NSAC Hearing - 4:30pm est Discussion (Fight Pass)

If they aren't going to talk about Connor Da McGregor, I don't want to hear anyting about it.
 
but that's on a close up replay though (you don't specify whether it was real-time or slow motion) and probably at a different angle. you know what you're looking for before you even see it. Yamasaki didn't. in order to get into his perspective, you have to try and erase your memory and rewatch the actual fight video in real-time without anticipating the eye poke. plus the actual camera footage is very close to his actual perspective (he was standing almost right in front of the camera when the eye poke happened) and its much harder to see it than it is from looking at rivera's face head-on.

i'm not saying the eye poke isn't wrong, i'm just saying that is wasn't that obvious and Yamasaki shouldn't be getting a lot of heat for this. even rivera's reaction to the eye poke was ambiguous; you really can't tell if he's covering his face from being punched or eye poked.
 
SilvaMoney said:
Anderson Da Silva (33-6)

How can the biggest Athletic Commission get the UFC GOAT for like 7 years+ name wrong? (Unless 'Da' is his middle name)
Click to expand...

Fun fact: Nick's real name is Nikolai de la Los Diaz Garcia Martinez
 
Sounds like there might be some action
 
Did the huge wave die down? I thought more people would be anticipating topic 15 after all those threads on it.
 
Hope that Rivera gets the NC vs Faber
 
tenniswhiz said:
Over 35 need special permission to fight?
Isn't that age discrimination?
Click to expand...

Sort of. Let's say I was 35 or older and I had to make a special appearance to get my license and I had the same thought as you, and decided I was mad enough to sue.

I would have to sue under the fourteenth amendment, and I would sue under what's called the "equal protection" clause.

Equal protection isn't, however, absolutely guaranteed to everyone in all circumstances. Basically, depending on what basis the government differentiates between people, they will have to meet a corresponding level of "scrutiny" to justify their doing so.

Different treatment under the law on the basis of race, alienage, religion, or national origin is held to the highest level of scrutiny; the government has to show they have a compelling state interest, the law has to be "narrowly tailored" to serve that interest, and there must be no less restrictive alternative. As far as I know, only one law EVER made it past this level of scrutiny: Korematsu vs U.S., the almost unanimously wrongly-decided case that held it was OK to intern Japanese Americans in camps during WWII.

If a law discriminates on gender, there is a middle level of scrutiny called "intermediate scrutiny" which requires an important government interest and the law must substantially further that interest. Differentiation on sexual orientation might fall in here too.

But ALL the rest, until the courts say otherwise, only need to meet rational basis review, which is the lowest standard of scrutiny and VERY easy to meet. All you need to show is a legitimate government interest (which safety of athletes clearly is, otherwise the athletic commissions wouldn't exist) and a rational relationship to that interest (which merely means you could make an argument for a relationship existing.) Requiring a license for fighters after age 35 is arguably related to fighter safety. It doesn't need to be irrefutably related, and the relation doesn't need to be strong and direct in order to pass rational basis review.

So basically, YES it is discriminatory, but no, there is no chance in hell you'd ever convince a court it violated the fourteenth amendment, so the law remains until and unless the legislature decides to change it, which of course is very unlikely.
 
I'm preparing myself for gross and utter incompetence on behalf of the commission. I wonder what kind of crazy and retarded shit they'll say or what will happen.

If Rivera doesn't get a NC I will rage.
 
chunglii said:
I'm preparing myself for gross and utter incompetence on behalf of the commission. I wonder what kind of crazy and retarded shit they'll say or what will happen.

If Rivera doesn't get a NC I will rage.
Click to expand...

It's going to be an hour and a half of them trying to figure out if Anderson will be able to use his new bionic shin like Lex Luger used to use his metal forearm in the WWF. Anderson will repeatedly tell them "is normal." The female commissioner will call Shields handsome. Rivera will not get a NC. The discussion of out-of-competition testing will result in no action being taken at this time.
 
chunglii said:
I'm preparing myself for gross and utter incompetence on behalf of the commission. I wonder what kind of crazy and retarded shit they'll say or what will happen.

If Rivera doesn't get a NC I will rage.
Click to expand...

no history that a fight turned into a NC for this reason, don't count on it, because they have to protect their coworker ref!
 
Gun'n'Run said:
Sort of. Let's say I was 35 or older and I had to make a special appearance to get my license and I had the same thought as you, and decided I was mad enough to sue.

I would have to sue under the fourteenth amendment, and I would sue under what's called the "equal protection" clause.

Equal protection isn't, however, absolutely guaranteed to everyone in all circumstances. Basically, depending on what basis the government differentiates between people, they will have to meet a corresponding level of "scrutiny" to justify their doing so.

Different treatment under the law on the basis of race, alienage, religion, or national origin is held to the highest level of scrutiny; the government has to show they have a compelling state interest, the law has to be "narrowly tailored" to serve that interest, and there must be no less restrictive alternative. As far as I know, only one law EVER made it past this level of scrutiny: Korematsu vs U.S., the almost unanimously wrongly-decided case that held it was OK to intern Japanese Americans in camps during WWII.

If a law discriminates on gender, there is a middle level of scrutiny called "intermediate scrutiny" which requires an important government interest and the law must substantially further that interest. Differentiation on sexual orientation might fall in here too.

But ALL the rest, until the courts say otherwise, only need to meet rational basis review, which is the lowest standard of scrutiny and VERY easy to meet. All you need to show is a legitimate government interest (which safety of athletes clearly is, otherwise the athletic commissions wouldn't exist) and a rational relationship to that interest (which merely means you could make an argument for a relationship existing.) Requiring a license for fighters after age 35 is arguably related to fighter safety. It doesn't need to be irrefutably related, and the relation doesn't need to be strong and direct in order to pass rational basis review.

So basically, YES it is discriminatory, but no, there is no chance in hell you'd ever convince a court it violated the fourteenth amendment, so the law remains until and unless the legislature decides to change it, which of course is very unlikely.
Click to expand...

I just got law'd.

We need you in like, every thread relating to fighters and law.
 
So it's all pretty run of the mill stuff in this hearing then? No major dramatic dilemmas
 
the agenda looks boring as fuck

for some reason nobody cares about all the jones shenanigans..... extremely abnormal T/E ratios, wildly chaning T/E ratios from test to test, disclosing test results to the wrong people, promising CIR test results but not delivering, etc etc

nobody really cares. so weird
 
10-9 phone. Silva needs a strong next round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,980
Messages
55,459,119
Members
174,787
Latest member
Freddie556

Share this page

Back
Top