.

MartyMcFly84

Great. Another person who hasn't bothered to read anything about the hearing firing off their opinion. It was deniable, and very well denied by his legal team and WADA accredited lab tests.

This is a public board for people to express their opinion.

If Nick had not been smoking pot in the run up to the fight he would not be in trouble. He has a history of doing this.

I am sure Nick's attitude had annoyed people along the way and could have influenced the severity of the punishment. But non the less he has failed multiple tests , you don't fail these tests for marijuana if you are not consuming marijuana

John_D80

Davei141 wrote: »

Eh you do know it isn't prohibited to use Cannabis right? There is a threshold of 150ng/ml. So constantly repeating eh he used Cannabis means nothing. Explain the drop of 733ng/ml to 61ng/ml in one hour for me. A medical professional said it was highly dangerous and implausible to hydrate that much to explain the drop. Lets not let the facts get in the way. 5 year ban based on the worst evidence possible but it is cool because you know Nick Diaz smokes weed! Brilliant reasoning.

Of course it means something. 150ng/ml is a ridiculously generous threshold.



Even his test to get licensed at all was suspicious. You can speculate all you want but at the end of the day he broke the rules and he got caught. And now he will be punished for it.

Mellor

ASOT wrote: »

http://www.mmafighting.com/2015/9/14/9326445/nick-diaz-suspended-five-years-for-failed-ufc-183-drug-test

It's what his attorney was pressing through the whole hearing but it was ignored. If that's actually the case it'll easily be overturned in a court of law. There's also questions about how the failed sample was handled how it actually had Diaz name on it when it wasn't suppose to.

Cheers for that.
Without seeing the full results it's hard to know anything for sure. But I'd question them describing the first and third tests as "clean". If it was absolutely clean, the failed test is very odd. But what they probably mean is the 1st & 3rd tests were below the 150ng/ml threshold. I'd be interested to see the exact readings though.

They test the samples for how diluted they are. The this is what each test found

The Quest report registered a creatinine level of 168.4 mg/dL, which is virtually right in the middle of Quest's reference range of 20-to-370 mg/dL.

The SMRTL tests produced specific gravity readings of 1.003 and 1.006. According to Eichner, "ideal" specific gravity for a urine sample is approximately 1.020. A reading of 1.000 indicates water

I'd read that as if the 1st and 3rd were more "watery". So it makes sense that concentrations of marijuana were lower in those samples. If they were like 100ng/ml or so, then "the clean tests" are fairly irrelevant tbh.