MMA Junkie reports on the ongoing saga regarding Nick Diaz’s response to Nevada’s allegations of marijuana use. Last week, Diaz’s lawyer argued in a response brief that Diaz should be cleared of wrongdoing.
Diaz tested positive for marijuana metabolites after his February 4th fight against Carlos Condit.
In a response brief addressing the Nevada State Athletic Commission’s disciplinary action, Diaz’s attorney, Ross Goodman, argued that Diaz did not break the rules as he tested for an inactive metabolite of marijuana not banned by the NSAC or WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency).
Diaz’s attorney argues that Diaz’s marijuana use is not considered a prescription drug. Also, he claims that Diaz did not need it to fight as the usage ceased, as is customary before Diaz’s fights, 8 days prior to the fight. Another of Goodman’s arguments suggest that the post-fight urine test may have shown higher levels of substances due to the physiological issues occurring at the time. In Diaz’s Declaration which was attached to the response, Diaz states that he had to lose 10 pounds the day before the weigh-ins (instead of his customary 2 pounds) and the 5 round fight with Condit incurred much more physical exertion than his normal 3 round fights.
As pointed out by Fight Opinion, Diaz’s attorney’s response brief is similar in argument to that of a guest editorial penned by Vancouver Athletic Commission’s Jonathan Tweedale on Bloody Elbow.
A public information officer for the Nevada Attorney General stated that Diaz lied to the NSAC in his pre-fight questionnaire when he swore he had not used prescribed medications two weeks prior to the Condit fight.
A copy of the questionnaire is here via Yahoo!
Diaz’s attorney argues that the questionnaire is inadmissible as evidence since Diaz did not sign the questionnaire “under penalty of perjury.”
Via MMA Junkie:
“In order for you to have a false official statement, it has to be sworn to,” Goodman said. “It has to be under oath. If you found something contradictory in an affidavit that is sworn to under penalties of perjury, then that’s where you really have a claim of false official statement. Here, you have none of that. You have a one-page, pre-printed questionnaire that was simply signed. There was no witness to attest to it, it wasn’t done under penalty of perjury, (and) it wasn’t sworn to.
“The second issue, which is really the main issue, is that he was truthful in responding to that question. He didn’t take prescription medications in the last two weeks (prior to the fight).”
Payout Perspective:
Next month’s hearing will be very interesting to see how the commission will rule on Diaz’s claims. While the pre-fight questionnaire will loom as evidence that Diaz lied, Diaz’s counsel makes an interesting argument about the admissibility of the document. The questionnaire’s language does not constitute a legal declaration as the confirmation of truth language states: “I hereby attest that the above information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.” Its likely that these forms will be updated pending Diaz’s hearing.
Secondly, we will see whether the commission will entertain Diaz’s claim that his marijuana use is not a prescription.
From the Nevada Attorney General’s perspective, its interesting that it made a statement about Diaz’s response brief prior to the hearing. Furthermore, its pubic relations team should have thought out the correct words to use when describing on the questionnaire that he had not used prescription drugs 2 weeks prior to the fight. The public information officer stated: “not only did Nick Diaz violate the law by testing positive for marijuana metabolites, but he also lied to the commission on his pre-fight questionnaire when he swore that he had not used any prescribed medications in (the) two weeks before the fight.” (h/t MMA Junkie). The use of the word “swore” connotes the use of a legal declaration like the one Diaz gave in his response brief. The PIO could have kept it simple and stated that “Diaz violated the law by testing positive and lied to the commission.” But, to go further allowed Diaz’s counsel to counterpunch with the legality of the document argument. Perhaps this is a subtle misstep, but it allowed an opening for Diaz legal team to gain a PR advantage.
It seems Diaz has lied
Doesnt matter much imo that he lied. Fact is the substance is banned and the state of Nevada and the Federal government doesnt recognize a California prescription for marijuana. It sounds to me the commission i purposely giving him wiggle room to get out of this. Whether he lied or not sould not even be the issue but the commission seems to dwell on it and Diaz’ team is jumping all over it and trying to get everyone to forget that according to NSAC and the United States there is no legit excuse to have marijuana in your system. Any other discussion is a red herring.
From a purely legal POV, Nick Diaz has a case if the NSAC regulations do not distinguish between cannabis and its metabolites.
In addition, the WADA precedent is significant because the NSAC respects and mirrors WADA rules. In the WADA rules, they clearly distinguish between cannabis and its metabolites. The WADA rules do not penalize athletes for using cannabis on their own time, but while competing–all traces of the active ingredient must be gone.
Essentially, according to WADA rules, Nick Diaz is innocent–but according to Nevada State Athletic Commission, Nick Diaz is guilty.
Diaz clearly lied. His defense is that, technically, he didn’t lie under oath. Diaz is clearly the type of person who will lie whenever he thinks he can get away with it.