News today surfaced that Sean Sherk is toying with the idea of suing the California State Athletic Commission over what is likely to be compensation for losing some lucrative fight and sponsorship deals while he was “wrongfully” suspended due to a positive Nandrolone test following his bout with Hermes Franca. The news strikes me as absolutely absurd for a few reasons that I’ve stated in the past, and Sherk should simply give up while he still has money.

Why should Sherk give up? Fans out there are either on one side or the other in the debate as to whether Sherk actually took steroids or not. I, on the other hand, really don’t care if he knowingly put the substances in his body or not, and I don’t believe the stories revolving around the machine being contaminated for four consecutive tests while a lab technician incompetently checked the machine, then used it four more times even though it was obviously not clean. I don’t buy it.

I also don’t believe that suing the CSAC is going to reveal to the state all the horrible procedures that the commission has in regards to hearings. A civil case doesn’t do much at all in this case except find Sherk losing another battle to the commission.

My advice: Just give it up, Sherk. It’s a losing battle. Do you really believe after losing your appeals process to the CSAC that it’s going to get any better? It’s doubtful, and the fact of the matter is that it was proven that you did not read the rules and regulations along with the studies on the CSAC website and documentation regarding over-the-counter supplements. Lesson learned.

If you want to sue someone for causing your suspension, how about aiming your gun toward a supplement company? It’s been done in the past by athletes, and most have won settlements. Start testing your supplements, and find the culprit, otherwise just cut the baggage while you can.

Jared Barnes, newly appointed writer at Brawl Sports, posted an article asking for takes on Sean Sherk’s situation after pointing out some of the historical facts revolving around his case with the CSAC. He points out specifically some comments that Sherk made involving his the carryover of the testing machine, how urinalysis isn’t as accurate as blood work, and how he believes that the CSAC just wanted to make an example out of him. In response to some of the claims Sherk has made and to air out some of the research I had done over the last year revolving around the case, I’d like to point out why I believe Sherk is guilty in a capacity he didn’t knowingly take steroids, he was just a victim of what many drug testing associations tell athletes every year… over the counter supplements aren’t safe.

First and foremost, I want to refute Sherk’s claims with some solid facts. The carryover issue was one of the most interesting pieces of the case when it was first exposed during the CSAC hearings. In fact, it sounded legitimate when reading over the hearing notes, and it certainly created some theories from other writers that Sherk may in fact be innocent. Armando Garcia’s interview with Sherdog.com in the coming days proved to be one of the more informative pieces that swayed my opinion in the case.

Specifically, Garcia mentions that Quest actually tests each sample multiple times and cleans the machine after every single test. Garcia stated during the interview that it was specifically four separate tests during the testing process. The oddity in Sherk’s entire claim is that the machine was used four times to test his sample with all tests coming back positive for Nandrolone. The machine was cleaned after each test, and an empty vial test was run to catch any carryover from the previous testing. My question is… if the test before Sherk’s test was positive and the machine was then cleaned, carryover was found, how long does the positive steroid stick to the testing instrument? Is it safe to think that nandrolone from a previous test was in the machine for FOUR separate tests with an incompetent technician completely ignoring it? Doubtful, unbelievably doubtful.

Barnes asked the question “How did Sherk pass three polygraphs and have a clean blood work test if he was guilty?” This has been the big question. How was it possible? As he states in his article with a follow-up question, third party testing could have been biased or he could have simply tested clean with other testing at a later date. The problem is that Nandrolone’s half life is small, very small… allowing fighters to cycle easily in its use. A day or two can make all the difference.

Secondly, Sherk may not have actually taken steroids willingly. As we saw on his All Access show, Sherk’s supplement regiment was about as insane as you can possibly get. Popping loads of supplements is obviously a danger when it comes to drug testing. Studies indicate that over 25% of over-the-counter supplements can contain ingredients that can cause positive drug tests, and Sherk was taking many more supplements than the average athlete and probably many more than the average UFC fighter. If asked if he took steroids, stating his answer as “No.” would technically be a true answer if he didn’t take them willingly.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that Sherk did have a performance-enhancing drug within his system during his fight with Hermes Franca. He did not know about the studies that the CSAC has posted on their website stating that over-the-counter supplements can cause positive testing. It also states that it is the fighter’s responsibility to know what is going into his/her body. If Sherk didn’t take steroids, it’s a bad situation for him, but maybe reading a few lines on their website may have helped his situation before engorging himself with supplements.

Sherk can still reclaim monies lost due to fight paydays and sponsorships if he can find supplements that can cause the Nandrolone positive. There have been plenty of cases in the past involving athletes suing supplement companies and winning pretty easily. Almost all of the cases result in out of court settlements. If Sherk is that pissed off about the situation, he should pursue those avenues to reclaim his money and his standing with MMA fans.

Erin Bucknell over at MMACalifornia.net got the goods from Armando Garcia involving his side of the story in this entire saga that was Nick Diaz being pulled from Saturday’s Strikeforce card. Erin posted an email that she received from Armando Garcia explaining the entire situation from his side of the lines. These are some of the pieces of the email that strike me as potentially damaging for Nick Diaz.

