The Nevada Attorney General has responded to the lawsuit filed by Wanderlei Silva seeking judicial review of the state Athletic Commission’s ruling which issued a $70,000 fine and lifetime ban.
In response to the lawsuit, a copy obtained by Bloody Elbow, the Nevada AG argues that since the commission has broad authority over combat sports in the state, it should have had authority over Silva since he was (at the time) scheduled to fight in the state in July. It goes on the argue that the discipline was proper and regardless of the ambiguity of any statute, it should be resolved in favor of the Nevada commission.
The AG brief references the UFC’s recent “Call to Action” news conference to underscore the importance of “out of competition” testing as well as the reasons it sought to test Silva. The placement of this in the brief also is a subtle nudge to the public interest of the need to test. For those in Silva’s corner, it’s a “smoke screen” as the AG fails to directly take on the issue of how it has authority to regulate a non-licensed fighter. This argument was the crux of Silva’s brief.
Payout Perspective:
The case will boil down to that of statutory interpretation versus a policy argument. Essentially, the Court will read the statute provisions in questions (namely NRS 467.850 versus NRS 467.110, NRS 467.158) Read narrowly Silva has a chance to win his argument. If the arguments are read broadly, one could see the Court ruling in the favor of the AG.
Chirp Chirp