Luke Thomas of MMAFighting.com and I recorded another installment of MMA Tete-A-Tete: Coarsening The Discourse yesterday before the official Nick Diaz news broke but we were able to address the rumors. Our main point is that the current testing regime for Marijuana is utterly pointless. The stated purpose of the commission is to prevent fighters from competing while high. Great. I hope we can all agree that's a worthy goal regardless of our stance on legalization.
More On Nick Diaz
Nick Diaz Is to Blame, But So Are Meaningless Commission Marijuana Tests | Nick Diaz' UFC 143 Drug Test Failure Was Inevitable | Dana White: 'I Am Beyond Disappointed | Nick Diaz Tests Positive For Marijuana | Fighters React to Nick Diaz's Positive Drug Test
The problem is that the testing regime involves urinalysis which doesn't tell you anything about the intoxication of the fighter during the fight, only whether or not metabolites from previous pot use are in the fighter's system. Luke and I emphatically agree that anything but an ideal way to keep athletes safe.
As Luke said over at MMA Fighting: "the urinalysis test regarding marijuana consumption used by athletic commissions (ostensibly) designed to protect the health and safety of fighters does neither and is little more than kabuki theater."
We also discuss:
Transcript of the relevant portion are after the jump.

Note this part of the discussion is the last 11 minutes of the video clip.
Nate Wilcox: The rumor is that [Nick Diaz] failed his drug test because of marijuana and the thing is, he's done that before.
Luke Thomas: Right. He's done it before. Here's the thing, I don't whether that's the case. I frankly hope it's not. Fingers crossed, I'm hoping they can still make this Condit/Diaz rematch and put it on UFC on FOX 3 but I don't even want to talk about Nick Diaz's case although I guess we can get into it specifically. It's just a major pet peeve of mine if this is true or if it's somebody else. It doesn't matter if it's Nick Diaz or if it's somebody else although there's some culpability if it is Nick Diaz and the question is "if" not that it is true but if it is Nick Diaz, I'm of two minds, if it's true. If it's true, I believe that first of all, it'd be like the Chael Sonnen/Anderson Silva thing, the UFC would have lucked out if that's the case because if it's true that's what happened, and I guess we haven't heard from the athletic commission and that'll be the final word, yay or nay on whether this whole thing is even a reality or just a bunch of nonsense, but if the UFC is investing in you in that kind of promotional way and to not honor their commitment to you and for you to be willingly participating in this exercise and fail on those grounds, that's really the height of being unprofessional. There's really no two ways about it. You're a failure to your business partners when you do something like that. On the other hand, the law of testing marijuana...
Nate Wilcox: It's not a law, it's a regulation.
Luke Thomas: It's a regulation, sort of. Here's why it's tested. It's a dumb law that's so incredibly bad it makes no sense. Here is the reality. Marijuana, by the Controlled Substances Act, is a Scheduled I drug which basically means it has no medicinal value and the only way it can ever be used, recreationally or otherwise, well it can't be used recreationally, but the only way it can be used in special circumstances is for research by the government but it doesn't have any medical purpose and it's basically a threat to your biology and society at large and marijuana got put on that.
By contrast, for example, cocaine is a Scheduled II drug, meaning it does have some medical value. Noodle that one for a moment but the athletic commissions are required to test for Scheduled I and Scheduled II drugs, I don't know about Scheduled III, maybe, maybe not. The problem with the urinalysis for marijuana and this has been the case before and this is the case today, everyone in their right mind would say for any fighter, it's not okay if they compete high. It's just not okay, and I think you would agree with that.
Nate Wilcox: Or drunk, just not intoxicated, not under the influence. It's not safe, not safe at all.
Luke Thomas: It's totally dangerous. Here's the reality, a urinalysis does not tell you if a person competed under the euphoric effects of marijuana. It just tells you that they used and the reason why is, well, they tested your urine. It's testing the metabolite levels in your urine but urine is not coursing through your veins. Think of it this way, when they try to test you for your inebriation in alcohol, what do they do? They give you a blood alcohol test because it's coursing through your body at the time and your trying to determine to what extent the inebriation is, .08, whatever you think of that limit, that limit is defined as being impaired and you have cause with that but that's the basic standard.