The employee was told by the Doctor’s office that the actual medical examination reports would be ready on Monday March 17, 2008. He advised the Doctor’s office that he would return with another fighter on that date and would pick them up then.

There is absolutely no doubt that both the employee and the fighter were given the necessary instructions.

On March 17 the promoter’s employee went back to the Doctor’s office with another fighter and was given the medical examinations for the previous fighter.

Early in the business day on Tuesday March 25, 2008 (eight days later and three days from the fight) the promoter’s employee called our office and asked a series of ‘hypothetical’ questions regarding the use of marijuana by a fighter, medicinal marijuana, having or not having a marijuana card, etc.

In the paragraphs before this excerpt, it was determined that Diaz completed his medicals on March 13, 2008. Diaz disclosed that he did use marijuana for medicinal purposes and had used it in the same week as the examination. He stated that he had a card to prove it, but did not have the card with him at that time. He told the office that it would be provided.

The hypothetical questions are bit mysterious. Also, the medicals were in fact turned in only three days prior to the event. In any case, the CSAC FAQ does state that if you have prescription drugs disclosed on your medicals, you should not wait until the week of the fight to turn those papers into the CSAC. It warns that it could very well lead to the participant not being able to compete.

Later we identified the fighter and the exact information and discussed the actual fighter’s situation. At that point, based on the exact situation, and new information that the fighter and the promoter were disclosing, which was not disclosed to the Doctor, I felt that it was highly unlikely that the matter could be resolved by the fight date on Saturday March 29, 2008.

Early on Wednesday March 26 I asked the Legal team for an opinion on the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as it relates to licenses/contestants. On the same day I spoke with both the fighter and the promoter. The promoter asked me to ‘test’ the fighter. I advised him that I could not test someone who wasn’t licensed. In this case not only did I need additional medical information for licensing, but I had no ‘card’ and no application. Please note that even if I did, and could legally test him, the test results would not be back in time for the fight.

Please also note that the fighter previously tested positive in another state in a high profile case. In that case he tested positive for marijuana and the nanogram level was the highest known in combative sports history. I have the minutes of his hearing and he stated that he used marijuana ‘recreationally’ and he promised never to do it again. He never disclosed any medical condition that would require the use of marijuana and he never contended that he had a ‘card’. He has never fought in that state again. Now, he states that he has a condition which is helped by smoking marijuana yet he provides no evidence, or no evidence has been provided.

Garcia contends that since new information was provided at a time period of three days before the event. The new information was not disclosed in the first round of medicals on the 13th of March according to the quote. As I stated above, turning in medicals the week of the event with prescription drug disclosure is not a smart idea, and Garcia has the right to stop the fight from happening.

Before Saturday’s Strikeforce event in San Jose, California, the buzz around the venue was focused on Nick Diaz being unable to participate in the event due to what CSAC Executive Director, Armando Garcia, described as Diaz not submitted his medicals in time. When reporters found Gary Shaw, his side of the story was much different. Shaw claimed that he had a conversation with Armando Garcia in which Diaz’s medical marijuana card was deemed to be the issue with Diaz’s status to fight. The two different sides of the story clashed and have now culminated into a story that has hit MMA hard with controversy. Should a medical marijuana user be allowed to fight? Does it matter? Can Nick Diaz seek legal action against the CSAC and actually win?

The case against the CSAC

I’m not a legal expert, but common sense can at least take us a bit further into how someone would build a case against the CSAC in this instance. Diaz and his manager Cesar Gracie both stated in multiple interviews that Diaz had finished all his medicals and disclosed his medical marijuana card two-three weeks prior to the event. Of course, Diaz left the sending of the medicals to the CSAC up to the doctor’s office in which he visited which was likely a CSAC approved facility. In contradicting Garcia’s statement, Cesar Gracie had this to say in a MMAWeekly interview:

Gracie denied Garcia’s claim that Diaz did not turn in his medicals on time.

“That’s absolutely not true,” said Gracie about the timing of the medicals being received. “Because if he didn’t turn his medicals in, how did (Garcia) know Nick has a cannabis club card? He found out when the medicals were turned in. Nick doesn’t turn in medicals. He goes and gets them done and the lab was turning them in for him.

“There are fighters on this card that did not get their medicals in until today. They got them done last night and turned them in today, and they are fighting.”

Gracie makes a good point. Garcia would not have been disclosed the information about the medical marijuana card unless he was aware of the medical reports already. Secondly, if fighters were turning in medicals on the same day as the event, I fail to see how Diaz could not have done the same thing if Garcia had stated that his medicals were not submitted. There is however a flaw in Gracie's logic, and we'll talk about that later.

Many people feel this case revolves around the medical marijuana card, and it very well could end up heading in that direction, but the paper trail of the medicals is the true evidence piece here. If Diaz can prove he had taken all his medicals weeks before the event and that they were delivered to the CSAC in a timely manner for the CSAC to investigate, he could see at least some reimbursement from the CSAC for his “to-show” purse from the fight.

