Nick Diaz’s fight for freedom to fight again is now in court
By Zach Arnold | May 13, 2012
- Nick Diaz’s attorney uses Jonathan Tweedale’s marijuana defense
- Nevada amends complaint against Nick Diaz, shift strategy
- Keith Kizer: Sensitive, sanctimonious speech
- Text of Team Diaz rebuttal to Nevada commission
- Nick Diaz attorney Ross Goodman to Nevada: If you don’t give us our hearing on April 24th, your suspension is invalid
- Searchable text of Nick Diaz due process lawsuit against Nevada (April 26th)
- Searchable text of Nick Diaz preliminary injunction filing in Nevada (April 27th)
On Monday at 10:30 AM in a Las Vegas courtroom, Nick Diaz’s high-powered Las Vegas attorney Ross Goodman will attempt to get an injunction to stop an indefinite suspension of his client by the Nevada State Athletic Commission.
The last legal filing before Monday’s court battle.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 6 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Spike TV pulls a page out of the Antonio Inoki playbook with King Mo
By Zach Arnold | May 11, 2012
Yesterday, Spike TV had a joint presser with Bellator’s Bjorn Rebney and TNA’s Dixie Carter to announce that King Mo will be fighting in Bellator and also wrestling in TNA. Spike TV’s Kevin Kay is the mover-and-shaker here that was more than accommodating in making this deal happen.
I reserved comment until today so I could sit and think about the decision and make a judgment on the decision. 24 hours after the news was announced, my opinion is still the same as it was when I initially heard the news.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: Media, MMA, Pro-Wrestling, TNA, Zach Arnold | 27 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Voluntary Anti-Doping Association (VADA) statement regarding Lamont Peterson drug test disclosure
By Zach Arnold | May 10, 2012
Statement from the Voluntary Anti-Doping Association:
VADA’s mission is to help protect the health and safety of athletes who are willing to demonstrate their commitment to clean sport. As a voluntary organization, we depend on those who share our vision to help rid boxing and MMA of PEDs. VADA understands and shares the disappointment that is felt by Golden Boy Promotions, Amir Khan, the undercard fighters, HBO, and the thousands of fans who were looking forward to Khan-Peterson II. This unfortunate situation, however, serves to underscore the need for PED education and the high-caliber testing procedures that VADA offers.
VADA has respect for Richard Schaefer, GBP, and their commitment to clean sport. However, VADA disagrees with Mr. Schaefer’s characterizations of the contractual relationship between GBP and VADA. The facts are as follows.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: Boxing, Media, Zach Arnold | 12 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Open mouth, insert foot: Keith Kizer’s attack on Dr. Margaret Goodman backfires (updated with crash course link)
By Zach Arnold | May 9, 2012
We are working on a primer article for boxing fans in regards to the testosterone issue that has been raised as a result of the failed drug test of Lamont Peterson. The purpose of the article is to inform the boxing media and fans about the testosterone scam that so many MMA fans have had to put up with for years now.
What’s been interesting, at least for me, has been the reaction of boxing fans to the news of Peterson testing positive for synthetic testosterone. The negative response from fans, promoters, and media towards Peterson has been universal. You won’t find many people defending Lamont Peterson. Contrast that with the response you get from MMA fans online whenever someone is exposed for using testosterone or gets a hall pass for Testosterone Replacement Therapy. The reaction varies wildly in the MMA community based on who the fighter is and whether or not people support the person in the first place. It’s hypocritical, but hopefully attitudes change as more testosterone users get exposed.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: Boxing, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 20 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
California State Athletic Commission investigation: How did (then) 80 year old scandal-plagued politician John Frierson get an important job promotion?
By Zach Arnold | May 9, 2012
On Monday, we released an investigative report into the current ongoing activity of the California State Athletic Commission and its current Chairman, John Frierson. If you have not read the report, we strongly warn you that you first read our Monday item before you read today’s investigative item here. While the Monday report is lengthy & detailed, it created the building blocks of the foundation of our current investigation. Once you have read Monday’s report, it will make today’s investigative item much clearer in terms of understanding.
We consider our current, ongoing investigation to be a very serious news story and one that is worthy of your attention. In the abstract, it may not initially appear to be a serious story for you if you are a fight fan. However, as you delve into the details of our investigation, you will start to a formulate a troubling picture of what is currently happening in the California political scene and how it is impacting California’s combat sport industry.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: Boxing, CSAC, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 41 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
The cold, hard truth about passing NY MMA legislation
By Zach Arnold | May 8, 2012
This won’t win over me with many fans, but sometimes you have to call it like you see it. I remained amazed at the reaction of online MMA fans in regards to why New York Assembly boss Sheldon Silver won’t pass MMA legislation.
