Nick Diaz

Chase3

We all know what happened by now. Nick Diaz was suspended for 5 years for testing positive for weed on 1 out of 3 tests for his fight with Anderson Silva in January. His defense was solid, his lawyers did a great job, but the NSAC are a bunch of ego maniacs. They felt disrespected so they went down on him hard, disrespect isn't against the rules. Nor is evoking your constitutional right not to testify against yourself.

It's a disgusting travesty and it will almost definitely be overturned in court, but that may take a long time. In the meantime, how does everyone feel about it? You can contact the NSAC here, (http://boxing.nv.gov/contact/Contact_Us/) be polite please, no reason for anger and insults, just lay out the facts and let them know they are wrong.

#Freenickdiaz

Mellor

Chase3 wrote: »

testing positive for weed on 1 out of 3 tests for his fight

All three tests turned up weed.
Two were below the threshold, but it was present in all three samples.

I think that that aspect is a big obstacle to getting it overturned. Had they been zeros, then he might have be able to argue that the 2nd test is way off.

Fromvert

From what I can tell a huge problem is that the testing for weed using urine isn't very accurate at all. You can't prove he used it 'during competition' because of this.

Mellor

Fromvert wrote: »

From what I can tell a huge problem is that the testing for weed using urine isn't very accurate at all.

Urine tests in general aren't very accurate.
It's basically 100s of substances dissolved in an amount water. And the amount of water is going to have a large effect of the amount of substance per ml.

I imagine that after a tough training session, a night on the beer, or when dehydrated. That a dark orange urine is going to give concentrated levels of everything compared to crystal clear urine after drinking 2 litres of water

You can't prove he used it 'during competition' because of this.

They don't need to. Having metabolites in his system during comp is also a fail, even if the active part of the drug wasn't in his system at the time.

Fromvert

Mellor wrote: »

Urine tests in general aren't very accurate.
It's basically 100s of substances dissolved in an amount water. And the amount of water is going to have a large effect of the amount of substance per ml.

I imagine that after a tough training session, a night on the beer, or when dehydrated. That a dark orange urine is going to give concentrated levels of everything compared to crystal clear urine after drinking 2 litres of water


They don't need to. Having metabolites in his system during comp is also a fail, even if the active part of the drug wasn't in his system at the time.

That's the problem as you're allowed to use outside of competition but it can stay in your body until you are in competition as there are no hard rules on how long it will stay in your body. The answer is not just don't take it either.

The rule is a bad rule and needs to be changed. I hope if/when he gets it to a court a judge reverses it and the NSAC change it's ridiculous hard stance on weed. But I can't see it happening as we all saw the type of people that are part of the NSAC (laughing at the fact Diaz's lawyer would object). They basically took it as an offence that he attempted to mount a strong defence instead of getting on his knees.

Mellor

Fromvert wrote: »

That's the problem as you're allowed to use outside of competition but it can stay in your body until you are in competition as there are no hard rules on how long it will stay in your body.

I'm aware that it can take a long time to clear for heavy users. But the rules are based on what turns up in a blood/urine test at the fight time, they kind of have to be treated like that or how else would it work.

The answer is not just don't take it either.

That essentially is the answer, or rather don't smoke it anywhere near a fight.
The alternative is to ban it in competition also.

The rule is a bad rule and needs to be changed. I hope if/when he gets it to a court a judge reverses it and the NSAC change it's ridiculous hard stance on weed. But I can't see it happening as we all saw the type of people that are part of the NSAC (laughing at the fact Diaz's lawyer would object). They basically took it as an offence that he attempted to mount a strong defence instead of getting on his knees.

It's a WADA rule, not an NSAC rule.

Fromvert

Mellor wrote: »

That essentially is the answer, or rather don't smoke it anywhere near a fight.
The alternative is to ban it in competition also.



It's a WADA rule, not an NSAC rule.

The answer is it's a bad rule that needs to be changed. Not just tough ****, this is the rule you stick to it or **** you. Rules always change and they usually only change because of a push back against it.

Obviously they need a way to stop people competing while high but banning people for five years and talking about life time bans when they can't prove they actually competed under the influence is just crazy talk.

Do you agree with the decision they made?

Mellor

Fromvert wrote: »

The answer is it's a bad rule that needs to be changed. Not just tough ****, this is the rule you stick to it or **** you. Rules always change and they usually only change because of a push back against it.

They already increased the limit from 50ng to 150ng to allow for people who were using it between fights. I can't see them going any higher.

One option would be to give the fighters the choice to opt for a blood test for substances banned in-comp only.

Obviously they need a way to stop people competing while high but banning people for five years and talking about life time bans when they can't prove they actually competed under the influence is just crazy talk.

I don't think being under the influence is what they are really trying to prevent tbh.
Example, airline pilots, zero tolerance drugs and alcohol policy. They can and do get tested work. Say a pilot turns up cocaine in his system. It doesn't matter if he is under the influence at that stage or not. If its in his system, he'll be suspended or fired. Thats generally how drug testing works. They didn't actually find active steroids in Silva's system either, they found metabolites - basically waste left overs.