Blood tests, it turns out, they can tell if you were inebriated at a certain time with marijuana because what's it testing for? THC. Depending on the use the smoker has, depending on their body fat concentration, depending on a number of external factors, they could have smoked up to 2-3 weeks before and still have high levels of metabolites in their urine so here's the problem with the law.
You're wasting taxpayer money, it doesn't keep fighters safe, it damages their career and it's basically making athletic commissions vice cops. There is no rational justification for testing fighters for urinalysis if your argument is, "We don't want them competing under the euphoric effects of THC." It's bullshit.
Nate Wilcox: It is bullshit and that's Keith Kizer's argument. He's the commissioner of the Nevada State Athletic Commission and his argument is, "The reason we test for marijuana is we don't want fighters fighting while they're impaired."
Luke Thomas: No one does.
Nate Wilcox: No one does. It's not safe, it's not healthy. When you have fighters come in loaded up on pain pills like Don Frye and Ken Shamrock allegedly were in their fight in Pride, that' show you end up with something like Don Frye getting both ankles shredded and not tapping out in the fight. That's just bad, bad, bad. That's bad mojo. That's how you get a death in the cage.
Drew Fickett notoriously has come into fights and tried to fight drunk, probably has gotten away with fighting drunk. I don't think a fighter should fight with any alcohol in their bloodstream. I don't even want a single glass of wine the same day as the fight. It's just a terrible idea. I don't want fighters fighting high.
I want to have blood tests to make sure the guy's not smoking the day of the event but if the guy smoked 2-3 weeks before the event or a week before the event, who gives a shit? That gives him no advantage or disadvantage in the fight. It's immaterial. And this is a substance that's been voted legal to use as medicine in what, eight states now? And if you know anybody in Colorado/California, it's like you go into the doctor and you're like, "Ah, I've got a cough," and they prescribe you marijuana. "I've got a headache, I think I saw something," it's not hard to get these medical marijuana prescriptions. Diaz has a medical marijuana prescription and he's been very vocal about, "I'm not gonna stop smoke. I'm just gonna clear myself out with herbal remedies." It's worked.
Diaz got drug tested at UFC 137 as a main event fighter and he passed so something went wrong here with Diaz's cleansing if that's the case and we don't know. We do not have any idea.
Luke Thomas: This is just rumor. All I'm pointing out is people are talking about it and if they're talking about it, I want to get out in front of it and say, if it's Nick Diaz or anybody else, the law in California and in New Jersey and in Nevada is bullshit.
Nate Wilcox: Yep, it's a stupid requirement and I've got problems with the whole drug-testing regimen. I'd like to see almost everything legal with blood tests and let's just know what these guys are on. Let them do whatever they want. I think intoxicants should still be banned. I don't want anybody fighting on alcohol or pain pills or pot while they're impaired during a fight but as far as performance enhancing drugs, I'm kind of like, "Well, whatever. We can't stop it necessarily but let's at least know what they're doing and know accurately with blood tests."
To me, it's worth the money. I'd pay $5 extra for a pay-per-view if that meant they would spend that money blood testing the athletes and keeping them safe because the piss tests are a joke. They don't even test for Human Growth Hormone. They've got fighters with heads the size of pumpkins that look like Barry Bonds' big brother and there's no way to catch that with urinalysis. It's just ridiculous. It's a farcical hypocrisy that does nothing to protect the fighters. It's just a fig leaf for the athletic commissions and the promotions to say, "Hey, we're testing," when they're not. Just give it up!"
