Nick Diaz may not be fighting in the Octagon any time soon, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t looking for a fight.
The embattled UFC welterweight is still sitting under a temporary suspension handed down from the Nevada State Athletic Commission after he tested positive for marijuana following his February bout against Carlos Condit at UFC 143.
Since that time, Diaz has been awaiting a full hearing from the Nevada State Athletic Commission to have his chance to prove his case, and finally receive a judgment regarding his potential suspension.
On April 24, Diaz’s lawyer, Ross Goodman, filed a lawsuit against the commission claiming that the constant delays have violated Diaz’s rights in regard to a timely proceeding to hear his arguments for the temporary suspension, and asking for a full dismissal of charges after the lengthy delay.
The lawsuit was first reported by MMAFighting.com on Thursday.
The Diaz camp has long attacked the initial suspension by the commission claiming that marijuana metabolites, which is what Diaz tested positive for following his fight, are not actually on the banned substances list provided by the commission.
They filed a second motion against the commission after the NSAC alleged Diaz lied on a pre-fight questionnaire in which he answered that he was taking no prescription or over the counter drugs. Goodman’s argument was that a medicinal marijuana card, which Diaz legally has in the state of California, is not by definition a prescription nor something that could be purchased over the counter in the state.
Now with this latest shot fired, Goodman is calling for the commission’s delays and lack of setting a date for a hearing to result in the dismissal of the charges against Diaz altogether.
The most recent meeting held by the commission took place on Tuesday, April 24, but Diaz’s hearing was not set as part of the day’s agenda.
That along with the repeated issues Diaz has already claimed in past briefs filed on his behalf by Goodman have now prompted this lawsuit.
MMAWeekly.com will have more information on this lawsuit and the Nevada Commission’s response when it becomes available.