NSAC Says Nick Diaz Could Of Applied for Marijuana Exemption Prior to UFC 143
It is likely that Nick Diaz will face disciplinary action from the Nevada State Athletic Commission for failing his UFC 143 drug test, but it appears the outspoken welterweight could of prevented it.
Diaz tested positive for marijuana following his bout with Carlos Condit, which is his second offense in less than five years. In an exclusive interview with CagePotato.com, NSAC Executive Director Keith Kizer said that Diaz could of applied for a therapeutic exemption.
And while Diaz's manager Cesar Gracie, and Diaz himself, have claimed he uses marijuana for medicinal reasons, Kizer said neither Diaz or his camp had issued a statement regarding his marijuana treatment.
“I have no idea what [Diaz’s] marijuana situation is,” Kizer said. "No one from his camp has ever come to me or the commission and tried to explain it.”
Kizer said that a fighter can apply for therapeutic exemption when either the fighter or his doctor can prove the treatment they have prescribed is only to be used to treat a fighter's injury or illness, without giving the fighter an advantage over his opponent.
Kizer also said that fighters have applied for a therapeutic exemption in the past, giving the commission a few weeks to process the information and make a decision on whether or not to grant the fighter permission.
Fighters have applied for a therapeutic exemption for testosterone replacement therapy and other various prescribed drugs, but Kizer said no fighter has applied for a therapeutic exemption for marijuana.
"I’ve never had that—a fighter saying they want to use marijuana for medicinal purposes,” he said.
Kizer said Diaz will have a hearing with the NSAC later this year, but he can still discuss the option of applying for therapeutic exemption, although he had not applied for one prior to any of his previous fights.
"We’ve had that with athletes before where they come into their hearings and say that they did this or took that, explain mitigating circumstances and argue that they should be allowed to have done so,” he said.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?