It’s tough to contend what’s worse about a Nevada State Athletic Commission’s disciplinary process: a final outcome, or a logic used to arrive there.
Actually, on second thought, no it’s not that hard. It’s a reasoning. You can tell, since if a elect members usually huddled together and mumbled inaudibly to any other before branch around to announce their decision, during slightest afterwards we wouldn’t have a probability to be confused by their common suspicion process.
Instead, when Conor McGregor (20-3 MMA, 8-1 UFC) had his day in kangaroo court, we got to listen in as NSAC commissioners discussed how best to “humble” a UFC featherweight champion for a impiety of enchanting in a bottle-throwing fight with Nate Diaz (19-11 MMA, 14-9 UFC) during a UFC 202 press contention in August.
It began with a state profession general’s bureau recommending a excellent of $25,000, and 25 hours of village use and, weirdest of all, 5 hours of “media training” for McGregor. Because, sure, we all walked divided from that press contention feeling like what McGregor unequivocally indispensable was to get improved during traffic with reporters.
But after that recommendation, and after McGregor’s profession offering a response that suggested a probability of authorised movement opposite a commission, a NSAC wound adult doubling McGregor’s village use and augmenting his excellent to $150,000 – 6 times a endorsed amount.
Why did it do this? For a children. The ones who demeanour adult to McGregor and Diaz. Also for a fans. The ones who could have been harm (but weren’t) by a drifting can of Monster Energy.
And afterwards there’s multitude as a whole, that will advantage from a anti-bullying video that a NSAC skeleton to enforce McGregor to make. And good videos cost income – seriously, this was indeed a cause enclosed in a contention – so McGregor has to hack up.
Oh, and afterwards there was commissioner Pat Lundvall’s acknowledgement that McGregor competence “need to be humbled.” And who improved to do it than a ever so common NSAC?
You remember, a same regulatory physique that went all scorched earth on Nick Diaz even after (or generally after) his profession offering a efficient invulnerability when he was indicted of contrast certain for marijuana. The elect afterwards quietly pushed by a settlement when confronting a intensity probity conflict over that one – and a preference to approve that was one of a few matters a commissioners didn’t feel a need to counsel in public.
It’s also a same elect that attempted to anathema Wanderlei Silva for life after he evaded a drug exam in 2014, usually to have a judge overturn that sentence, job it erratic and capricious.
Those dual difference unequivocally sum adult a NSAC’s disciplinary routine as a whole. As we’ve seen mixed times, going before that elect isn’t so most about creation your box or proof your innocence. It’s not a probity of law; it usually spasmodic tries to cover-up as one.
The best thing we can do, it seems, is acknowledge shame and chuck yourself on a forgiveness of a commission. Hiring a real, efficient counsel usually seems to nettle these people, and they are not during all above augmenting your chastisement out of pure, good out-of-date spite.
(Unless you’re Floyd Mayweather, apparently, who can get divided with all demeanour of impropriety and still get a promoter’s permit from a NSAC.)
What did a NSAC accomplish by obscure a bang on McGregor? It grabbed some of his cash. It compelled him into a use of a community. It set a wheels in suit to emanate a unequivocally high-quality, visually overwhelming anti-bullying PSA.
It also reminded all fighters that if we get in difficulty in Nevada, we put yourself during a whims of people who will initial confirm how most income they need before they confirm how most we should pay. They’ll cause in what they consider of your ego, and either we competence need to be taken down a brace or two. They’ll be accountable to no one, unless you’re peaceful to spend a time and income to take them to court.
And if we do? Congratulations, we have a flattering good probability of convincing another decider to remind a commissioners that probity isn’t ostensible to work this way. Not that it’s a doctrine a NSAC seems peaceful to learn.