When Dana?, you had enough time to gather the fact about the Nick Diaz case.
Where are you at Dana?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpN40Oikhts
BackFootBeauty - What facts still need to be decided? Didnt Diaz pass 2 of the tests? Wasnt there something shady going on with the one test "he failed?" Can someone knowledgable about the case fill me in?
1) its shady an athlete gets tested three times in 5 hours
2) He passed two WADA tests and failed some Quest Lab test, with a factor of 1500% off.
3)He got 5 years, but according to NSAC own rules it should be 24 months for the third Weed offense, but it should not be a hearing passing two WADA tests.
4) In the Anderson Silva case the discharged the Quest result and go with WADA.
Fuck Zuffa for not taking a stand for the rights of a fighter against a CORRUPT AC that did this entirely out of spite.
Hired Gun - Fuck Zuffa for not taking a stand for the rights of a fighter against a CORRUPT AC that did this entirely out of spite.Yea
notsobigmike -Morpheus1976 -BackFootBeauty - What facts still need to be decided? Didnt Diaz pass 2 of the tests? Wasnt there something shady going on with the one test "he failed?" Can someone knowledgable about the case fill me in?
1) its shady an athlete gets tested three times in 5 hours
2) He passed two WADA tests and failed some Quest Lab test, with a factor of 1500% off.
3)He got 5 years, but according to NSAC own rules it should be 24 months for the third Weed offense, but it should not be a hearing passing two WADA tests.
4) In the Anderson Silva case the discharged the Quest result and go with WADA.
This, except I believe it's 36 months for the third offense.
New rules per sept 1 is 36 months, the fight was in January, so old rules is 24 months.
This is like OJ vowing to find the real killer.
this is sports commission speak 101...they always say this "gathering facts" line while they wait for public opinion to dictate how they should respond
gathering facts is just code for "sucking all the dicks"
gathering facts is just code for "sucking all the dicks"
"Fact Gathering" DFW.
Dana isn't about that life.
If this would have happened to conner Dana's head would have instantly hard boiled. 
hendofanforlife -While both of these are true how can you explain the nsac ignoring the two negative results (from the lab they claimed was more credible) and giving him 5 years when their own policy says it should be 2 or 3, I can't rememberMorpheus1976 -BackFootBeauty - What facts still need to be decided? Didnt Diaz pass 2 of the tests? Wasnt there something shady going on with the one test "he failed?" Can someone knowledgable about the case fill me in?
1) its shady an athlete gets tested three times in 5 hours
2) He passed two WADA tests and failed some Quest Lab test, with a factor of 1500% off.
3)He got 5 years, but according to NSAC own rules it should be 24 months for the third Weed offense, but it should not be a hearing passing two WADA tests.
4) In the Anderson Silva case the discharged the Quest result and go with WADA.
1) not the least bit shady with an athlete who has tested posititve twice.
4) andersons case isnt the least bit applicable here
I think they suggested they did it because Diaz was rude and uncooperative. I don't think this is really about pot. This is about the NAC trying to remind everyone who swings the biggest dick, and Nick was the easiest target to dick slap.
1). How is it shady he was tested 3 times? Do you have a source for that? All are tested at least twice, before and after fight. Plus factor in his history
2). I know you want to keep ignoring this when I point it out to you or when the commission released a statement, but they clearly stated they took Nicks 2 failed tests AND his refusal of the CA test into consideration. Just like when a Wand ran from a test and it was implied positive, not sure why it should be different for Nick. So they looked at this as his 4th offense, rightfully so.
TheEmperorRises - This is like OJ vowing to find the real killer.What can you do with a commission that does not follow its own rules and run their own "hearing"?
Their literally doing this because they think they have the right to be punitive, not administrative.
