The Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. case against the Nevada State Athletic Commission is still alive despite many believing that it ended with Chavez’s disappointing loss last December against Danny Jacobs.
You might recall that his fight against Jacobs was moved to Arizona after Chavez did not take a required NSAC drug test prior to the fight. Chavez argued that he did not have to take the test because he was not a licensed fighter in Nevada. NSAC argued that he was compelled to take the drug test because he was under the jurisdiction of Nevada. Chavez sued in Clark County District Court seeking an Temporary Injunction so he could fight.
Despite being allowed to fight the lawsuit continued in Nevada. The NSAC sought to dismiss Chavez’s claims as Chavez attempted to obtain a Preliminary Injunction which would presumably allow the fighter to fight elsewhere. At this time, Chavez was issued a temporary injunction. This request would allow Chavez to fight while the underlying issue (i.e. Whether Chavez was required to submit to a drug test although not yet a licensed boxer in Nevada).
On March 3rd, Chavez, Jr. filed a Second Amended Complaint and a Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
In the latest Complaint, his attorney argues that Chavez Jr.’s substantive due process was violated; he points to a statute in the Nevada’s long-arm statute as he states that the language pertaining to the inclusion of boxing was vague. Specifically, the phrase, “associated with” boxing was added in 2016 to the statute allowing the commission “unfettered discretion to drug test anyone “associated” with boxing.
The Writ of Prohibition would prevent the Nevada Athletic Commission from taking disciplinary action against a boxer not licensed by the agency. It goes on to state that due to the fact that other regulatory bodies would honor Nevada’s suspension of Chavez, he could not find another fight until addressing the suspension for not taking the drug test.
In its briefing, the NSAC has identified that this issue is similar to the one Chavez, Jr.’s attorney, litigated in the Wanderlei Silva lawsuit. There, the issue was the same as pointed out by Nevada.
The crux of the Second Amended Complaint is the argument that an unlicensed boxer does not have to submit to a drug test because they are not bound by the commission’s reach. As you might recall Wanderlei Silva argued the same when he refused to take a commission drug test prior to his fight with Chael Sonnen. That fight was subsequently cancelled.
The Attorney General for the NSAC points out the parallels with Silva’s case.
The reason why this lawsuit survives even after Chavez, Jr.’s fight went ahead in Arizona against Danny Jacobs (Jacobs won as Chavez, Jr. could not continue after he stated he broke his hand during the fight) is that if Chavez, Jr. wants to fight again, he’d have to obtain clearance from the NSAC as other commissions honor suspensions from other jurisdictions.
Nevada argues that Chavez, Jr. has yet to go through the administrative process to adjudicate his drug test dispute. Recall, he filed the lawsuit prior to a hearing on the merits of the matter before the NSAC.
The Court had hearings on the outstanding issues last week as to the NSAC’s Motion to Dismiss as well as Plaintiffs attempt at obtaining a Preliminary Injunction. MMA Payout will continue to monitor.
While one might think this issue was over once Chavez was allowed to fight in December, there are broader implications here. If Chavez wants to continue fighting, he has to have the purported suspension (or anticipated suspension) cleared up with the NSAC. Also, it puts into question the NSAC’s rules regarding testing athletes participating in anticipated fights within the state. Mainly, the seeming issue that they have jurisdiction on a fighter that does not yet have a license within the state. One might see an amendment to the rule to require fighters apply earlier for licenses so that NSAC may test them.
Leave a Reply