Trading Shots: What does Nick Diaz's provisional suspension tell us about USADA's real UFC impact?

Is Nick Diaz’s issue with USADA a sign of a broken system, or an inevitable side effect of cleaning up the sport? MMAjunkie columnist Ben Fowlkes and retired UFC and WEC fighter Danny Downes discuss in this week’s Trading Shots.

Fowlkes: Bad news, Danny. Your dude Nick Diaz may be in trouble again. Apparently he accrued enough “whereabouts failures” to run afoul of USADA, which resulted in him being “provisionally suspended” this week.

First, can we agree that, no matter what else you want to say about the guy, this proves that Diaz is still totally on brand? Not showing up for important things is a patented Diaz move, so a part of me has to applaud the consistency.

But more importantly, doesn’t this whole situation highlight some problems with the USADA system? UFC President Dana White just told John Morgan that he doesn’t think Diaz will ever fight again. Diaz has already been gone from the cage for more than two years, and in that time he’s given no indication that he wants to return.

And yet, he’s never told the UFC or USADA that he’s retired, which means he’s still under contract and still obligated to tell USADA where he’ll be at all times, presumably for the rest of his natural life. Does that seem a bit extreme to you? Especially for a dude employed as an independent contractor?

Downes: If I didn’t know any better Ben, I’d say that you seem upset about this. Why? This is the future you and your friends in the so-called media wanted all along. Something had to be done! I remember cries of “What if somebody dies?!” as if performance-enhancing drugs turn you into some overpowering Anime character capable of punching holes through people’s skulls.

Who would have guessed that a company that doesn’t respect its athletes would pair up with an organization that doesn’t appear to respect athletes? At least the morality and sanctity of mixed martial arts has been restored.

As for this specific case, I’m not surprised (you know whats). I don’t know Diaz, but he doesn’t strike me the type of guy that would tell USADA where and when he’ll be at all times. Personally, I think it’s amazing that we don’t hear about these “whereabouts failures” more often. Fighters aren’t always the punctual type and many prefer their lifestyle because it allows them the freedom to move around and not be tied to a laptop like some dork.

Having said that, what alternatives are possible? The proverbial USADA cat has been let out of the bag. The responsibilities forced upon these independent contractors are unreasonable, but I don’t see room for compromise. Instead of telling USADA where you are 24 hours a day, you just have to give them a 12-hour window three days a week? I can only imagine what certain journalists would say if the requirements were eased.

Fowlkes: OK, we might as well admit here that one of the reasons this seems so absurd is because of who we’re dealing with. If Alistair Overeem had gotten popped under this rule (btw, it takes three “whereabouts failures” in 12 months to get you in trouble, so there is some room for error), we’d be a lot less sympathetic.

But Diaz? Odds are he was just off somewhere passing the dutchie to the lefthand side, Danny. Maybe he was also messing around with some nunchucks, like you do. The one thing I feel confident saying is that he was probably not juicing up and preparing to make his return as a heavyweight. Once again, it feels like USADA is getting the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

Which is not to say that the whole USADA system needs to be scrapped. You can act like any concern about PEDs is just a bunch of overblown, moralistic hand-wringing, but look around at some of the rises and falls that have taken place in the UFC since the testing got real. Obviously, some of that magic juice really works. It must, for people to take the risks they do in order to keep using it.

In a sport like this it can’t help but increase the danger to competitors. But as I’ve said on multiple occasions, unfettered use of PEDs also turns the sport into a hormonal arms race where doping is the price of admission. It’s not a moral issue; it’s a fairness issue. Either we want to let everyone play weight room chemist or we don’t. And if we say you can’t use it, it’s unfair for you to use it while your opponent plays it clean and suffers through the bumps and bruises and soreness without the same help.

So yes, having an independent body conduct random, out-of-competition testing for PEDs is a good thing for enforcing those standards. But the fighters got no say in the implementation of this program, in large part because they don’t have a unified association to help negotiate stuff like this the way athletes in most other major pro sports do.

Continuing to subject a fighter to tests years after he’s effectively stopped competing is invasive. Telling him he has to publicly retire just to live his life without USADA on his back seems like an onerous requirement. Hopping in and out of retirement can be harmful to a fighter’s brand and earning potential. But if he doesn’t do it, he’s stuck with a UFC contract and a USADA obligation indefinitely?

That’s a problem. Are you really going to tell me that the only solution is going back to the days when state athletic commissions (or the UFC itself, in sometimes deeply flawed fashion), did all the testing, usually on a schedule so predictable you could circle it on the calendar?

Downes: If you’re going to create a testing system for the entire UFC, you can’t pick and choose when to enforce it. Singling out people like Overeem or other past users while giving fighters like Diaz a pass would be discriminatory. The “eye test” isn’t based on science and shouldn’t be the guiding principle of an anti-doping policy.

I wouldn’t call returning to the old system a solution, but I would say it’s preferable to the current situation. We have two imperfect systems and the old way was the lesser of two evils. Hopefully there are improvements to the current USADA program, but I don’t see any on the horizon.

Think about it. What benefits has USADA really given the sport? Your boogeyman Vitor Belfort has faded from glory, but he’s also 40 years old. I’m not saying that PEDs weren’t a problem or that they don’t work. I just don’t see any major changes in the UFC. I’m sure readers will be able to pinpoint specific cases, but I’m talking about systemic, far-reaching changes.

What have we received in return? Further entrenchment of the UFC interfering in fighters’ lives and placing increased, onerous requirements on them. If USADA (and by extension the UFC) can interfere in their everyday lives, what more can fighters give up? Why don’t we make every fighter live in an “Ultimate Fighter”-type house where we can record their every move?

Some people will say that this goes with the territory and it’s the price of being a fighter. I call shenanigans. You have hundreds of fighters subjected to an agreement that they had no say in. It affects their personal lives and could ultimately harm their careers.

This is about more than a Diaz brother doing what he wants. Fighters are expected to let some stranger knock on their doors when he or she pleases, but they can’t even decide what T-shirt they’d like to wear to the cage? I’m not saying we should go back to the “good ol’ days.” I’m just saying they seem better than what we have today.

Ben Fowlkes is MMAjunkie and USA TODAY’s MMA columnist. Danny Downes, a retired UFC and WEC fighter, is an MMAjunkie contributor who has also written for UFC.com and UFC 360. Follow them on twitter at @benfowlkesMMA and @dannyboydownes.