Oltre alla quintalata di twitter, molti atleti / figure importanti stanno mettendo la faccia a sostegno di Nick Diaz, che da bad boy sta diventando martire delle MMA.
Oltre a ovviamente Joe Rogan anche Ronda, ormai super star di casa a tutte le trasmissimi televisive americane, si è pronunciata in difesa del caro amico. Ma se tutti davano dei commenti come “credo che / penso/ la mia opinione”… c’è qualcuno che ha fatto un passo avanti. La risposta che mi ha più colpito infatti è quella di Henry Cejudo, peso mosca UFC, imbattuto, nonchè oro olimpico nel 2008.
La lettera mandata dal suo legale al famoso magazine online MMAFighting.com, dice che il comportamento della commissione atletica è totalmente inadeguato. Non è stato un processo, bensi una fucilazione.
Le prove contro non erano affidabili, mentre i test Wada – gli unici con un valore riconosciuto – sono state scartate. Cejudo dice che l’obiettivo di un processo è di determinare innocenza o colpa, ma prima di farlo vanno risolte tutte le discrepanze. E con Diaz si è visto che non funziona cosi. Non potendosi fidare che nel Nevada le cose vengano fatte come si deve, Henry dichiara quindi che non combatterà più in quello stato.
Vi lascio alla mail completa perchè merita
I am absolutely appalled at how the NAC handled the Nick Diaz matter. The issue here is not the magnitude of the penalties assessed to Nick Diaz, it is the process, or lack thereof, in determining Nick Diaz’s guilt or innocence. Significant discrepancies existed between the test samples, and the NAC has an absolute obligation to resolve those discrepancies before the penalty phase of the disciplinary hearing was heard. What the NAC did was ignore due process and go straight to the penalty phase.
Forget the facts and existence of evidence, let’s get down to the business of punishment. For the NAC to ignore the negative test results from Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratories (SMRTL), a WADA-approved testing facility specializing in the detection of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs), in favor of a “questionable” result from a non-approved and non-specialized PED facility is simply astonishing. For Chairman Aguilar to also state, “I think we do have a positive test today,” is an appalling disregard of the full and careful consideration of all the facts. I believe it is an abuse of power under the color of authority, and a direct affront to the very concept and practice of due process. For NAC to further justify their decision based on the assertion that they don’t have the budget to use a WADA-approved testing facility is like saying, justice and due process only applies if it comes at a deep discount and is affordable. The NAC decision does not appear to be based on fact or evidence, but on emotional arrogance
I sincerely hope that the UFC enters the dialogue on this issue. If not publicly, then privately. It is very unfortunate, but I feel it’s prudent to let the UFC know that Henry Cejudo will not be fighting in Nevada. I simply have no confidence that the NAC can manage a fair and credible testing process, or will act in a fair and unbiased manner. Henry has been tested well over a hundred times under the USOC/USADA program and never had a positive test result. That is because he has never used a banned substance, but also because, in each and every case, the testing was done by competent and unbiased personnel under a credible program utilizing WADA accredited labs.
I personally applauded the UFC for imposition of their anti-doping policy, as it comes with the legacy and credibility of USADA, as well as appropriate protocols and processes to ensure fair and credible testing. The opposite appears true with respect to the NAC. Until the NAC testing process can be independently reviewed, its findings made public, and corrective action taken, I personally do not believe it is a safe or credible place to conduct business. That includes a review of the recent actions and competencies of Commission members.
Others may want to roll the dice in Nevada, but I for one do not feel the NAC is capable of conducting itself in a manner consistent with their mission statement, appropriate enforcement of existing regulations, conducting business in a fair and unbiased manner, or the exercise of due process in their enforcement actions.”