Luke Thomas: Alright, again, we can hope for the best that this is not the case. Hopefully we can get some clarity on the issue soon. Somebody out there will report the truth one way or the other. My hope, I still hope against hope that we can get Condit/Diaz II on FOX. I didn't even want the rematch originally to be perfectly honest but it felt like the fan momentum was so much there that they were gonna make it and I know Cesar Gracie is out there saying what he's saying. I am hoping that it's just leveraging stuff because I want to see these two fight again and I want to see them doing it leveraging the controversy they've built. That would be nothing better for those two and for the sport to get that on a UFC on FOX. Nate, last word, if they do rematch, where do you want them to rematch?
Nate Wilcox: I want them on FOX. I want them on FOX. I think that's just huge. They've got their pay-per-view calendar pretty much filled out without that fight but they have that gaping hole on FOX and that would be a huge fight on FOX television and I think that the second fight would be a very different fight. You've got Diaz, who didn't adjust mid-fight to what Condit was doing, but this is a guy who rebuilt his entire game when he ran up against wrestlers who could stop his jiu-jitsu so he became this mugging boxing style of fighting and he ran into somebody who found a way to counter that. I look forward to seeing how Diaz and his camp adjust to that strategy. How hard can it be to stop a guy from spinning out away from you on the cage? I think he discovered in the fifth round that he could get Condit down and it seemed like he could dominate Condit on the ground.
You gotta think that the second fight would be way different. I think the utmost of both fighters. They're incredibly skilled, incredibly mentally powerful, incredibly physically conditioned athletes. Both are from good camps, well trained. It's a fight I'd want to see again. I enjoyed watching the last fight two or three times. I watched it twice yesterday and enjoyed it both times, paid attention the whole way through. I still don't know how I'd score the fight but I'd like to see it on FOX.
Again, this is Nick Diaz. He might still be retired. He might be serious about that. There could be any number of things other than this rumor and this is just a rumor.
Luke Thomas: The reason we're talking about it is it's such, every time it comes up, it's such a thorn in my side because you can get people who are like pro marijuana supporters who are like, "Well, I don't want guys competing high." Neither do I, but what they're doing doesn't address it at all. At all. It's a total fucking lie.
Nate Wilcox: I don't want guys fighting on HGH but they are. Every single event but they're not tested for it at all. I guarantee it.
2 recs | 35 comments
I can't wait for the hearing
Imagine, Diaz showing the double bird to the whole commission
“209 mutherfuckers!!!”
MuyThaiGroinAssault - February 10, 2012 via iPhone app
Forget that, I want a hearing to establish why my design got turned down
I haz a sad

KJ Gould - February 10, 2012
Thats awesome. it should have been used
Chris Hall - February 10, 2012 via Android app
They aren't Canadian, though!
ElliotMatheny - February 10, 2012
Neither are Weebl & Bob
KJ Gould - February 11, 2012
Nate
Lately I’ve agreed with just about everything you’ve been saying on almost every topic. Keep up the good work man.
nomomrnicekyle - February 10, 2012
careful
I will lead you far astray.
Nate Wilcox - February 10, 2012
You come across as really well-informed. Great work and nice analysis. I’m sure Luke is cool, but he comes across a bit arrogant in video. He needs to loosen up.
Also, I see you’re in Austin. I got my first degree at UT.
SilverStarMMA - February 10, 2012 via mobile
Nice lil validation for ol' Hardy
I can’t help but be pleased that Luke T and I share the same frustrations with this entire debackle. The chief of which being the commssion using the incorrect tools to determine current a cobatant’s current impairment on marijuana. They use a method that indicates you’ve used marijuana in the last several weeks then use that as a basis to conclude that a combabtabt was impaired during the fight.
Great minds…indeed . I think I’ll have to add another line to my sig." Luke Thomas approved. " I’m sure he wouldn’t mind.
Hardy's in your face - February 10, 2012
nick diaz is smoking a blunt right now
And he’s not too worried what you think.
RandyCouture'sDivorceLawyer - February 10, 2012 via mobile
these are great.
eddie goldman cannot believed for anything ufc related
UncleMax - February 10, 2012
*be
UncleMax - February 10, 2012
Its like being expelled from school when you were gonna drop out anyways
terzergoss - February 10, 2012
ten thousands spoons when all you need is a knife?