It begs the larger question " just what are the limits of their authority and what is their mandate? Is it to regulate in an administrative manner, or to wield a wide degree of latitude depending on a whim?
hendofanforlife -Morpheus1976 -BackFootBeauty - What facts still need to be decided? Didnt Diaz pass 2 of the tests? Wasnt there something shady going on with the one test "he failed?" Can someone knowledgable about the case fill me in?
1) its shady an athlete gets tested three times in 5 hours
2) He passed two WADA tests and failed some Quest Lab test, with a factor of 1500% off.
3)He got 5 years, but according to NSAC own rules it should be 24 months for the third Weed offense, but it should not be a hearing passing two WADA tests.
4) In the Anderson Silva case the discharged the Quest result and go with WADA.
1) not the least bit shady with an athlete who has tested posititve twice.
4) andersons case isnt the least bit applicable here
shut up, kid, you are lucky if you even can remember your own name.
Jimmy Wrassler -hendofanforlife -While both of these are true how can you explain the nsac ignoring the two negative results (from the lab they claimed was more credible) and giving him 5 years when their own policy says it should be 2 or 3, I can't rememberMorpheus1976 -BackFootBeauty - What facts still need to be decided? Didnt Diaz pass 2 of the tests? Wasnt there something shady going on with the one test "he failed?" Can someone knowledgable about the case fill me in?
1) its shady an athlete gets tested three times in 5 hours
2) He passed two WADA tests and failed some Quest Lab test, with a factor of 1500% off.
3)He got 5 years, but according to NSAC own rules it should be 24 months for the third Weed offense, but it should not be a hearing passing two WADA tests.
4) In the Anderson Silva case the discharged the Quest result and go with WADA.
1) not the least bit shady with an athlete who has tested posititve twice.
4) andersons case isnt the least bit applicable here
If two drug tests fail to find drugs, and a third drug test does find drugs, the commission is going to go with the third one. Drug testing is not scored best two out of three.
Nick and his lawyer really should have requested further testing on his B samples to prove his innocence. I wonder why they never did that?
RampageFitsLikeAGlove -
1). How is it shady he was tested 3 times? Do you have a source for that? All are tested at least twice, before and after fight. Plus factor in his history
2). I know you want to keep ignoring this when I point it out to you or when the commission released a statement, but they clearly stated they took Nicks 2 failed tests AND his refusal of the CA test into consideration. Just like when a Wand ran from a test and it was implied positive, not sure why it should be different for Nick. So they looked at this as his 4th offense, rightfully so.
yes, i have a source for that, henry cejudo confirmed it on the mma hour, even testing twice is shady.
http://www.mmafighting.com/2015/9/22/9370945/the-mma-hour-298-henry-cejudo
i disagree about the fourth offense, he did not have an offense at all.
but this is about Dana keeping quiet, which looks shady, like Lorenza pulling strings on NSAC.
Masakyst -Jimmy Wrassler -hendofanforlife -While both of these are true how can you explain the nsac ignoring the two negative results (from the lab they claimed was more credible) and giving him 5 years when their own policy says it should be 2 or 3, I can't rememberMorpheus1976 -BackFootBeauty - What facts still need to be decided? Didnt Diaz pass 2 of the tests? Wasnt there something shady going on with the one test "he failed?" Can someone knowledgable about the case fill me in?
1) its shady an athlete gets tested three times in 5 hours
2) He passed two WADA tests and failed some Quest Lab test, with a factor of 1500% off.
3)He got 5 years, but according to NSAC own rules it should be 24 months for the third Weed offense, but it should not be a hearing passing two WADA tests.
4) In the Anderson Silva case the discharged the Quest result and go with WADA.
1) not the least bit shady with an athlete who has tested posititve twice.
4) andersons case isnt the least bit applicable here
If two drug tests fail to find drugs, and a third drug test does find drugs, the commission is going to go with the third one. Drug testing is not scored best two out of three.
Nick and his lawyer really should have requested further testing on his B samples to prove his innocence. I wonder why they never did that?
because that Quest lab is shady!