Every year, we get the same circus online from fans who one minute love NY politicians and the next minute are cursing them out for being grizzled senior citizens who have no perspective on what their constituents want because they spend their lives in smoke-filled rooms (or something to that effect).
Yesterday proved to be a perfect example when Sheldon Silver tabled MMA legislation in 2012. Maybe it’ll happen in another year, junior.
Or maybe not. But you know why this year wasn’t the time to bank on MMA legislation passing in New York?
2012 is a terrible year to try to get Democratic politicians to go against the wishes on the unions. Wrong year 2 try.
You don’t say. And, of course, UFC reacted with the kind of natural political tone-deafness that has utterly defined their clueless approach to winning over hearts & minds in New York.
#UFC VP Marc Ratner on NYS Assembly decision not to take up MMA bil this year: ‘Not to get a vote is un-American.”
A part of you almost feels for the boys in Las Vegas. On second thought… not really.
What’s happening in New York is a pretty simple matter. However, it requires fans to strip out the emotion and look at the political logic involved for Sheldon Silver. This is not the year to go against unions.
(It’s why the battle over AB2100 in California with pro-AB2100 proponents vs. the UFC & CSAC is so fascinating due to the internecine nature of the Democratic Party battle.)
In future years, maybe MMA legislation gets passed. Maybe. But what if it doesn’t? There’s no reason to believe that if Sheldon Silver continued killing off potential MMA legislation that he would somehow get hurt politically for it. Why? Because the approval numbers are in his favor.
Last month, we nicely warned you about the importance of the latest Siena Poll results about how much support there is for MMA legislation amongst the general New York state populace. And, once again, NY MMA legislation boosters continued burying their heads in the sand by ignoring the polling data that Sheldon Silver is looking at.
Outside of a specific demographic with a profile of a male between the ages of 18-to-34 with questionable employment status, there is no other demographic that exists in New York that backs MMA legislation. The numbers are especially staggering when you consider that women consistently oppose MMA legislation on a 26/60 split. The overall support level of 38% for both men & women has remained consistent for several years now. In fact, the polling data suggests that the more undecided voters hear about MMA legislation in New York, they less they want it.
I don’t care who you are, a consistent year-in, year-out 38% approval rate for any piece of legislation spells doom and rightfully so. However, when this inconvenient truth is mentioned to boosters, look out. All of a sudden, the constituents that the backers want to win over so bad suddenly become evil people who are ignorant, stupid, and don’t deserve MMA shows.
“Fine, screw off!”
This attitude has permeated in the press throughout the yearly attempts of MMA legislation in New York. MMA is a sport I truly love, but I also recognize that it’s not for everyone and you can’t force people to eat the proverbial dog food if they don’t want to eat it. It doesn’t make them bad human beings.
Instead of looking at trying to win over constituency groups who are not into passing MMA legislation, Zuffa has chosen the traditional top-down, pro-lobbyist, politician-only approach to getting business done in the State Capitol. It has been a costly mistake for the organization, both in wasting their time and especially their money. Instead of building up support the right way by funding grassroots organizations & creating a real, on-the-ground voter demand, Zuffa basically went for a traditional lobbying model that only works when you have voters who support you in the first place and are willing to be active in a big way in contacting their local politicians.
It also hasn’t helped that Zuffa has vastly overrated its charm offensive strategy. Their quasi PR circuit tour in both New York & California based around pushing Ronda Rousey resulted in zero political success. It may have played well with local newspaper writers who were happy to have someone to do an easy profile article on but it meant nothing in actually moving the ball forward in regards to MMA legislation or in terms of getting an Assembly committee to vote against AB2100 amendments, despite the fact that said committee members admitted they hadn’t even read the new amendments before voting yea or nay.
There is time for UFC to alter its political strategy and start making some grassroots in-roads that can match their traditional lobbying efforts. The question is not whether they have the resources to pull it off but rather if they have the will & desire to do so. Right now, Sheldon Silver has the will & desire to keep MMA legislation from passing in New York because his constituents don’t have the will nor the desire to see such legislation get implemented in the first place.
Don’t put the cart before the horse.
Speaking of putting the cart before the horse, here’s Dana White proclaiming to The Wall Street Journal that the UFC is bigger than the NFL globally and ‘neck-and-neck with soccer.’