Medical Marijuana

In a surprise move by the California State Athletic Commission, Nick Diaz will not be allowed to fight on Saturday evening at EliteXC's event in San Jose, California. According to Sherdog.com's Josh Gross, Armando Garcia, the executive officer of the CSAC, made the decision after stating that Diaz's medicals were turned in late. Controversy now lies in the comments by Garcia due to the contradicting statements by Gary Shaw, EliteXC's president. Shaw and Nick Diaz's manager Cesar Gracie had this to say:

"He never mentioned anything about late medicals," said Shaw. "And if there were late medicals it wasn't because of Nick Diaz and it wasn't because of EliteXC."

The issue, as described to him by Garcia, said Shaw, was Diaz's prescription for medical marijuana, which is legal in California based on the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

"He's got a medical marijuana card," confirmed Diaz's manager Cesar Gracie, who mentioned Attention Deficit Disorder as the cause for the prescription.

The reasoning behind Garcia's decision revolves around the time period in which Diaz let the commission know about the condition. Garcia stated that he was informed of the problem only three days before the event. The commission apparently launches an investigation into any medical marijuana case in order to “determine the reason for the prescription”. According to the article however, Diaz completed paperwork and a large amount of testing in Los Angeles nearly two and a half weeks beforehand.

Could this become a legal battle?

First and foremost, Nick Diaz and EliteXC may have grounds for a legal battle to obtain the money that Diaz stood to make for showing to the event on Saturday. Whether or not that will actually happen is up in the air, but the fact that Diaz turned paperwork in two and a half weeks ago is puzzling. Garcia claims he hadn't received paperwork that outlined the fact that Diaz had a medical marijuana card until three days before the event, yet the paperwork and physicals was done over half a month ago.

Cesar Gracie made a point that the commission should still allow Diaz to test clean before jumping to stopping the bout altogether. Unfortunately for fans and Nick Diaz, Garcia pulled the plug.

Questionable practices once again from the CSAC

If Shaw's recollection of their conversation is true and paperwork can be proven to have been filed with the commission at a much earlier date, it could prove that there was an ample amount of time for the CSAC to administer their investigation into the reasoning behind the prescription. The CSAC has had a long history of horrible logic when it comes to procedures and following by-laws in their own policy. Even in Sean Sherk's case, it was evident that the commission had huge problems in using any type of procedure during hearings. Some of the members of the board also had questionable logic.

Let Diaz fight, what does it really matter?

I never really understood the entire deal with marijuana affecting the abilities of a fighter. Numbing their mind to the affects of blows to the head? Give me a break, but in this case, does it really matter if Diaz has a prescription that may or may not have been disclosed sooner? What if they found Diaz's prescription to be valid? He'd be fighting on Saturday night with a medical marijuana card.. the exact same position he is in right now. He's missing out on $50,000 because somebody screwed transferring paperwork, or Shaw/Garcia is lying. Either way, Diaz's little prescription doesn't affect whether or not he should be allowed to fight or not.

How long does it take to investigate medical marijuana use for ADD anyways? Call up a few doctors, ask them for professional opinions, and get the show on the road. I'm really getting sick of the CSAC.

In an interview with Josh Gross and TJ Desantis during the "Beatdown" Radio show on Sherdog.com, CSAC Executive Officer Armando Garcia made comments regarding Sean Sherk's defense and attempt to clear his name in front of the CSAC appeal committee. Before I delve into each of the comments, I want to address one comment that Garcia made regarding blogs and the research that is done when looking analytically at both sides of the story.

As hard as it is to listen to people downgrade blogs as places that can spit out false information, I have tried to push both sides of Sean Sherk's case to the readership. Not only have I presented my own analytical piece regarding why I believe Sherk is guilty, but I also pushed a piece today regarding the opposite side of the story. It is up to the reader to decide which pieces of research out there are legitimately valid and which may have flaws. I do not necessarily agree with many of the studies and I question their validity. My vision, however, for this site is to present the arguments and the details, along with some opinionated pieces to begin a general conversation regarding the topic. A conversation that is intelligent and spawns intelligent thinking in regards to mixed martial arts topics.

Armando Garcia's argument

Garcia's stance on the issue is obvious. He is the executive director of the CSAC, but he does not have a vote in the appeals process, only a reccommendation. His stance on the issue was that the evidence Sherk provided was not valid to prove that the test was not positive. Here's some quick notes:

