UFC 2015 news: Conor McGregor and Daniel Cormier question Nick Diaz suspension

Nick Diaz[photo: YouTube Screen Capture/MMAWeekly.com]

The ban on Nick Diaz continues to rack in support from various origins, but the latest to join the bandwagon are Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) champions Conor McGregor and Daniel Cormier.

It has been over a month now since Nick Diaz was meted a five-year suspension for failing marijuana tests after his controversial fight against Anderson Silva back in January.

Diaz, 32, was meted the five-year ban as well as fined 33% of the $500,000 he made from the UFC 183 bout. Should the ban stick, it would mean that Diaz will be 37 years old already when his suspension lapses. 

For some, the five-year ban is somewhat close to a lifetime ban of sorts.

Right now, Diaz's attorney is arguing at the proceedings that saw the fighter come out positive in the testing. Two negative results actually came back from World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-accredited laboratories, while the lone positive findings came from Quest laboratories, a non-WADA certified group.

Despite that issue, the commission stood pat on the positive findings, saying that Quest was a time tested standard for them.

Regardless and unless something comes out, Diaz and his supporters hope that his appeal would turn in positive results and overturn the suspension, or at least cut it a bit.

But as this goes on, Diaz is certainly not alone. UFC champs McGregor and Cormier have aired their piece on the matter and in all, both were not pleased.

"The Nick Diaz situation … is absolutely ridiculous," McGregor was quoted saying on the MMA Hour. "I can't wrap my head around that whole situation," he added.

"Sometimes you see some of the other things guys have done, and compared to what Nick has done, I understand Nick is a repeat offender, but there's no reason to… I mean, come on, five years? Why would you give anyone five years for that?" says Cormier via MMA Weekly.

In all, it seems that Diaz does deserve punishment for his actions and/or the findings against him. But the issue at hand is the time element — five years — which seems a bit too harsh for someone like Nick Diaz.