Combat Sports Law

Further Update January 12, 2016 – Diaz and the NAC reached a settlement agreement that was unanimously approved at the hearing.  His suspension was reduced from 5 years to 18 months.  His fine was reduced from $166,462 to $100,000.  Diaz was ordered to provide the NAC three clean urine test results before is next contest in Nevada. If Nevada is not to be the venue of his next bout then this last requirement need not be complied with.

Here is a full copy of the Diaz/NAC settlement agreement  (h/t Steve Marrocco) – Nick Diaz NAC Settlement.  The key points are as follows

– Suspension reduced from 5 years to 18 months

– Fine reduced from $166K to $100K

– Diaz has to give the NAC 3 clean urine tests before they will relicence him.  These will test for substances banned out of competition and in competition (ie Marijuana) 

– if Diaz fights in a jurisditction outside of Nevada then he need not comply with the urine test requirement 

– Each side bears their own legal fees

– Fine to be paid by December 2016 

– If Diaz breaches the agreement it reverts to the original punishment

– Diaz gives up his right to sue / seek judicial review of the NAC’s prior actions

Update January 12, 2016 – The Nevada Athletic Commission has moved the Wanderlei Silva re-hearing, yet again, now to February.  This was done over strong objections by Silva’s counsel that the delays are violating his due process rights.  Commissioner Marnell explained that the further delay is due to him not being comfortable to an apparently agreed plea bargain.

____________________________________

Top agenda items for this week’s Nevada Athletic Commission meeting are Wanderlei Silva and Nick Diaz.

After having his lifetime ban for running from a Nevada State Athletic Commission drug tester overturned as ‘arbitrary and capricious’ Wanderlei Silva’s rehearing is at the top if the NAC’s agenda this week.

The hearing will not focus on whether the NAC had authority to request an out of competition test of Silva (who was unlicensed at the time) rather it will focus solely on what a fair punishment is for such an infraction.  A further appeal is apparently underway about whether the NSAC enjoyed jurisdiction to ask for the test in the first place, but on the assumption they did, the NAC will set the tone for punishments that can be expected for test avoidance.

Of note the NAC’s suggested ‘tough on doping’ penalties (which were not in force at the time of Silva’s test avoidance) call for a 48 month ban for first time test avoidance infraction.

Diaz, on the other hand, has apparently struck a deal with the NAC and will face a plea bargain of sorts where his 5 year ban will be reduced and Diaz, in exchange, will presumably accept the new penalty in exchange for giving up his rights of judicial review where the current 5 year ban would likely receive similar judicial comments as Silva’s lifetime ban.

I will update this post once the NAC announce their new penalties for these combatants.