If TRT is legal...

[Shaddows]

Originally Posted by Senzo Tanaka

TRT is also illegal. There is simply an exemption form you can fill out if you are required to use it for whatever reason. If you don't file the exemption and if you go over the ratio determined by the commission to be legal, it's a failure. See Overeem and Marquart for examples.

For marijuana (including metabolites), there also exists an exemption. If you are prescribed by a doctor, you file an exemption. If you don't, it's illegal. See Diaz. He claims he had a card but didn't tell the commission and then wouldn't show that he had the card after he had already been busted.

I see where the thread is going though. Why is weed punished and steroids are not? Both are illegal and both have exemptions. If you man up to either and file the exemption, there will be no problem. The fine and suspension is also far less for weed. It's not being unfairly picked on.

AHH! I see.
Reading your post (and some others), I see it now.
I was ignorant to the fact there is a TUE for MJ and fighters didn't know/didn't use it.

Thank you all for the responses. I appreciate it

always good to learn something new

[iwhoopedbatman]

Originally Posted by Shaddows

fair point, but not what i implied.

And while you are mostly correct, your point is not accurate.

A normal person would have x.
With TRT, they have to be tested, but can have 3-6 times above that level.
Without, you would not be able to get to those levels.

So all in all, you can't go through the roof, but you can get higher than a normal person could without it.

and while I agree with people's statements that it is illegal in most states, this should have nothing to do with the AC. They are not a law enforcement body and as such should have no reasoning to ban because it may be against the law.

besides, as I pointed out, they are being busted by the fact that there are some residual metabolites in your blood from when you smoke up to a month prior to the fight!

Athletic commissions are beholden to state and federal laws and are government entities. They don't enforce the laws like police or the courts, but they can and will disqualify people who violate them. There are tons of rules stating that conviction of a crime CAN (not must, nor will) be grounds for suspension as well.

To make the work of determining what should be illegal simpler for them, the athletic commissions have mostly decided to just follow the USADA and WADA standards. I know Nick Diaz' attorneys tried to reinterpret the WADA regulations on what 'in competition' means, but that argument was rightly rejected for being completely original to the lawyer's mind. As for the metabolites, the NSAC and other boards have used that as their standard for years. It is the de facto rule of the NSAC. I'm not about to go through their bylaws to see if that's kosher, but its been used as the standard for many, many years now.

[Shaddows]

Originally Posted by iwhoopedbatman

Athletic commissions are beholden to state and federal laws and are government entities. They don't enforce the laws like police or the courts, but they can and will disqualify people who violate them. There are tons of rules stating that conviction of a crime CAN (not must, nor will) be grounds for suspension as well.

To make the work of determining what should be illegal simpler for them, the athletic commissions have mostly decided to just follow the USADA and WADA standards. I know Nick Diaz' attorneys tried to reinterpret the WADA regulations on what 'in competition' means, but that argument was rightly rejected for being completely original to the lawyer's mind. As for the metabolites, the NSAC and other boards have used that as their standard for years. It is the de facto rule of the NSAC. I'm not about to go through their bylaws to see if that's kosher, but its been used as the standard for many, many years now.

I see!
Thanks again! I truly appreciate your response (and all others).
I am so out of my league on this, I could only guess on this subject.

[Cake4Breakfast]

Originally Posted by alcide

I've seen a few other people using this reasoning, but this is absolutely not the case. State laws trump federal as dictated by the 10th Amendment to the constitution. There seems to be a huge misconception out there.

Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Con stitution

Google Melinda Haag if you believe this is the case, you will see that a US Attorney has shut down many, many medical marijuana facilities in cities like San Francisco and Oakland despite them operating pristinely under local and state law, and local government officials standing up for those facilities.

Below is a link to a DOJ official stating any first year law student will tell you federal is "supreme" over state law.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/we...n-conflict.htm

[Cake4Breakfast]

Originally Posted by Capsela

dr heisenberg gave me a meth script.

Meth is bad for you, you should use cannabis to help you withdraw from that poison, it will not harm you, and it will help a lot.

[Cake4Breakfast]

Originally Posted by Senzo Tanaka

TRT is also illegal. There is simply an exemption form you can fill out if you are required to use it for whatever reason. If you don't file the exemption and if you go over the ratio determined by the commission to be legal, it's a failure. See Overeem and Marquart for examples.

For marijuana (including metabolites), there also exists an exemption. If you are prescribed by a doctor, you file an exemption. If you don't, it's illegal. See Diaz. He claims he had a card but didn't tell the commission and then wouldn't show that he had the card after he had already been busted.

I see where the thread is going though. Why is weed punished and steroids are not? Both are illegal and both have exemptions. If you man up to either and file the exemption, there will be no problem. The fine and suspension is also far less for weed. It's not being unfairly picked on.

One point on this, there is no state run card system in CA like in Nevada, making it much less strict than Nevada as to who can use cannabis for medical purposes. In CA you get a note from a physician and you are done, which is why you have the starbucks like cannabis dispensaries paying millions of dollars in taxes each year. The cards people have are not official state cards, they are just something to avoid carrying around one's medical records.

As for a TUE for cannabis actually being granted, I am incredulous that this will actually happen. Using cannabis to treat add/ADHD has plenty of anecdotal evidence, and even some support from animal studies, but it from from a mainstream use, so Nick is taking a huge risk asking for a TUE for this, though from my understanding, he was prescribed stimulants for add/ADHD when he was younger.