Cory Braiterman - February 10, 2012
I don't know what is worst.
Is it you posting a line of that song or the fact that I caught you on that?
Triangled - February 10, 2012
Nate Diaz should smoke a joint on UFC of Fox 4!
terzergoss - February 10, 2012
more of these.
inthepipes - February 10, 2012
I would totally watch a fight on Saturday morning.
But I realise most people aren’t like that. I love these videos. For once I am glad a client no-showed on me so I had time to watch the entire thing.
pud333 - February 10, 2012
Nate I love your historical knowledge. These videos are great.
I really, really wish Edgar vs Henderson was a Fox headliner.
Tim Bernier - February 10, 2012
I’m also starting to think that the UFC should take a one PPV hit and put a future Jon Jones fight on Fox. He’s building as a star and the gains he would take from a feature on Fox would outweight the couple hundred thousand lost buys.
Tim Bernier - February 10, 2012
I am really enjoying these.
And I also appreciate the transcriptions, I don’t always get to listen. I also agree with Bernier above that the UFC needs to get one epic, major, one for the ages bout on Fox that can always be pointed to, purely for the benefit of their long term relationship. It seems that it would be worth losing a particularly good PPV. But I also think they need to have some better fight breakdowns and educational material in the sport out there.
A hulu/ youtube available documentary about the formation of the UFC, some wrestling/BJJ/Judo pieces. Basically, they need a Steve Sabol NFL films type of guy to hype the legacy and history of the whole shebang. Sports in many contexts is like a Random Number Generator that we assign narratives to. (thank you xkcd) So the whole sport needs more help establishing that narrative, because with fighters it is much more real than in traditional team sports to begin with, it’s fertile ground.
DankNabbot - February 10, 2012
Thanks!
You guys knocked this shit out of the park. Definitely enjoyed this. I’ll comment on the actual subjects when I’m sober.
Tacoknight - February 10, 2012
I'm liking your take on point fighing Luke
But if we’re going to judge a fight based on points, why isn’t there more a push by fans, media, fighters, referees/judges, or commissions to institute a point-based system? Judo, Olympic boxing/kickboxing, all types of wrestling employ the point based system to determine effective strikes, rather than the current system in which the perception of effective strikes based on a judges opinion.
I, for one like the idea of a point-based system. Fans understand points much more than opinion and ‘judging’ makes it appear that we’re looking at a forms contest, or at worst figure skating.
tigerlee - February 10, 2012
tigerlee - February 10, 2012
It’s going to be very difficult to come up with a points system that puts all of those together. Also, assigning points could exacerbate the problems that people have with people fighting like condit did, like olympic boxing.
Phildo - February 10, 2012
I think we’ve discussed this before, but FightMetric has a pretty good system already in place. It’s not going to escalate problems anymore than judging, which is patently horrible & borderline mysterious. It’s an old & archaic way of making a decision, based on pro boxing from the early 1900’s. Reductive scoring (i.e. a fighter only being awarded 8 or 7 points) and 10-10 rounds are subjective, leading to massive speculation on judges & the sport. And the salient point is how are rounds scored within the span of a fight anyway?
Let’s say Fighter A wins a close 1st round putting him up 10-9 on 2 cards and 9-10 on another. Fighter B secures a solid but not overly dominating 2nd round (like an early take down that he rode for 3 minutes of the round), and all 3 judges score it unanimously 10-9. As of now we know that the fight is even, but Fighter B’s winning round was far more dominant than Fighter A’s, yet they have a majority 19-19 score from 2 judges, and 18-20 by the 3rd judge going into the 3rd round. That doesn’t seem like a fair system in any way to the fighter with a more dominate round.
Sure it’s a fictional scenario, but I could break down the judges round-by-round scoring in something like Edgar-Maynard 2 or Henderson-Rua for something similar. I really want to discuss this, and not get into a slap fight over right/wrong stances. But obviously something has to be done concerning the current state of judging- even if we have no say in how it’s reformed.
tigerlee - February 10, 2012
I’m all for fixing it, but I’m just not sure that anyone will ever agree with a points based system. People throw fightmetric under the bus the second it says their favorite fighter lost.
