Nate Diaz suspended for tweet

May 17, 2013

MMA Fighting reports that Nate Diaz has been suspended pending an investigation for a tweet in which he made a gay slur.  Diaz sent the tweet in defense of Pat Healy as he had been stripped of bonuses for testing positive for marijuana use.

Diaz used the slur to refer to Brian Caraway, the UFC fighter that received the submission of the night bonus after the UFC stripped Healy of the bonus.  Incidentally, it was Caraway that lobbied Dana White for the raise in bonuses for UFC 159.

We all remember that the UFC suspended Matt Mitrione for statements that he made on The MMA Hour in relation to Fallon Fox.  The suspension was short-lived as Mitrione was scheduled a fight after only two weeks of discipline.

Diaz is coming off his second loss in  a row as he suffered the first TKO of his career against Josh Thomson.  MMA Junkie reports Diaz’s manager, Mike Kogan, advised Diaz not to delete the offensive tweet and that people look up the offending word in the dictionary.  He explained that the word is slang in Northern California.

Payout Perspective:

This probably violates the UFC’s Code of Conduct.  Maybe the UFC should have another Fighter Summit to refresh its fighters on what is appropriate to tweet or say to the media. Even if Diaz believed the name calling to be benign and not a slur against homosexuals, but more of dissing Caraway (something seemingly explained by Kogan), he should have called him something else.  With Kogan supporting Diaz’s stance and choice of words, it will be interesting to see what happens next.  Certainly, the standard way to address issues like this is to apologize for the choice of words.  Here, we are asked to refer to a dictionary. We will see how this works.

6 Responses to “Nate Diaz suspended for tweet”

  1. Jose on May 17th, 2013 7:03 PM

    But UFC celebrates Cain Velasquez with his giant racist “Brown Pride” tattoo.

  2. michael on May 18th, 2013 3:44 AM

    Just read that he will be suspended for 90 days and has to pay a 20k fine, which the ufc will donate to charity

  3. Machiel Van on May 20th, 2013 9:58 AM

    In what context is Cain’s tattoo racist? It might be offensive to some, but doesn’t the fact that he’s a Mexican American preclude it being “racist” per se? I’m curious about this.

  4. Diego on May 20th, 2013 1:11 PM

    MV,

    If a Caucasian fighter had a “White Pride” tattoo he wouldn’t be allowed in the Octagon, but for some reason Hispanics can wear “Brown Pride” and no one bats an eye. It is racist. And as an Hispanic, married to an Indian, with Filipino and Arab friends (among others) I’m wondering exactly which “Brown” he’s talking about. My mom is Venezuelan and she’s as white as can be though she’s considered Hispanic. Whereas some of my dad’s family in the south of Spain are much darker (for the same reason as Sicilians for any of you “True Romance” fans) – though they are considered European.

    Something like “Mexican Pride” or “Hecho en Mexico” would be OK with me. Those refer to a cultural affiliation, not a racial one. “Guerrero Azteca” is also OK, though it has racial connotations, it is generally taken to be a cultural link.

    But reducing a specific cultural heritage to one color – brown – which is shared by about 50% of the world’s population strikes me as ignorant. Note that I have never seen anyone in Mexico with “Brown Pride” accoutrements – it’s an LA thing. It doesn’t even translate into Spanish.

  5. Diego on May 20th, 2013 1:14 PM

    I’ve also seen Asian kids with “Yolk Pride” gear, but they aren’t stupid enough to tattoo it on themselves and obviously do it with a sense of irony.

  6. Machiel Van on May 21st, 2013 8:49 AM

    I understand. I think the reason that “white pride” is taboo while “brown pride” seems to be perceived as being in some sort of gray area is that it doesn’t have the same historical connotations attached. I can definitely see how using the term “brown” as an umbrella term for a variety of ethnic backgrounds could be considered racist. I guess I just interpreted it narrowly (since Cain’s intent is obviously not to associate any sort of negative connotations with the term), but from the way you described it it seems like it might be one of those terms that’s just better left unused.

Got something to say?