There’s a fine line between grandiosity and delusion, a line which can be easily crossed.
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 21 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Investigation: The future of combat sports in California
By Zach Arnold | May 6, 2012
Note: Part two of our investigation can be read here.
Last Friday morning, we posted an article discussing the neutering of AB2100, the proposed legislation (amendments) by Assemblyman Luis Alejo that would give the California State Athletic Commission sweeping authority to review & regulate fighter contracts in Mixed Martial Arts. The current power that the CSAC has to oversee boxing contracts would be given to the commission for MMA as well.
However, as we noted on Friday, AB2100 is headed towards a path of no return. Despite Assemblyman Alejo feeling that he can convince the CSAC to back AB2100, the truth is that the bill continues to get marked through and watered down. A week after a public hearing in Sacramento to go over AB2100 amendments, changes were made to the bill. If the amendments do not see the day of light in the Appropriations committee by the end of the month, whatever is left of AB2100 is essentially crippled. This does not mean that all changes would be terminated but certainly the bulk of what was being proposed would be eliminated.
There were a lot of interested parties in getting AB2100 amendments up & running. For many organized labor unions, this was an interesting test to see how much UFC would sweat over the CSAC being granted authority to review & regulate standard Zuffa contracts. Despite what is a likely end for AB2100, organized labor now has a test case to go to other states to pursue similar type of legislation. Furthermore, they may take their case and try to get legislation passed on a Federal level (to have the Ali Act apply to MMA).
The political problem Assemblyman Alejo faces is that while he is backed by labor unions, his bosses in California are all Democrats in higher authority. As we detailed last Friday, one of the biggest players in the process of AB2100 likely being neutered for good is CSAC Chairman John Frierson. Frierson, who proudly boasts being a friend of Governor Jerry Brown for over 40 years, is a man who recently said in approving Josh Barnett for a fighter’s license that he wants to see business in California. This stance is consistent in various votes that Chairman Frierson has issued in the past. He voted to re-license Antonio Margarito. He tried to motion for Cris Cyborg’s steroid suspension to be cut in half from one year to six months. He voted to halve the suspension of Chael Sonnen and cleared the way for Sonnen to get back to action.
As UFC lobbyist Tim Lynch noted at the April 25th Sacramento hearing for AB2100, the California State Athletic Commission would need to pay to hire lawyers to review hundreds of fighter contracts if AB2100 was passed. Given the current economic situation facing Chairman Frierson and Executive Director George Dodd, this is politically untenable. In order for AB2100 to survive, Assemblyman Alejo would have to craft the amendments in such a way that, on paper, it would cost the AC $0. It’s hard to see how the Assemblyman will be able to pull this off, let alone confront Chairman Frierson’s attitude of ‘we want business.’ You know what wouldn’t be good for CSAC business? UFC and Bellator no longer running shows in California. UFC stated that if the AB2100 amendments passed that they would no longer run California. Chairman Frierson is not going to accept this. This is why AB2100 is headed down a path of no return.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: CSAC, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 51 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
California’s heavyweight politicians & neutering of AB2100
By Zach Arnold | May 4, 2012
- California Assembly Bill could give fighters new rights, challenge UFC contracts
- Lorenzo Fertitta’s letter in opposition to AB2100 amendments
- Recap of Sacramento AB2100 bill hearing; passes committee on 5-3 vote
- Layout of how AB2100 currently stands (April 29th)
We have extensively covered the back-and-forth action that has resulted from amendments initially proposed by California Assemblyman Luis Alejo. The changes he proposed would give the California State Athletic Commission sweeping authority to review all MMA fighter contracts for fighters based in California. This push by Assemblyman Alejo was backed by numerous labor unions in the State.
When the UFC came to Sacramento on April 25th to talk to an Assembly committee about the bill, their presentation was shockingly tepid sans the sound bytes lobbyist Tim Lynch produced. Despite members of the Assembly panel admitting that they had not read the latest amendments that Assemblyman Alejo had prepared, the committee voted 5-3 to move the bill to the Appropriations committee.
Yesterday (Thursday), the Assemblyman continued amending the proposed provisions to AB2100 regarding MMA fighter contracts & CSAC oversight.
According to multiple sources overnight, both pro-AB2100 and anti-AB2100, the originally proposed amendments to AB2100 have been “gutted.” One source indicated to us last week that the California State Athletic Commission, which I previously stated wanted no part of what was being proposed with AB2100, would find a way to… alert… politicians over the cost of the bill implementation.