Phildo - February 10, 2012
Then the point fighting game plans of Condit or Fitch really aren’t being given the credit they deserve.
tigerlee - February 10, 2012
That was one of my frustrations with the fight...
Most striking combat sports I’m familiar with that have point-based systems also have specific rules to discourage or punish elements of the style Condit employed… Kickboxing puts fighters in rings with steeper corners, or deducts points and assigns DQs for going out of bounds. Karate, TKD, Kung Fu, JJJ, and Kendo tournaments do much the same.
If you were to make a truly comprehensive MMA point system then it wouldn’t it have to address things like controlling the center ring of the octagon alone, touching the fence, giving up your back, etc?
There is broad agreement that the MMA judging ruleset does not adequately address the vagaries of the sport. To an extent, I think that leaves it more open to exploitation of the ruleset, allowing for victories that a true point system would address. I also think that if you take it to its logical conclusion, stylistically, you end up with fights that make you long for the days of a good Fitching…
I mean, as good as Condit is, I think there are guys (Diaz himself in fact), who could exploit that level of style and strategy to substantially greater effect.
Bloody L - February 10, 2012
Cage Control would subsumed in other areas of scoring
Controlling the center of the ring, but not winning in effective striking really speaks for itself (for example Diaz – Condit). While giving up your back is a common point scoring device for the offensive man in both wrestling & BJJ. A lot of people think that integrating both striking and grappling into a scoring system that doesn’t favor one style over the other is problematic. But when you break it down in to offensive vs defensive stances in each area, it becomes much easier to score. The things that can stop a bout other than accidental injury (eye poke, groin shot, etc.) are:
(1) Submissions – from either strikes or holds
(2) TKO, or TSUB – under discretion of the referee
(3) TKO – under discretion from a ringside doctor (cut’s, broken/dislocated bones, etc) and
(4) KO
So basically any fighter that is purely on the defensive (yet not in the act of succumbing to 1-4) in a given exchange is not scoring. Judges can clearly see when a fighter is in trouble, but the nuances of striking (e.g. Condit-Diaz) are probably harder to score than grappling where it’s easier for a judge to determine who is in control. The full guard may be foreign to most Americans, but we know when see effective GnP or sub attempts that the defensive person is definitely at a disadvantage and not scoring because they are trying not to avoid having the fight ended by 1 of the 4 above.
tigerlee - February 10, 2012
Point fighting frequency...
The real problem I have with the overt point fighting in modern MMA is not the frequency with which it is happening, and you brought up a good point Luke: it is pretty rare, but rather the caliber of matches it is happening at.
I would much rather see the newcomers to the UFC fight point-first to work their way into the upper echelons, rather than the other way around.
Bloody L - February 10, 2012
I thought Condit was very active in the fight, but when he did go in for the kill he seemed to hold back a bit, as though expecting Diaz to suddenly transform into a giant spinning deathblade when he got close.
With some of the talk lately regarding a need for finishes, where do you draw the line between point fighting and just good ‘ol “going to a decision”. For all we know Condit intended to KO Diaz, but for whatever reason he didn’t quite manage to get that perfect kill shot. It happens. Half the fights on a card could be considered sloppier versions of “point fighting” if you consider that they go to a decision and one or both fighters don’t simply charge in swinging till one of them drops.
UncleMax - February 10, 2012
I would expect strategic, cautious fights in a fight that determines who fights the one of the largest draws in MMA. In that context I don’t mind, since there’s usually about 10 fights in the rest of the card to see the mid tier and lower guys wing it or get wreckless.
UncleMax - February 10, 2012
I'm sorry man
But when you have known knockout power, and you land a head kick flush against a person that is known for not having a chin, and he barely moves his back, then you’re not trying to finish the fight.
juanchoD - February 11, 2012 via mobile
I said he might have intended to, I didn't say he tried hard enough.
UncleMax - February 11, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bloody Elbow to post a comment.