Do you agree with the decision they made?

Absolutely not. The 5 year ban was ridiculous.
But I'm also not under the impression that Diaz didn't break the current rules here, where its a bad rule irrelevant, he knew what he was. And he was worried he'd fail as he was taking his own drug tests at the UFC offices, and he was failing them during fight week..

Chase3

Mellor wrote: »

All three tests turned up weed.
Two were below the threshold, but it was present in all three samples.

I think that that aspect is a big obstacle to getting it overturned. Had they been zeros, then he might have be able to argue that the 2nd test is way off.

The other two samples were under the limit so it's essentially as good as a clean test. As far as the rules go. Also this is different than the pilot thing you mentioned as weed and some other drugs like cocaine are only banned in competition. Sure they can stay in your system but a positive test for either a week before the fight is perfectly fine.

They can't test for when someone used, so they simply say you can't test positive for it before or after the fight.

Regardless, his punishment is insane. A repeat offender (second time) recently in California got 90 days.

Den_M

A third-time weed offense can be punished by up to 3 years going by the NSAC guidelines. The extra 2 years must have been due to simply being Nick Diaz - i.e. not giving 2 sh!ts about rules since forever and generally having a big mouth and an empty head about such things.

I like watching Nick fight and the sentence seems excessive but he signed a contract and went ahead and smoked anyway like he always does, like he always was going to. It's hard to have sympathy when he goes into detail in interviews about how he gets around drug tests before fights and how he probably would have failed tests before previous fights that he got away with.

His team decided he would go down the 5th Amendment route in the hearing and it made things worse.

This talk about 1 of 3 tests and metabolites etc...Nick smokes all day every day right up until the very last moment he thinks he can get away with it before fights. It didn't work this time - much like the last 2 times. He has to suck it up. I smoke myself and it has led to problems in my working life before which I have accepted because the rules are there in black and white and breaking them means you accept the consequences.

Joe Rogan blabbing on about weed not having PED qualities is neither here nor there, it's banned along with coke, mdma etc. A matter for another time.

Whether it was a 3 or 5 year ban, was the result on Diaz' career the same at this stage?

clever user name

You'd imagine smoking a lot of weed would hinder your performance, not enhance it. But as has been said, he knew the rules and still choose to do it. If it had been a one year ban I'd have had no problem with that. However, 5 years excessive and I do feel sorry for him.

I can see it being reduced, but not by enough to save his career unfortunately. Shame, even though I think he's a knob I still like watching him fight.

Wrongway1985

Leading a high profile scuffle at an event overlooked by NSAC personnel when a hearing pending couldn't have helped either.

It's not a PED some may say otherwise even GSP an advocate against drug users asked for the Diaz fight after he tested positive v Condit, the main point is its on the banned list which Nick has acted like it doesn't exist.

John_D80

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Leading a high profile scuffle at an event overlooked by NSAC personnel when a hearing pending couldn't have helped either.

It's not a PED some may say otherwise even GSP an advocate against drug users asked for the Diaz fight after he tested positive v Condit, the main point is its on the banned list which Nick has acted like it doesn't exist.

According to WADA, it is a PED though.

Mellor

Chase3 wrote: »

The other two samples were under the limit so it's essentially as good as a clean test. As far as the rules go.

As far as the rules yes. But I was refering the logistics of the spiked second test.

Also this is different than the pilot thing you mentioned as weed and some other drugs like cocaine are only banned in competition. Sure they can stay in your system but a positive test for either a week before the fight is perfectly fine.

I don't see how that's different.
Somebody tested for their job will only be tested at work, they can do all the drugs they want when off work, but have to be clean when they should up to work.
Some jobs are tested annually, you only have to be clean for the annual test.

They can't test for when someone used, so they simply say you can't test positive for it before or after the fight.

Even if they could test for when he used, i doubt they care.

John_D80

The whole lead up to the fight including and especially all the failed tests before his licence was granted are more than enough evidence to show that he has little or no regard for NSAC rules and regs. He scraped through the licencing test after god knows how many failed attempts.

When he was struggling to pass the tests with literally just days to go to the fight with Anderson, he was trying to get a TUE so he could get licenced. Even now his lawyers are trying to get an injunction to stop the release of all the pre licencing tests he failed 2-3 days before the fight.

Mellor

Den_M wrote: »

Joe Rogan blabbing on about weed not having PED qualities is neither here nor there,.

I'm reading Eddie Bravos book atm, and in the introduction he talks about how much weed improves his jiujitsu.
Joe actually did the foreward for the book. And I'm pretty sure he spoke about the benefits of weed at some point.

I like Joe a lot, but the stuff he's come out with this week contradicts a lot of what he said previously.

Chase3

I guess I'm more on the side of if a rule makes no sense, it shouldn't be a rule, but it's the excessive punishment that really bothers me.

As for Rogan, he does believe it enhances your performance but is saying that since there is no scientific evidence saying that, it shouldn't be in the rules. That would be a fun clinical trial.