For all intents and purposes, what was proposed last week in regards to dramatic changes to AB2100 is essentially crippled.
California politics
There is a lot going on behind the scenes in regards to the various entanglement of political connections that are influencing the events that are currently ongoing with the California State Athletic Commission.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 17 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
How will combat sports handle concussions in the future?
By Zach Arnold | May 3, 2012
For more information on The Lou Ruvo Cleveland Clinic Center in Las Vegas, click here to read.
When I watched Ron Kruck’s piece on HDNet about The Lou Ruvo center last December, it was a segment that reminded me just how little we know about the issue of concussions in combat sports. Despite technological advances with MRIs & CT scans, that technology also has a ways to develop from what experts say is currently a ‘black & white’ standard of determining just how much damage a person’s brain has suffered. Eventually, technology will give us a clearer picture of how the brain works, how much damage a concussion really causes, and the full-ranging effects of CTE. Anyone who has had the chance to watch Charlie Rose’s Understanding the Brain TV series knows that we have quite a ways to go.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 25 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Layout of how AB2100 currently stands
By Zach Arnold | April 29, 2012
- California Assembly Bill could give fighters new rights, challenge UFC contracts
- Lorenzo Fertitta’s letter in opposition to AB2100 amendments
- Recap of Sacramento AB2100 bill hearing; passes committee on 5-3 vote
There’s been a lot of confusion, and rightfully so, as to what the actual text of AB2100 looks like right now in terms of an amendment for Mixed Martial Arts in California. Even some members of the Assembly committee that passed the amendments on a 5-3 party-line vote last Wednesday admitted that they had not read the amendments as they currently stand.
So, for the record, here is how the amendments for AB2100 currently looks. It’s much more streamlined than the initial amendments proposed for AB2100 were in the first place.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Add Legislative Intent Language to provide:
It is the intention of the Legislature in enacting these provisions to protect Mixed Martial Arts fighters from being subjected to exploitative, oppressive, or coercive contractual practices that violate the athletes’ freedom to work and their ability to support themselves and their families as professional athletes. Therefore it is necessary and appropriate to establish standards to protect the rights and welfare of mixed martial arts fighters licensed under this chapter.
SEC. 2 Section 18649 is added to the Business and Professions Code, to read:
1864. To ensure that individuals and entities licensed under this act observe common standards of decency, the commission shall, in consultation with the. Association of Boxing Commissioners, establish a professional code of ethical conduct. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the commission shall enforce the code of ethical conduct and may suspend, revoke or refuse to issue- or renew the license of any mixed martial arts promoter orfighter that itfinds has violated this Code of Conduct. Violations of this code shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Engaging in actions or activities such as felony convictions, failing to respond to a subpoena, sanctions by a judge or court of law, crimes involving moral turpitude, sexual assault, ethnic or religious slurs, hate speech and obscene language.
b. Entering into a promotional contract with a mixed martial arts fighter licensed in the state of California if the contract contains one or more coercive provisions. For purposes of this Section, a coercive contract provision includes but is not limited to the following.:
(1) Assigns any exclusive future merchandising rights to a promoter for an unreasonable period beyond the term of the promotional contract.
(2) Automatically renews a promotional contract or extends the term without good faith negotiation, or extends the term of any promotional contract of a fighter who participates in a championship contest for a period greater than 12 months beyond the existing contract termination period.
(3) Unreasonably restricts a mixed martial arts fighter from obtaining outside sponsorship from a firm, product or individual.
(4) Requires a mixed martial arts fighter to relinquish all legal claims that the fighter has, or may acquire in the future, against the promoter beyond assumption of the risks Inherent in the sport ofmixed martial arts and the Fighter participation in Pre and Post Bout events and activities.
(5) Requires a fighter to grant or waive any additional rights not contained in the promotional contract as a condition precedent to the fighter’s participation in any Contest.
SEC 3. Section 18849 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read:
18849. (a) No promoter, nor any person having a proprietary interest in the promoter, shall have, either directly or indirectly, any proprietary interest in a boxer or martial arts fighter competing on the premises owned, leased, or rented by the promoter without written approval from the commission.
(b) No promoter shall be entitled to receive any compensation directly or indirectly in connection with a contest until the promoter provides to the commission the following:
(1) A copy of any agreement in writing to which the promoter is a party with any professional athlete or contestant licensed under this act.
