Joined
·
3,047 Posts
SourceAnderson Silva may no longer be able to fight in Las Vegas
Written by Zeus
Sunday, 11 April 2010 21:10
Alright folks, throw on those tinfoil hats because it's time to dive into the world of pseudo evidence and conspiracy theory. Earlier today I received an email from someone who claims that he's been a longtime partner of Ed Soares. Not the West Hollywood sense of a 'partner', more like a longtime friend who's done business/marketing for Ed Soares' fighters. Since I know you're reading this, I would be happy to publish your name if you would give me permission. Just let me know, you have my email.
He claims that the conversation Dana White alluded to in his post-fight interview with MMAFighting's Ariel Helwani was, in fact, in regards to Anderson Silva's potential match-up with Georges St. Pierre. Apparently Dana was reluctant to pair the two together based on his performance (which I personally thought was stellar). He also mentioned that the Nevada State Athletic Commission (it looks like the UFC planned to hold the event in Mandalay Bay) was unhappy with Anderson's performance and there may be an issue with Silva 'obtaining his license'.
Here's where it gets wild. A few hours after that email, I received another email from someone (once again, send me an email if you would like your name published) that sent me the exact Nevada Athletic code in which Anderson Silva violated. Below is the above mentioned chapter/sector:
NRS 467.110 Suspension, revocation and other disciplining of contestant and other participants; grounds for refusal to issue license.
1. The Commission may suspend or revoke the license of, otherwise discipline, or take any combination of such actions against any contestant, promoter, ring official or other participant who, in the judgment of the Commission:
(a) Enters into a contract for a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat in bad faith;
(b) Participates in any sham or fake contest or exhibition of unarmed combat;
(c) Participates in a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat pursuant to a collusive understanding or agreement in which the contestant competes in or terminates the contest or exhibition in a manner that is not based upon honest competition or the honest exhibition of the skill of the contestant;
(d) Is guilty of a failure to give his or her best efforts, a failure to compete honestly or a failure to give an honest exhibition of his or her skills in a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat;
(e) Is guilty of an act or conduct that is detrimental to a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat, including, but not limited to, any foul or unsportsmanlike conduct in connection with a contest or exhibition of unarmed combat; or
(f) Fails to comply with any limitation, restriction or condition placed on his or her license.
2. The Commission may refuse to issue a license to an applicant who has committed any of the acts described in subsection 1.
[5:40:1941; 1931 NCL § 905.04]—(NRS A 1985, 941; 1993, 1451; 1997, 1345; 1999, 1235)
So is it just an extreme coincidence that two emails were sent from seemingly different sources that addressed the same issue? Not sure, for all intensive purposes it could be the same guy just pulling us all throw some twisted loop. For now, this will be considered a rumor and if it is confirmed at any point next week...we'll kick back our feet and take credit for it.
