CSAC sets prohibited substance precedent
From: Iridium_ISA Member Since: 6/25/10 Posts: 3 Van Nuys, California – June 20, 2011 Re: Iridium Sports Agency appeals Miura…
From: Iridium_ISA
Member Since: 6/25/10
Posts: 3
Van Nuys, California – June 20, 2011
Re: Iridium Sports Agency appeals Miura – DeJesus results from Tachi Palace Fights 9.
Iridium Sports Agency associate, Ian Whittaker appeared before the commission on behalf of Russ Miura. Executive Officer, George Dodd summarized the written appeal prompting discussion among the commissioners.
Commission members discussed the appropriateness of invoking their authority provided by Section 368 to change the decision of the fight. One member briefly voiced his opinion about the uncertainty of the performance enhancing effects of marijuana however, he immediately followed by emphasizing the importance of the California Code of Regulations. He ultimately expressed his conclusion that under these particular circumstances, it would be appropriate for the CSAC to exercise its discretionary authority to overturn the results.
The issue of precedent rulings were then raised to which it was responded that Section 368 was relatively recently amended and that the amendment explicitly expanded the authority of Section 368 to apply to a bout where the winner had tested positive for a prohibited substance immediately after the fight. It was further raised that precedent existed in an equally esteemed jurisdiction citing the NSAC ruling in Diaz vs Gomi where Diaz’s submission victory was overturned because Diaz tested positive for the same prohibited substance (marijuana).
Legal Counsel Anita Scuri concluded the discussion by emphasizing that section 368(d) provides that a decision change is subject “as the commission may direct.” It was again emphasized that the particular circumstances of this case were the factors that weighed in favor of exercising the CSAC’s discretionary use of Section 368 to change the decision.
Executive Officer Dodd addressed the issue of what what should be the appropriate motion and reasoned that because a contest had in fact occurred, it could not be a ruled a “no contest” but instead that the appropriate ruling should be a “no decision.”
The motion was then seconded and carried; thus marking a precedent setting decision by the CSAC to exercise its authority to enforce a strict policy against the use of prohibited substance pursuant to the California Code of Regulations Section 368(a)(4).