(2) A statement made under penalty of perjury that there are no other agreements, written or oral, between the promoter and the athlete with respect to that contest.
(3) All fees, charges, and expenses that will be assessed by or through the promoter on the athlete participating in the event, including any portion of the athlete’s purse that the promoter will receive.
(4) Any reduction in the athlete’s purse contrary to a previous agreement between the promoter and the athlete.
(c) Neither the commission, nor any person acting on its behalf, may disclose to the public any agreement furnished by a promoter under this section except to the extent required to comply with an order in a legal, administrative or judicial proceeding.
SEC. 4
No reimbursement is required the this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article. XIIIB of the California Constitution.
****
Even more interesting than the proposed amendments are the comments from those both pro-AB2100 and anti-AB2100 about the future of the amendments.
- Mr. (Frank) Shamrock said he disagreed with the UFC over their proposed merchandising agreement that allowed Zuffa, LLC to use his name and likeness “in perpetuity” or forever, on UFC merchandise (and therefore refused to sign their contract containing this term.) This prevented Shamrock from competing in the UFC, despite being a four time defending UFC world champion.
- Eddie Goldman states: “The exploitation of boxers by generations of cigar-chomping fight promoters was so pervasive and well-documented that Congress passed the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act in 2000. With the rise in recent years of mixed martial arts, the cigar-chomping may have become outdated for this new generation of fight promoters, but the exploitation has not. In fact, in the U.S., mixed martial arts fighters today share none of the legal protections boxers have under the Ali Act, and face practices which would have made the old-time boxing promoters swallow their stogies. Among these practices which need changing are: Exclusive and non-public contracts; a perpetually-renewing ‘championship clause’; assigning of certain merchandising rights to promoters in perpetuity with no compensation or remuneration; a system of arbitrary and secret bonuses used as a means of controlling fighters; encouraging fighters to promote racism, sexism, homophobia, and other anti-social values such as disrespect for their opponents as a means of publicizing their fights and manufacturing rivalries; and compensating mixed martial arts fighters with a smaller percentage of gross pay-per-view revenues than boxers receive.”
- The Honda Center (Anaheim Pond) comments: “Large boxing and MMA events are transient by nature and can be held in any big arena in any state or any Country. We fear that the new contract restrictions and un-capped taxes included in your bill will make California an unattractive place to host live events. As a consequence, promoters could very easily choose not to hold their event in California. Rather, promoters may opt to hold events in more economically-friendly environments.”
- HP Pavilion (San Jose Arena) comments: “HP Pavilion at San Jose has hosted 17 MMA events since 2006 and is scheduled to host another event on May 19. In our experience, these events have been a tremendous success and bring a significant economic boost to the South Bay Area and to the California State Athletic Association (CSAC) budget. For example, in our most recent event, UFC 11/19/11, we sold 10,000 tickets for a total live gate of $1.3 million. The thousands of fans that attend MMA events directly invest in San Hose’s restaurants, bars, and hotels. In addition, because HP Pavilion at San Jose is municipally-owned, a successful MMA event has a direct positive economic impact of at least $6 million for the city of San Jose. Further, our UFC event last November contributed $63,000 in revenue to the CSAC budget. Importantly, HP Pavilion at San Jose is also a union operation. Our employees are represented by IATSE, SEIU, IUOE and HERE. When large fights come to HP Pavilion at San Jose, it requires us to employ 300-400 union members for the event.”
- The CSAC is funded through regulatory fees and license fees. In the 2009-10 Fiscal Year, the CSAC’s operating budget was approximately $2.3 million, and there were 14.5 authorized staff positions. In 2010, the CSAC supervised 184 events, including 82 boxing, 72 MMA, 16 kickboxing and 14 muay thai.
- In response to concerns that public disclosure of promotional contracts and merchandising agreements could expose “trade secrets”, the author has provided an amendment to expressly prohibit the CSAC, and any person acting on its behalf, from disclosing to the public any agreement furnished by a promoter under the bill’s terms, except to the extent required to comply with an order in a legal, administrative or judicial proceeding.
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 56 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Searchable text of Nick Diaz preliminary injunction filing in Nevada
By Zach Arnold | April 27, 2012
- Nick Diaz’s attorney uses Jonathan Tweedale’s marijuana defense
- Nevada amends complaint against Nick Diaz, shift strategy
- Keith Kizer: Sensitive, sanctimonious speech
- Text of Team Diaz rebuttal to Nevada commission
- Nick Diaz attorney Ross Goodman to Nevada: If you don’t give us our hearing on April 24th, your suspension is invalid
The following is the text from a filing by Ross Goodman, Nick Diaz’s lawyer, for a preliminary injunction hearing on May 14th at 10:30 AM in a Las Vegas court room. We posted this filing separate from the lawsuit text because of the length of the filing.
