The former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) middleweight contender knows the Stockton slugger did wrong when he failed his UFC 193 drug test for marijuana. But his transgression wasn't major enough to warrant a five-year ban from mixed martial arts (MMA).
Or a lifetime ban, as Sonnen says, seeing as how a fighter's time in the sport isn't very long.
That's why "The American Gangster" says the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) needs to be held accountable for its decision and explain why the decided to levy such a harsh punishment on Diaz.
"I wish there would be some kind of explanation. When a guy stubs his toe and Nick did -- Nick's wrong here -- but there is a question of, how wrong was he? What kind of violation is this? Was this a lifetime ban? You can call it five years, but as you know, that's a lifetime ban in this sport."
Nick's lawyers have already put the wheels in motion to take the case to court. As Sonnen sees it, that's the best thing to do, as a judge will likely put members of the NSAC on the hot seat.
Plus, the angered MMA community -- and Diaz himself -- may finally get some answers.
"We've already seen Wanderlei have some success (with taking NSAC to court). I don't think Nick's would be any different. They've got a really wide scope. That has to be understood. People are saying they're out of their lane here. I think that's gonna be for a judge to decide. We need to be able to at least have a teaching moment. I need to least be able to go to guys and go, 'Look, don't do this' and tell them why. I'm not sure Diaz could have that conversation right now. I think right now if he was talking to a group of people I think maybe he's a little confused. We're owed an explanation. That's fair. When you kick that can down the road, that suspension is in place. There's no retroactive way for him to recoup the time lost here, whether it was just time or even the monetary damages. There's not a lot of power an athlete has."
Diaz, for the most part, has kept quite since the decision, other than blasting the NSAC shortly after the ruling by labeling them a bunch of "dorks."
His silence may speak volumes, though, as it could very well mean the his legal team is preparing to speak on his behalf and scream at the top of their lungs once they get in front of a federal judge.
Question is, will it make much of a difference in getting the decision overturned?