Well, it certainly looks like the entire Nevada State Athletic Commission is made up of a bunch of small dick vindictive little piss-ants.
It is possible that is not the case. I'm not in favor of trial by Instagram so it is possible that there are extenuating circumstances of which I am not aware that justify their actions - like maybe while Nick was smoking a joint he shot one of their mothers or something.
However, let me address a few stupid arguments I have seen people make, and I'd like to preface this with two things.
First, the Diaz family has been unfailingly kind, polite and respectful to my daughter and that began long before she became successful. I can't say that about too many people. Any time I have met either Diaz brother they have been as polite and respectful as you would hope someone to be to your mom. It's not just me. Other people who have met them have made the same comment. Away from the media, I have never seen or heard anything but good about them.
Second, my points below apply to anyone. So, although I have reason to like the Diaz brothers, I would hold these positions equally if I did not like them.
Stupid argument #1: If you break a rule, you should expect to be punished.
In America, we believe that the punishment should fit the crime. We hold this so strongly that it is in our original Bill of Rights. The eighth amendment to the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Look it up.
I live in Santa Monica where parking tickets seem to be the city's main source of income. If I park on the right side of the street on a Monday when they are doing street cleaning, I expect to get a ticket. There is a sign posted saying not to park there on Monday. I do not expect the traffic police to knock on my door and shoot me with a bazooka, impound my car, run over my dog or any other punishment far out of proportion to the crime.
Stupid argument #2 : If you break a rule more than once, you shouldn't be surprised if they throw the book at you
Let's take a look at driving laws. If I talk on my cell phone while driving, the first offense is $20. The second offense and subsequent offenses are $50.
I've actually gotten two tickets for that and paid them both.
If I get a third ticket and they throw me in jail for three months and I lose my job, I'm going to argue that was vastly out of proportion to the crime.
What exactly would punishment like that accomplish? The point is to "teach me a lesson" so that I quit talking on my cell phone?
Why does the state of California not see that some people might just pay the $50 and keep using their phones while driving? I suspect they do see that but our state government officials realize the stupidity of causing people to lose their livelihood over relatively minor offenses.
Stupid argument #3: They have to make an example of people who continually break the rules. Otherwise, why have them?
Making an example of someone sounds uncomfortably to me like you are not treating everyone equally, and for any body doling out punishments, that's a pretty creepy thought. What exactly is this example supposed to teach? Don't smoke marijuana?
According to the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE USED MARIJUANA IN THE LAST MONTH. That's 7.5% of the population aged 12 and older.
I kind of doubt the NSAC ruling is going to dent the marijuana smoking population much.
Does this mean that they should just continue to give relatively minor punishments to people who repeatedly commit relatively minor offenses? Yes, yes it does. No matter how many tickets I get for talking on my cell phone, I don't think it is right for the state to impound my car to make an example of me.
Stupid argument #4: It is okay to penalize someone far more for a marijuana violation than steroids or cocaine because "He did it more than once"
So, let me get this straight ... by this reasoning, if I shoot my neighbor tomorrow, I should get a lighter sentence than if I go over and spray "You suck, neighbor!" on her front door for the third time.
There is a law against vandalism and I shouldn't do it. However, no matter how many times I do it, it doesn't cause the same harm to an individual or society as shooting someone.
Similarly, if you take Performance Enhancing Drugs, which really DO give you an advantage in an athletic competition (and have we forgotten here that the A in NSAC stands for Athletic?) then that should be penalized more severely than an inconsistent result on a test for a drug that does not provide you a benefit nor put your opponent at risk in an athletic competition.
There may be something here I am not seeing, but what it looks like is a few people got offended that they weren't receiving what they considered the proper amount of deference and assuming they were untouchable and above questioning in their little fiefdom, decided to mess with an athlete's life to teach a lesson to the rest of the peasants to stay in line. I have seen that kind of crap far too many times in my involvement in elite sports and it makes me sick.
This is my day job - making games that make you smarter.
You can play them yourselves or donate one to a child or school so they don't grow up to be a dumb ass or on the NSAC , but perhaps that was redundant?