Searchable text of Nick Diaz due process lawsuit against Nevada
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an application for a preliminary injunction staying the summary or temporary suspension of the plaintiff’s fighter’s license and staying the disciplinary proceedings commenced against him. The suspension, effected by the Nevada State Athletic Commission (the “NSAC”) summarily and without a hearing to determine the merits of the complaints made against him, has been in place for nearly three months. Despite repeated requests for a prompt and speedy hearing to adjudicate the merits of the complaints made against him, the NSAC has refused to set the matter down for a hearing. During this time, the plaintiff has been unable to earn a livelihood as a professional mixed martial artist. Absent this Court’s intervention, the plaintiff will continue to be deprived from the opportunity to earn a livelihood. This Court should issue a preliminary injunction in this case because, as set forth in further detail below, the plaintiff has demonstrated the requirements of a reasonable probability of success on the merits and proof of irreparable injury, and the relief sought is necessary to prevent the continuing violation of the plaintiffs statutory and due process rights.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 10 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Searchable text of Nick Diaz due process lawsuit against Nevada
By Zach Arnold | April 26, 2012
- Nick Diaz’s attorney uses Jonathan Tweedale’s marijuana defense
- Nevada amends complaint against Nick Diaz, shift strategy
- Keith Kizer: Sensitive, sanctimonious speech
- Text of Team Diaz rebuttal to Nevada commission
- Nick Diaz attorney Ross Goodman to Nevada: If you don’t give us our hearing on April 24th, your suspension is invalid
Electronically Filed
04/24/2012 10:46:06 AM
COMP
Ross C, Goodman
Nevada Bar No. 7722
GOODMAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
[email protected]
520 S. Fourth St., 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Telephone: (702) 383-5088
Facsimile: (702) 385-5088
Case No.: A-12-660642-C
Dept. No: XXXII
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Nicholas Diaz (“Diaz”), by and through his attorney, Ross C. Goodman Esq., of the Goodman Law Group, and hereby alleges against the above-named defendant as follows:
1. Plaintiff Diaz is a professional mixed martial artist resident in Stockton, California.
2. Defendant Nevada State Athletic Commission (“NSAC”), a commission within the State of Nevada’s Department of Business and Industry, is vested with the sole direction, management, control and jurisdiction over all contests or exhibitions of unarmed combat to be conducted, held or given within the State of Nevada, including mixed martial arts contests.
3. On February 4, 2012, Diaz participated in a professional mixed martial arts contest at the Mandalay Bay Events Center in Las Vegas, Nevada (the “Contest”), which Contest was conducted under the direction, management, control and jurisdiction of the NSAC.
4, Prior to the event, Diaz applied to the NSAC for a license as a mixed martial artist, and the NSAC duly issued and approved such license before the Contest.
5. Following the Contest, the NSAC’s Executive Director filed a complaint against Diaz, dated February 8, 2012 (the “Complaint”).
6. In the Complaint, the NSAC alleged that a urine sample provided by Diaz immediately following the Contest reflected a positive result for the presence of marijuana metabolites, and that such metabolites were prohibited by NSAC regulation.
7. On or about February 9, 2012, the NSAC’s Executive Director suspended Diaz’s license under NRS 233B. 127(3) and NRS 467.117(1) (the “Summary Suspension”).
8. In reliance on representations that a hearing of the Complaint would be scheduled “in the near future” Diaz did not initially challenge the Summary Suspension.
9. On February 22, 2012 the NSAC resolved to continue the Summary Suspension pending a final determination of the Complaint.
10. Diaz filed a Reply to the Complaint and supporting affidavits on March 7, 2012. That reply and supporting affidavits stated that, inter alia:
- a) Diaz is an authorized medicinal marijuana patient for treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”);
- b) marijuana metabolite is not a prohibited substance under NSAC’s regulations;
- c) the NSAC and the World Anti-Doping Agency prohibit the consumption of marijuana only “in competition”;
- d) Diaz’s practice is to discontinue medical marijuana treatment eight days before any fight to eliminate the possibility of any behavioral and psychological effects associated with medicinal marijuana’s active ingredient; and
- e) Diaz has committed no violation of the NSAC’s regulations.