• Appeals process: Garcia does not see any real problem with the process, but will begin the process of getting an appeals process on paper and procedures/steps that need to be followed in the process.
• Concrete rules: Garcia stated he is always looking for ways to better the program. Rules will be set on paper.
• Drug Testing opened: CSAC recently opened doors for the media to see how the drug testing worked.
• Samples: Person tested can choose to have representatives, friends while testing. If sample or documentation doesn't arrive at lab in great condition, sample is thrown out.
• Quest Diagnostics: Thousands of test per year. Suggesting that their process is flawed, it is an insult to the thousands of people that have tested clean before in California. It suggests that their tests may have been tainted and that person ended up testing clean.
• Contaminated supplements: "You must be responsible for every single thing you put into your body."
• Xyience: Commented that when you bring in a test for a supplement that was positive for a substance that the lab doesn't even test for, it is a "smokescreen".
• CSAC: Leading the way in anti-doping in combative sports
• Hearing process: Stated he is for the process of giving a fighter rights to an appeal, but not for "clever smokescreens".
• Nandrolone levels: 50 ng/mL and 4 ng/mL are both positive, no difference because of the levels.
• Contamination: Microbial degradation - slim and none chance and it helps the drug user.
• Fighters: Many big name profile fighters all tested clean, does it mean that their clean test is tainted?
• Claims of testing: Says that many fighters who claim to have been tested many, many times sometimes weren't even tested.
• Labs: Some labs are much different than others, threshhold levels differ, chain of custody procedures differ.
• Praise: We should praise the fighters who don't use steroids and test clean.
• USA Today Study: Hasn't seen it, but is willing to look it over and educate himself and get it to the commissioners.
• Supplements: "When you take supplements, you are taking a risk."
• Nagano Olympics Nandrolone report: THANK YOU ARMANDO GARCIA! This is a report that I've used as a basis for my argument time and time again. Garcia makes a very good point during the radio interview regarding this report.
• Sherk's evidence: Presented no evidence to suggest that a supplement produced the nandrolone positive
• Threshhold: Garcia confirmed the 2 ng/mL threshhold
• WADA statutues: Garcia has problems with punishing someone for 2 years due to marijuana. Believes it is a little too much, but is considering some of the language in their codes to structure the appeals process.
• Testing Process: The labs would be in very deep trouble if there was a false test. Have procedures to make sure false positives don't occur. The testing process tests the sample four times, not one. The individual essentially tested positive four times.
• Quest Diagnostics: Decided upon through the contract process through the State of California. Picked because of its large number of tests it does per year, NSAC uses it as well, and it provided the best value to the state.
• James Toney: Didn't comment too much, but did state that the incident was an ugly chapter in the commission's history and he did not have any logic as to why the decision that the commission made was made.

It was a very interesting interview for a number of reasons. The main reason being that it offers insight into Sherk's case and into Garcia's thinking behind the entire ordeal. Not surprisingly, I tend to support Garcia's stance. Although he does not have control over what the commissioners ultimately decide as a punishment, he does offer insight as to why the case had no real shot at being thrown out.

My observations

Garcia mentioned that one of the key pieces to Sherk's case involved microbial degradation. I sourced in the past some studies that suggest microbial contamination of a sample could possibly cause a false positive, but in fact, microbial degradation has been proven to cause false negatives. In this study, it is proven without a doubt that false negatives occured in nandrolone tests. I actually find it amazing that this was a key piece to Sherk's defense that was not researched extensively enough. The above study contradicts a report by the Telegraph in England that states "bacterial degradation" was causing false positives. Interesting stuff, although the I want to hear some type of comparison of the two reports. Is it possible that both raising of the level and degrading of the level can occur in different instances? Which is it?

The Nagano Olympic report holds a lot more weight than many people believe. Fact is, it is one of the larger studies done to support nandrolone being a drug that is very tough for an athlete to physically produce at levels over 1 ng/mL. This study has one of the largest sample sizes and has the ability to rebut many of the smaller studies that indicate otherwise. It also has a sample size of all Olympic-level athletes.

Another comment that confirms the stance by the CSAC on supplements was Garcia's statement regarding the statistics on supplements. He stated that a fighter is responsible for what he puts into his body. This is much like the statement Keith Kizer of the NSAC said in a TAGG Radio interview. If the fighters are responsible, it is their perogative to make sure they are clean before fight.

The testing process was revealed by Garcia. The fighters who test positive actually test positive four times because the lab actually tests the samples that many times avoid false positives. He also commented on the fact that the labs make sure that false positives do not happen because it is their reputation on the line and would have unfavorable consequences.

Overall, it was a solid interview by Josh Gross and TJ Desantis and clarified a lot of information that was very much desired by the MMA community. In my personal opinion, I believe Garcia's logic in the case is a breath of fresh air to what we've been hearing lately regarding other studies. The fact is, as I've stated before, many of these studies out there have low sample size, older testing techniques, and are outdated. The Nagano study has the advantage of being a huge sample size of all athletes. I will, however, follow up on the conflicting reports revolving around bacterial degradation.

Since this site's purpose is to provide in-depth coverage of current mixed martial arts events, news, and fighters, it would be beneficial for the fanbase to see both sides of the story. Yesterday, I received support for my analysis that also included my opinion on the matter. I came to the conclusion that I felt Sean Sherk must have cycled in order to reach the level of nandrolone that was found in his body. There is a completely different side to my analytical support of my argument. That is the view that I am going to try to sift through today and make a case as to the possibilities that Sean Sherk may be innocent. With that said, let me make one observation from sifting through many pieces of research.

The world of drug testing can be tricky. Specifically, nandrolone testing is not 100% accurate as I will support in the following text later. In fact, the amount of studies available is moderate, but they are not consistent. Some studies claim that it is very hard to reach levels above the threshhold of 2 ng/mL and other studies suggest that it is possible to reach 10 ng/mL and one study even indicates that a level of 37 ng/mL was reached in one subject. These are two opposite extremes in the nandrolone testing area of drug testing. The conclusion we can come to is that nandrolone testing is in its infancy and needs to be researched thoroughly to be more accurate in the future. It could be compared to the studies regarding certain foods or vitamins attributing to cancer. One minute, a study comes out suggesting that something causes cancer, and the next year, a study comes out that refutes that study. The only difference is that none of the studies are claiming that nandrolone levels are not detectable. Let's take a look at some of the factors involved in the Sean Sherk case and his innocence.

Sean Sherk's defense

To outline the argument here, I want to list the defense items that Sherk mentioned during his radio interview on the Stephen Quadros show and some of the aspects of the defense as outlined by an interview by MMAWeekly:

1. Over-the-counter supplement statistics
2. Chain of custody of the original sample collected
3. Contamination of the sample collected
4. Polygraph testing
5. WADA Statutes compared to CSAC's statutes
6. Quest testing procedures - "water blank" test had nandrolone in it

These are some of the arguments that were highlighted during the interviews. Specifically, Hamlin over at MMAWeekly added some remarks from Sherk and the hearing. It was said that it was presented that the Xyience Joint Formula did contain Nandrolone. This is either a contradiction of an earlier report by Sherdog.com that it contained 1-androstendione. We may be able to connect the two steroids through some reading however. More on that later.

UK Study in 2000

Before I heavily hit every specific point, I want to point to a study done in the United Kingdom by a committee that reported to the UK Sport, Anti-Doping Directorate. This study has tons of useful information regarding nandrolone's recent rise in positive tests. In the study, all the samples used were collected by statutes set by the IOC, which are fairly strict and have a laid out system of collecting samples. All of the study's sampling and testing was done by an approved International Olympic Committee lab.

First and foremost, the report nullfies the possibility that microbiological action could have occured in the samples. This is the "unstable urine" theory. The study refutes the fact that it could happen, although to be fair, some of those studies that it can occur were done after this study saw the light of day. Secondly, I found that the testing procedure was very interesting. The IOC procedure is as follows:

The current internationally adopted system of urine collection is that a specimen collected from an athlete is divided between two sample containers, usually designated A and B, and the containers are then sealed in the presence of the athlete. Both containers are sent to the same IOC accredited laboratory, the A-sample seal is broken and the urine analyzed. Should there be an adverse finding for the A-sample, the athlete and/or his representative may choose to witness the breaking of the seal on the B container and the subsequent analysis. Additional tests on the B sample may be requested during that time or at a later date.

This is the internationally adopted system, but most likely isn't the system that the CSAC is using. If in fact it was the system, Sherk would have had the option to witness the breaking of the B sample, confirming the signatures on the label, seeing the sample tested, and requesting additional tests. One of the defense points involved WADA statutes that were not the same as CSAC statutes. The World Anti-Doping Agency has similar procedures as the IOC, nearly identical.

In fact, here is the next item in the report:

This site has been covering the CSAC and the appeal process of Sean Sherk for quite some time. In fact, some of the bigger analytical articles we have produced involved the CSAC, Sean Sherk's defense, Nandrolone as a steroid in MMA, and the entire process as a whole. In particular, the research that we've done is extensive in the capacity of how Nandrolone works, the levels that a human being can physically create, and the possibilities of an appeal being successful in any commission appeals board including the CSAC.

In stating that, Sean Sherk wasted a lot of time trying to beat this positive. The cliche phrase "I told ya so!" can be applied here in so many ways, but I'll back it up once again with some solid thoughts from my research on this topic. Details have yet to be disclosed regarding the hearing, but I'm positive we will hear detailed accounts regarding his case. There is a striking change in the CSAC's judgement in this case however. It actually seems like the scrutiny may have caused a more stringent take on drugs in the CSAC. Let's look into this more.

Sherk's argument fails

As I stated before this entire appeals process occured, 12 ng/mL is a level that has never been proven to be reached by a human (See UPDATE below). In my final statement, the conclusion was that if 12 ng/mL was an obtainable level, it is stupid of us to believe that Sean Sherk could reach this level by himself, and it is more unlikely that he reached it naturally. Furthermore, research backing this claim involved the fact that the original threshold levels were set at 2 ng/mL by the World Doping Agency, but were changed to 6 ng/mL because of some false positives and other factors. It seems that the anything over a 2 ng/mL level is still tested for instability, a recent phenomenom that involves urine producing levels after it has been collected. Urine instability has even been suggested as to the reason why many athletes have tested positive in international testing. Could that have been a problem with Sherk's sample? It's doubtful considering the increase in ng/mL levels from that type of instability is very small.

Also, Fightlinker and myself ran a statistic regarding Olympic laboratories testing Nagano athletes. Out of 621 competitors, only five competitors tested above .1 ng/mL. A tenth. Furthermore, all five were women, and women produce nandrolone naturally at higher levels than men due to a different hormonal make-up and use of birth control. Noone exceeded .4 ng/mL. Out of 620 athletes who train hard in the respective sports, nobody even reached .5 ng/mL. This was most likely some of the reasons as to why it was ridiculous to consider a defense that suggested he produced it naturally. It was also the basis for suggesting Dana White's comments regarding Nandrolone as absolutely absurd.

From the argument Sherk seemed to be pushing at his previous hearing, he was going to try to either discredit the sample testing or prove that his supplement contained steroids without his knowledge. That type of argument also has pitfalls that his defense must have forseen, but it looks like they continued anyways. First and foremost, the IOC and WADA both state that athletes are warned that about roughly 15% of supplements that are over the counter contained banned substances. In my further research, it was found the number is closer to 20% in the United States, and in other countries such as the Netherlands, it's over 25%. The warnings by both organizations were to tell fighters that they should refrain from using such supplements or testing those supplements to rid any doubt that the fighter was using performance-enhancing drugs.

Secondly, what if Sherk did find a supplement that he was taking that did have Nandrolone in it? He was still enhanced for his bout. This is a point that could be argued, but the fact is, commissions state that fighters should test their supplements for a reason. Problem was, Sherk found that one of his supplements contained a steroid, but it wasn't nandrolone. He also didn't test positive for that steroid anyways, so the fact that it contained a steroid probably didn't hold much water.

Thirdly, Sherk stated that he took a polygraph test to indicate his innocence. This somewhat hits on my second point in that he may have unknowingly took the steroids, but he tested positive, was enhanced by those steroids, and did, in fact, not test his supplements previously. Furthermore, polygraph tests aren't 100% accurate, and there are claims that they are only about 80% accurate. There is a reason that many courts do not allow their submission.

Lastly, the combination of all this research should have indicated to the fighter that it is next to impossible to clear your name, which is unfortunate if you seriously did not take steroids. If he had found a supplement containing traces of nandrolone that could have proven without a reasonable doubt that they could produce levels at 12 ng/mL, throw the case out. Fact is, nothing was found and Sherk did enough to garner a reduced suspension for his efforts. Problem is, Sherk is still labeled as a guy who "juiced" and to be honest, the levels in his system indicate cycling steroids more so than any other reason. Face it, 12 ng/mL is ridiculously over the limit, it's absurd to believe it was obtainable by cutting weight, and working out "real hard". Luckily, that argument was thrown out and hopefully Orlando Salido's case was looked at to determine how that decision would have went. Salido tried to use that argument for testing at 7 ng/mL and failed horribly.

So what are you trying to say?

I told you so, Sean Sherk. Research doesn't lie and the CSAC's basis for their argument against you is going to be nothing but research, just like a lawyer prosecuting a defendant. It's unfortunate if you didn't take steroids, I get that, but I think it would have been more beneficial had you went in way back in September and just cussed out Giza like James Toney did. Obviously all the money sunk into testing supplements and building a case did nothing but reduce it, which isn't all that bad considering you only have a small amount of time before you can mount a comeback.

My last point is that the CSAC is still being idiotic in their process. What the hell is a reduced suspension anyways when the basis for the suspension was that the fighter injected steroids? Let me ask this more important question. Is reducing a suspension simplying a pat on the back for actually presenting evidence and trying to clear your name in a case that was ultimately going to be upheld regardless of the evidence? The CSAC has major problems. They are stating that in fact Sherk did inject steroids, but hey, since we thought he put in a lot of effort and he threw a lot of money at testing supplements, we'll reduce his sentence so he can keep on living. Give me a break. The CSAC failed once again in fixing their disciplinary problems.

Final remark

Sherk came out ahead a bit. He did get a reduction, a significant one. He can fight in January, but he will remain a "juicer" in the eyes of many fans, although the UFC won't be mentioning it in any of their broadcasts. I will give you credit where credit is due. At least you went in front of the board with evidence trying to disprove the test instead of wasting time arguing with the board like so many others have done. Other than that, it's going to be haunting to hear the "cycling" term brought up at every fight you have and people calling you a "juicer".

Either way, the lightweight picture looks to be finalized for now and we can move on. Keith Kizer stated it best in that if a fighter tests positive, he still had an advantage over a fighter regardless if he knew he was taking the drug or not. It's very true, that's why they have warnings. The warnings were unfortunately swept to the side when determining an argument, or there was some cycling going on. Either way, I told ya so.

*UPDATE*

An intelligent commentor pointed me to this article. It's an article outlining something I had read quite some time ago, and completely dismissed for a number of reasons. Simply put, there hasn't been any recent work with nandrolone false positives or a bigger sample size in the testing. The one point that article raises is that it is possible to reach a steady 10 ng/mL level. Here's my only problem. The study used six subjects in one of their tests, and at some point, they gave them a supplement and ran some tests, some workouts, etc. Half the subjects hit 10 ng/mL.

Alright, that seems ridiculous. Half of 6 subjects? That would mean that there should be a ridiculous amount of positives popping up everywhere for nandrolone, and it makes me wonder if the tests were conducted correctly. My argument... that is an insane positive level on a small sample size that doesn't translate to what we see today within the MMA community. Interestingly enough, I will go against those studies with a much larger sample size study... the Nagano Olympic study once again. Instead of SIX people, they test SIX HUNDRED PLUS and came up with very, very minute amounts of nandrolone. These are world class athletes who train and take supplements most likely. Nothing above .4 ng/mL. With that said however, I'm interesting in seeing new studies.

What the article does state is some reiteration of past studies that I have researched. Nandrolone testing is not great, as a matter of fact, there are many problems with it. However, I haven't seen problems with samples that result in significant boosts in ng/mL levels. Unstable urine is the biggest culprit of false positives and the article spends  good amount of time explaining how our bodies produce it. Read it and think about what it says. Maybe you disagree with me, maybe you don't. Maybe Sean Sherk did get the short end of the stick. The point of this piece wasn't to completely say Sherk is a "roider". I think that he cycled, that's my opinion. I will say that his defense from what I read was rather weak, and he should have stepped in another direction.

Props to reader Jeremy L for the link.

Sources:

Sean Sherk related work from MMA-Analyst.com <-- Contains past articles with sources that support my data above.

Some of the Sherdog'ers have been complaining about sources, they are linked above, but to be more specific, all of the sources I used in my research are in other articles on the website, specifically, this article outlines the nandrolone studies.

As of October 31st when the last CSAC hearing took place, the CSAC had went from an organization with little credibility to an organization full of disorganization, administrative problems, and inconsistencies in the judgments. The only person that was stopping the CSAC from hitting rock bottom was the commission analyst Bill Douglas. Not only did he state that there were problems with the disciplinary structure and with the organizational aspects of the commission, but he also made compelling arguments as to why Baroni's case had many aspects to it that sounded good, but in reality, didn't make it clear cut that he was innocent. Instead of looking at thin air like the rest of the commission, he look at scientific facts. In the end, Douglas doesn't have a vote though. Last night, Dave Meltzer at the Wrestling Observer reported that the Sean Sherk's hearing was now delayed until December 4th. Another setback! I am officially declaring the CSAC's credibility as a professional athletic commission to be completely gone and here's why.

The newest problems at the CSAC

It all boils down to the category of administrative error. Check out this quote from The Fight Network:

The California State Athletic Commission today confirmed the postponement of UFC lightweight champion Sean Sherk’s Tuesday, Nov. 13 appeal hearing for a steroids-related suspension. CSAC associate governmental program analyst Bill Douglas cited scheduling conflicts as the reasons behind the delay. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled.

Before we get into the heavy ramifications of the CSAC Commission members not having Microsoft Outlook accounts and calendars set up, let me first state that scheduling a hearing with 10+ individuals shouldn't be too hard if they are all in the room at the time of the scheduling at the hearing. One of the big problems that hinders scheduling at the hearing is the fact that at most commission hearings, only a few members are actually present. Also, Christopher Giza left the hearing after lunch. It's debatable whether or not he left because he had a premonition of the horrible decision making skills of the rest of the commission members or he had a legitimate emergency. After all, Giza was the lone member against Toney's reduction.

We have a case of organization rules that allow members to leave the hearings at will or not show up at all. The CSAC must contact each member not present and find a time in which it is suitable for all members to show up for a hearing, but in reality, only four to five members will actually show. It seems absolutely absurd to me. "Half the battle is showing up" is a quote that's thrown around in motivational speeches, apparently the CSAC missed that.

More questions come to light

With the entire scheduling problem taking center stage today and the overall problems at the CSAC being in the spotlight in the past week, it all lends its help to the question as to whether the CSAC will now have mercy on Sherk due to the fact that they have poorly organized these hearings and came to them unprepared. The suspension took place on July 19th for a one-year suspension. He will be nearly 5 months into the suspension when the next hearing will take place in December. If we see a decision in favor of Sherk without some type of explanation that makes sense scientifically or by at least some type of convincing argument from the commission due to the submitted evidence by Howard Jacobs, wouldn't that also hurt the credibility of the organization? It would, if you think it actually still has some. It seems as if the CSAC is in a lose-lose situation because if they uphold Sherk's suspension, the uproar is going to be ridiculous. Dana White already spoke out about the CSAC and fans have become fed up with the UFC lightweight title being in limbo over the case. With White announcing the BJ Penn vs. Joe Stevenson interim title bout for UFC 80, it seems that the problem is solved and White had an inkling that this may drag on even further. If the CSAC throws out the case or reduces his suspension without just cause, the CSAC's credibility is completely gone because it may look as if the commission feels terrible for their horrible mistakes in this case.

Let me elaborate a bit more on that issue. The goal of the athletic commission in this case is to hear out Sherk's case and rebut any evidence that he submits with proof if they feel that it does not prove his innocence. In the case of Baroni, Bill Douglas refuted all of the tests that Baroni submitted either by the fact that the test was self-administered, tested after the event and could have been avoided a timed cycle, and the fact that the original sample was tested at a non-approved facility and looked to be in a different container. Solid argument. This is the type of argument that should be the standard. Instead, the CSAC has eratic decisions that are based on evidence and many that aren't.

With the history of the CSAC, the potential for a reduction without any type of reason is highly likely. John George came into a hearing this year and basically stated that he unknowingly knew about steroids in his supplements. No evidence. He received an 8 month reduction. If the CSAC simply reduces his sentence, Sherk won't be happy and the CSAC will look as if it gave into the Dana White comments and the overall disorganization that the commission has been dealing with will stick out like a sore thumb. Fact of the matter is, it is already completely exposed. It is beyond me as to why the CSAC isn't being investigated for their poor organizational structure and administrative problems.