My own belief is that it probably enhances your performance if you use it often as it allows you to get into the Zone and feel better overall. (Pain relief too) I don't think it would help everybody. I'm pretty sure alcohol used to help me in games like Unreal tournament, but I wouldn't call it a performance enhancer.

Mr. Manager

Mellor wrote: »

I'm reading Eddie Bravos book atm, and in the introduction he talks about how much weed improves his jiujitsu.
Joe actually did the foreward for the book. And I'm pretty sure he spoke about the benefits of weed at some point.

I like Joe a lot, but the stuff he's come out with this week contradicts a lot of what he said previously.

He said something along the lines of "smoking opens your mind to things you wouldn't have thought about. When I'm rolling stoned, I have all these crazy ideas but then I come down without having smoked it's like my brain turns off"

An actual quote from him talking about training while stoned

"You don’t even realize how little independence the mind normally has from the pull of its biological vessel until you find a way to completely silence that inner chimp"

And another

I think it is a performance-enhancing drug. If it wasn’t, a huge majority of jiu-jitsu guys wouldn't be using it before they train. A lot of Brazilian guys use marijuana before they train. A lot of American jiu-jitsu guys use it before they train. And they don’t do it because it hurts them; they do it because it helps them.

I think if testosterone is legal, you can easily make the argument that marijuana should be legal under a doctor’s prescription. I do believe that they’re both performance-enhancing substances. I think that testosterone is in fact, more of a performance-enhancer

Foxtrol

If cocaine stayed in your system for a few weeks would the same posters think it was a bad rule if fighters were being suspended for it being found during tests at events?

Wrongway1985

John_D80 wrote: »

According to WADA, it is a PED though.

I know that if you read my post that was according to me (my opinion) not stating facts

ASOT

http://www.mmafighting.com/2015/9/16/9338385/henry-cejudo-refuses-to-fight-in-nevada-in-light-of-nick-diazs

Cejudo won't fight in Nevada anymore, wouldn't be surprised if more fighters follow suit.

CatFromHue

Fairly well explained reasoning there from Cejudo but isn't he on a bit of rocky ground with the UFC already?

ASOT

CatFromHue wrote: »

Fairly well explained reasoning there from Cejudo but isn't he on a bit of rocky ground with the UFC already?

Kinda, he seems to be the only real threat to DJ which let's him hold a few extra cards, especially if he beats Formiga. After seeing all the fighters reactions I wouldn't be surprised if this starts a trend, the NSAC made themselves look fairly ****ty.

Fair play to Ronda
Would have been very easy for her to keep her mouth shut, I think this is cool.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgjdhAYZOXE#t=0m45s

Saipanne

Foxtrol wrote: »

If cocaine stayed in your system for a few weeks would the same posters think it was a bad rule if fighters were being suspended for it being found during tests at events?

Of course they wouldn't. This only applies to their own drug of choice.

dave1982

Listening to chaels podcast he touched on this, which I agree with. Medicine is PED it improves you makes you better. Weed is classed as medicine in some states of America so it can be classed a PED. He also said a drug is either on the banned list or not and this is according to him. So Diaz should have admitted his use apologised and moved on. This claiming the 5th is stupid imo. If he had cooperated maybe ban be lot less. Diaz went in there showed no regard for commission

Mellor

Nick was tested 4 times in-competition, on fight-night, not 3 times.
2 samples went to SMRTL (WADA lab) - pre-fight and post fight samples, and
2 samples went to Quest Diagnostics, - pre-fight and post fight samples.

The Quest post fight sample was positive for marijuana metabolites

Fromvert

Mellor wrote: »

Nick was tested 4 times in-competition, on fight-night, not 3 times.
2 samples went to SMRTL (WADA lab) - pre-fight and post fight samples, and
2 samples went to Quest Diagnostics, - pre-fight and post fight samples.

The Quest post fight sample was positive for marijuana metabolites

Is there a reason for that happening? I think you mentioned before, that one test could have more water in it, is that it?

I also heard a few journalists mention his name was on the Quest lab test or tests which isn't allowed since they're meant to be anonymous. Could a judge throw it out or do something because of this? That's if he brings it to a judge.

Mellor

Fromvert wrote: »

Is there a reason for that happening? I think you mentioned before, that one test could have more water in it, is that it?

Pre and post fight tests is normal, but two of each to two labs is excessive. That said, Silva's urine was sent to both labs too, only one found drostanolone.

From what I can see, the quest pre fight test hasn't been mentioned in any of the articles I've seen. It appears that they tested the pre sample for steroids, and the post sample for other drugs.

Re: water content. The Quest labs uses creatinine levels instead of specific gravity.
The prefight sample has 22.5mg of creatinine, the post fight was 168mg.
Both are with a normal range, but the increase post fight probably suggests post fight dehydration. Which could spike the levels of solute in his urine.

I also heard a few journalists mention his name was on the Quest lab test or tests which isn't allowed since they're meant to be anonymous. Could a judge throw it out or do something because of this? That's if he brings it to a judge.

The report has his name on it. Although it says NICHOLAS DAIZ, obviously a buddy of Giblert Melendez