11. Following delivery of the Reply to the Complaint, the Attorney General’s representative, Mr, Christopher Eccles, provided further assurances that the Complaint would be 11 heard in April.
12. On March 29, 2012, the NSAC’s Executive Director delivered to Diaz a revised Complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”).
13. The First Amended Complaint made further allegations against Diaz including, inter alia, allegations that Diaz provided false or misleading information to the NSAC by indicating on a ‘Pre-Fight Questionnaire’ that (i) he does not have any serious medical illnesses, (ii) he had not taken or received any prescribed medications in the last two weeks before the Contest, and (iii) he had not taken or received any over the counter medication or products in the last two weeks before the Contest.
14. On March 29, 2012, April 2, 2012, and April 3, 2012, Diaz, through his attorneys, sent further requests to Mr. Eccles and the NSAC’s Executive Director requesting a firm date for I the hearing of the complaint. No response to this correspondence was provided.
15. On April 11, 2012, Diaz through his attorneys delivered to Mr. Eccles and the II NSAC’s executive director:
- a) Diaz’s filed reply to the First Amended Complaint on behalf of Diaz (the “Reply to FAC”); and
- b) correspondence (i) enclosing Physician’s Statements that constituted the requisite written documentation that qualified Diaz to use medical marijuana pursuant to California Health & Safety Code 11362.5, (ii) objecting to the production of any further medical records on grounds of relevance and privilege, and (iii) requesting confirmation that the disciplinary action against Diaz would be formally added to the April 24, 2012 agenda.
16, In the Reply to FAC Diaz stated, inter alia:
- a) the First Amended Complaint does not allege any facts supporting that. Diaz violated any NSAC rule;
- b) marijuana metabolite is not a drug or injection that has not been approved by the NSAC under NAC 467.850;
- c) all answers provided by Diaz on the Pre-Fight Questionnaire were “true and accurate to the best of [Diaz’sj ability”, and therefore met the standard required by the NSAC;
- d) Diaz does not believe that ADHD is a “serious medical illness”;
- e) Diaz does not believe that medical marijuana is a “prescribed medication” and that this belief is consistent with federal law; and
- f) Diaz does not believe that medical marijuana is an “over the counter” medication.
17. On April 13, 2012, Diaz, through his attorneys, demanded that the hearing of the NSAC’s complaint be set down for the April 24, 2012 NSAC meeting or else the complaint would be deemed to be abandoned.
18. On April 16, 2012, Mr. Eccles delivered to Diaz’s counsel correspondence again demanding a copy of Diaz’s medical marijuana card and declining to commit to a date for the disciplinary hearing.
19. On April 18, 2012 the NSAC published the agenda for its April 24, 2012 meeting. The requested disciplinary hearing relating to Diaz’s suspension was not on the agenda.
20. Despite repeated requests, neither Diaz nor his attorneys have received any correspondence concerning the date on or by which the hearing of the NSAC’s complaint will proceed.
21. Diaz’s license has, in effect, been suspended indefinitely, in the absence of any adverse findings having been made against him by the NSAC.
22. Under NRS 233B.127, which applies to all revocations, suspensions, annulments and withdrawals of licenses (including licenses issued by the NSAC), “[p]roceedings relating to the order of summary suspension must be instituted and determined within 45 days after the date of the [suspension] unless the agency and the licensee mutually agree in writing to a longer period” (NRS 233B.127(3)).
23. The Summary Suspension of Diaz’s license was a suspension made pending proceedings for revocation or other action. The Summary Suspension was continued “until [the Commission] makes a final determination” of the complaint, which must be within 45 days under NRS 233B.127(3). The NSAC has not yet set the matter for hearing. Accordingly, the Summary Suspension has lapsed and must be set aside, and the NSAC must not proceed with the matters raised in the complaint as the NSAC has lost statutory jurisdiction to proceed with the complaint.
24, Under NRS 467.117(l) a summary or temporary suspension may be made only where “the action is “necessary to protect the public welfare and the best interests of the sports regulated” [emphasis added].
25. The NSAC has made no finding that a summary or temporary suspension of Diaz’s license is necessary to protect the public welfare.
26. Even had the NSAC made such a finding, which is denied, there would be no reasonable basis for making such a finding and there was no evidentiary basis before the NSAC at its February 22, 2012 meeting upon which such a finding could have reasonable been made.
27. Insofar as the Summary Suspension of Diaz’s license was made on the basis of NRS 467.117, the suspension was effected wholly absent statutory jurisdiction, and must be set aside.
