Nick Diaz Sues Nevada State Athletic Commission over Drug Suspension
Throughout his insanely controversial career, Nick Diaz has continued a UFC bout into a hospital brawl with his opponent, started a riot on national television and been removed from a championship bout due to skipping press conferences. So you may be asking yourself, "How does MMA's reigning king of controversy outdo himself?"
He sues the Nevada State Athletic Commission for having the audacity to suspend him after failing a drug test.
At UFC 143, Nick Diaz challenged Carlos Condit for the UFC interim welterweight championship. The winner of the fight would challenge Georges St-Pierre in late 2012 when he returns from injury. Diaz lost a closely contested and hotly debated battle, and a rematch was being scheduled for the summer. That is, until Diaz was suspended by the NSAC for a positive post-fight drug test. Diaz, a medical marijuana user, tested positive not for performance-enhancing drugs, but for marijuana metabolites.
Ross Goodman, attorney for Diaz, filed suit against the Nevada State Athletic Commission on Tuesday. The suit seeks relief for his client against a temporary suspension the camp feels is unlawful.
Diaz's camp had previously issued two prior responses on the failed drug test, citing that marijuana metabolites are not specifically banned by the commission.
A Nevada legislative statute states that the commission must rule on a case within 45 days of the a temporary suspension. Goodman invoked this statute earlier this month, as the 45-day window closed on April 6. Goodman stated that after that time, the Diaz camp would consider the state's complaint null and void.
MMAJunkie.com reports that Nevada deputy attorney Christopher Eccles responded that the statute applied only in cases in which "the public health, safety or welfare imperatively require emergency action." He noted that Diaz had not appeared at an NSAC hearing in which a temporary suspension was addressed and reminded Goodman that an agreement to produce Diaz's medical-marijuana card was in place. While that card has yet to be delivered to the commission, Goodman stands by his earlier claim and is now asking the Clark County District Court to rule as such.
More on this story as it develops.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?