Insight on Sherk's case

Here's a quote from MMAFightline.com that I found interesting:

As far as supplements go, just multi-vitamins and protein right now. As I get closer to fight time, I have to train harder and take more supplements. I’m going to have to take a real serious look at what I’m taking. I mean, in the past, I had no idea that you could actually buy a supplement over the counter and it was illegal. I figured if it was at GNC it was legal. Fortunately for me, nothing I was taking was illegal. That was just a fortunate circumstance for me that I was not taking any illegal, over-the-counter supplements. I’m going to have to take a hard look at it, but with all the contamination in the supplements, there are ingredients that are not listed in supplements, you’ve got to be careful. Obviously I can’t send every single one of my supplements to a lab and have it tested for contamination before I take it, that’s going to cost me a lot of money. So I’m just going to have to take a look at what I’m taking and be a little bit more on the careful side.

Obviously, Sherk's case involves his supplements having the potential for containing steroid traces. It's been proven in previous articles and sources that around 15% of over the counter supplements could cause false positives. Unstable urine can cause positives after the urine has already been collected and could be potentially negative of any nandrolone as well. In my opinion, Sherk is barking up the wrong tree. If this was Nevada, his appeal would have been thrown out and his suspension upheld already, but it isn't. In the great state of California, they have still not made a consistent disciplinary structure when it comes to these types of cases. The argument that Sherk is presenting is the most common argument as well, which baffles me because you would think that a common argument would have a common disciplinary action. It's just like when you were in school, a fight with another student was an automatic suspension, or throwing spitwads when you were 9 was a detention. There wasn't an appeals process in which you argued your case to get it reduced. There are always special cases though, and it seems that almost every one of the cases the CSAC sees is special.

What should the common disciplinary action be since you are pushing it? Many of you may ask that to me. It's simple. Keith Keizer at the NSAC has stated in the past that fighters should be responsible for the supplements that they ingest in their bodies. I favor this idea. Here's a few reasons why I like this concept:

• Fighters who can't afford to test their supplements may be inclined to use less supplements or research their own supplements more.
• Fighters who do take a lot of supplements could simply test their urine throughout their training process to see if traces of steroids show.
• This takes the blame off the commission and puts it solely in the fighter's hands.
• It also allows the commission to waste less time with continuances and sifting through evidence that may suggest supplements unknowingly being tainted with steroids.
• Less time, less room for error among voting when a disciplinary action is set already for this type of case, less uproar for a case being dragged out.

Some of you may state that many of these fighters can't afford to be testing their supplements like this. That's very true, but a fighter must weigh the risk. If we look at an up-and-coming fighter who is making $3k/$3k per win, would he be inclined to take 60+ supplements? If he is, he's a bumbling idiot. Supplements aren't cheap and the risk to reward is horrible. He risks being suspended for nearly a year and fined nearly all of the money he just made on the fight. The risk is working at McDonald's for a good year sidelined. Until their is FDA regulation in the supplement industry, it seems very risky to take anything that is fairly unknown from the GNC shelves. I see both sides of the argument however. It's a tough sell.

Sherk's argument, in my eyes, doesn't prove he didn't take steroids. Whether he knowingly did it or not, the point of the appeals board is to prove that his sample was actually clean when in fact it tested non-clean. It wasn't clean. Now the focus has changed to where the positive came from and if he can prove that he unknowingly ingested supplements with traces of nandrolone. Fact is, he still had steroids in his system that is thought by many commissions to give a fighter an advantage. It seems unfair to suspend him if he didn't knowingly do so, but it looks like a mistimed cycle to nearly everyone who looks at a 12ng/mL level. I'd love to see research on the effects of a tainted supplement that produces nandrolone positives and what kind of levels it would churn out, especially if Sherk still hasn't found one in his plethora of supplements to produce those levels.

Final thought

Uphold the damn suspension and let's get the show on the road. Fact is, Sherk was on steroids. If he wants to either clear his name by proving he did not take them knowingly, that's fine by me. I'm even fine with the fact that if he can prove it, reduce his sentence by 6 months. Why not just throw it out? Because he still had a scientifically proven edge in a fight. With the reduction and a declaration by the commission that Sherk's supplements were to blame, he'll be able to fight in a month anyways.

On the other side of the spectrum, I've lost faith completely in the CSAC's organizational skills and administrative processes. Apparently, distributing documents to commissioners is a horrendous problem. I can actually see why this problem exists when commissioners don't show up for hearings or walk out halfway through it. This also sets up a problem trying to schedule another hearing. Add in the fact that the disciplinary structure of each hearing has been as inconsistent as the Chicago Bear's defense this season, the saga continues to prove the CSAC has unbelievable problems.

Even with that weak point in the CSAC's credibility, they still have one of the best testing centers in the U.S. doing their testing for athletes. Stick to a policy that doesn't allow fighters to come in with no evidence and get a reduction. The polygraph test is probably the most interesting part of the entire case for Sherk. It draws the line in the sand for the CSAC. Should they create a policy that should punish fighters for not testing their supplements or should they show leniency and allow the polygraph to show that he unknowingly took the steroids? This seems to be a case where policy may be created for once. It could prove to be a case that will be referenced by many other fighers in future cases as well.

After reading the Dave Meltzer articles over at Yahoo! Sports, there are a few more issues that have been raised regarding the Phil Baroni steroid case and the Sean Sherk steroid case. In particular, Meltzer's story regarding the flaws