28. The Due Process Clause requires that a statutory provision permitting a temporary suspension pending final determination requires a promptly convened final hearing to determine the merits of a disciplinary complaint.
29. Over two months have transpired since the Summary Suspension of Diaz’s license was effected by the NSAC. The NSAC has still not convened a hearing. Nor has a hearing been scheduled. Accordingly, the NSAC’s application of NRS 233B.127 and/or NRS 467.117 is an unconstitutional deprivation of Diaz’s due process rights.
30. Further, the NSAC’s action taken on February 22, 2012 was procedurally ineffective under NRS 467.
31. Under NRS 467.113(4), in connection with the adjudication rendered at any such disciplinary hearing, the NSAC “shall file a written report of its findings, adjudication and order in the record of the proceedings and send a copy to the accused”.
32. In connection with the February 22, 2012 NSAC meeting:
- a) The NSAC has filed no written report in connection with its findings (if any);
- b) The NSAC has filed no written report in connection with its adjudication of the request for a continuation of the suspension; and
- c) the NSAC has filed no written report of its order effecting a continuation of the suspension of Diaz’s license pending final determination of the Complaint.
33. Accordingly, (i) the NSAC has not complied with the requirements of NRS 467 in connection with February 22, 2012 meeting. By virtue of such failure of compliance, the February 22, 2012 meeting was wholly ineffective to continue the Summary Suspension.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief)
34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 33 and incorporates them by reference.
35. Defendant has wrongfully and unlawfully suspended Diaz’s license:
- a) in violation of NRS 233B.127(3), by failing to determine the proceedings relating to the order of summary suspension within 45 days after the date of the suspension;
- b) in violation ofNRS 467.117(l), by suspending Diaz’s license in the absence of any finding that such suspension is necessary for the protection of the public welfare and without any evidence supporting any such finding;
- c) in violation of Diaz’s due process rights, by suspending Diaz’s license pending final determination of a complaint but failing to promptly convene a final hearing to determine the merits of that complaint; and
- d) by purporting to extend the tens (10) day suspension under NRS 467,117(1) without complying with NRS 467.113(4).
36. The NSAC’s wrongful and unlawful Summary Suspension of Diaz has caused and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Diaz.
37. Defendants should be enjoined from further wrongfully and unlawfully continuing the Summary Suspension and Diaz accordingly seeks a stay of the Summary Suspension.
38. Defendant should be enjoined from further wrongfully and unlawfully proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings commenced against Diaz and Diaz accordingly seeks a stay of such proceedings.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Relief)
39. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 38 and incorporates them by reference.
40. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief under NRS 30.040 to obtain a final determination of his rights under NRS 233E and NRS 467.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant as follows:
1. Judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendant;
2. For injunctive and declaratory relief; and
3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
DATED this 24th day of April, 2012.
GOODMAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
Topics: All Topics, Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | No Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
Recap of Sacramento AB2100 bill hearing; passes committee on 5-3 vote
By Zach Arnold | April 25, 2012
- California Assembly Bill could give fighters new rights, challenge UFC contracts
- Lorenzo Fertitta’s letter in opposition to AB2100 amendments
Today’s Assembly committee hearing in Sacramento (State Capitol, Room 437) for the committee for Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media to discuss amendments to AB2100 was quite an interesting hearing. Assembly chair Nora Campos, who oversaw testimony as a moderator for the hearing, had a thankless job of trying to manage so many different voices, both pro-AB2100 and con-AB2100. All things considered, she did a commendable job.
The hearing, which started at 11 AM, featured some real MMA star power. On the pro-AB2100 side, you had Frank Shamrock as the lead figure. He was joined by Christian Wellisch (fighter turned lawyer), Antonio McKee, and Rob Maysey as the four main figures presenting comment. In addition to their comments, there were many special interest political groups that stated their name and public support for AB2100. This included various labor unions (Teamsters, California Labor Federation), the Jockey’s Guild, and also Juanito Ibarra (Rampage Jackson’s former manager).
There was no question that Frank’s testimony, out of all the witnesses present for the hearing, was by far the most impressive in terms of persuading the committee. In these kinds of settings, he is really sharp and it’s hard to attack him. Larry Epstein, UFC’s attorney, tried to do this later on but in an ineffective, half-hearted way. More on that in a second.
Continue reading this article here…
Topics: Media, MMA, UFC, Zach Arnold | 43 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |