In hearings that took place on Thursday, the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) took action to approve settlement agreements regarding the cases of Nate Diaz, Brock Lesnar, and Jon Jones. All three fighters had various infractions before the committee for consideration. With today’s action, the NSAC considers these cases closed. The NSAC did not release full details of the agreements.
Jones (22-1 MMA, 6-1 UFC) was suspended for one year as a result of a violation of the UFC’s anti-doping program. In Jones’ defense arguments during an arbitration hearing before USADA, he cited a tainted sexual enhancement supplement for the positive test. The commission indicated that their penalty for Jones was identical to the one handed down by USADA after that hearing. No fine was levied on Jones as he was pulled from the UFC 200 card due to the violation. Jones will be eligible to compete again as of July 7, 2017.
NSAC offered almost no information in the case of Diaz (19-11 MMA, 14-9 UFC), who was before the commission due to the bottle-throwing incident that he was involved in prior to UFC 202 when he faced Conor McGregor. They only noted that the penalty was “in accordance with consistance” with how McGregor was penalized. A report on ESPN.com said that Diaz would be fined 2.5 percent of his $2 million fight purse and serve 50 hours community service.
Lesnar (6-3 MMA, 5-3 UFC) will also be serving a one-year suspension due to failed drug tests after his bout with Mark Hunt at UFC 200, and was fined a reported $250,000. Representatives for Lesnar requested continuance in the case to permit time for chemical testing of creams and medications that may have been contaminated, resulting in the positive test. The result of Lesnar’s fight with Hunt was changed to a no contest.
Noteworthy in the Lesnar hearing was the presence of Joseph Gonnella, a representative of Mark Hunt. He had asked to be heard prior to the NSAC vote to accept the settlement with Lesnar. This was a deviation in standard procedure, which confused the commissioners. Instead, his remarks were moved to the public comment segment of the meeting. At that point, Gonnella declined comment, citing that he had not seen the adjudication agreement prior to passage.