twitter google

Sean Sherk’s CSAC hearing delayed…again

According to Brian Knapp of The Fight Network, Sean Sherk’s hearing with the CSAC has undergone yet another setback:

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.

Unbelievable. They haven’t even rescheduled it. The CSAC is coming off very poorly in the handling of this matter with two delays now in the past week. Anyone getting the feeling the commission may go lightly on Sherk due to the fact that they look like assholes?

  • Cory77530 says:

    How the CSAC looks in this situation is neither here nor there…..I agree that they have handled it horribly BUT a cheater is a cheater doesn’t matter how long the board takes in resolving it….He probably will get off lightly however I don’t think thats the right way to handle this…Big Tim and Josh Barnett both were busted for the same thing and their belts were stripped….Regardless of how the CSAC has handled this matter they should THROW THE BOOK at Sherk….Thats my opinion and I’m sticking to it..

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Joey says:

    every article out there says how Sean Sherk maintains his innocence and says how he tested positive, etc. What only about 1 percent of the articles out there are saying is the fact that he tested positive my such a small margin that its ridiculous to think that he was using. There are tests that have been run showing that athletes can LEGALLY reach the limit that Sean Sherk reached. Cory, ignorance is not an excuse, stop spreading your mindrot thinking in ways that might reach the casual fan or the MMA bashers. Whenever someone tests positive it makes the sport look bad, this case is perhaps going to shed some light that not only can people through hard work be a complete beast like Sherk is; but also, maybe some of these positives (not all of them mind you, 95 percent probably are legit) are false positives.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Mike says:

    I don’t know how they can “go lightly” on him. It’s already like he’s in the 8th year of a 10 year prison sentence. “Lightly” now is just letting him off a month or two early from a full suspension.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Adam Morgan says:

    Joey, you’re right. Ignorance is not an excuse. I think you need to dust up on your knowledge of Nandrolone, so I’ve provided some reading material.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • garth says:

    seriously, where’s the test that shows you can get to those nandrolone levels legally? I’ve never even heard of it. I haven’t looked into it since Sherk’s results first came out, but still, you’d think it would have been a big deal.

    And are we getting the whole story on the delay? not taking one position or the other, but is it possible that Sherk’s representation is causing some of this delay as well?

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Dayzah says:

    Maybe its a reaction too Dana saying the CSAC is handling the case badly .. Im sure every delay makes Dana cringe in his chair.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • Joey,

    You couldn’t be more wrong.

    Show me a test in which an athlete reached 12 ng/mL naturally. Seriously find one for me. I’ve done many hours of research on the topic and the only findings I have found are various European studies and a few in the States regarding certain high protein diets and excessive cardio reaching high levels. Fact was, the reports don’t mention the levels they reached in the briefs. An in-depth look into studies indicates that you COULD potentially hit 6+ ng/mL.

    That would indicate that Sherk tested 2x over what is possible. Probably the biggest study of proof that nandrolone levels in athletes who train extensively are many Olympic athletes. Nagano, barely anybody out of the entire field of athletes tested over .1 ng/mL. Women are more susceptible to test at higher levels, but 12 ng/mL, it’s not possible.

    Solid point: If it was possible to test over 6 ng/mL and even hit a level of 12 ng/mL, then more MMA fighters would be testing positive for it and we would see more cases, but we aren’t. You can’t make a case stating Sherk is the ONLY MMA fighter that can reach that level. Absolutely ridiculous claim if it were one.

    Also, Sherk is trying to prove that his supplements caused the test. This would NOT make the case for a FALSE positive. It would make the case that the positive was caused by his supplements. FALSE positives in Nandrolone cases are normally due to what is now being called unstable urine. It’s been shown in studies that urine in certain cases can produce a positive test for nandrolone AFTER it has already been collected. This is why the level cap was increased. Normally, you couldn’t get away with testing over 2 ng/mL. The only reason it is at 6 ng/mL is because of a possible unstable urine test that comes up positive.

    To be honest, a mistimed cycle is the most logical explanation. The whole Xyience issue Sherk is working is irrelevant since Andro doesn’t cause a Nandrolone positive at all. Sherk is only trying to show that if one supplement caused it, others could have.

    If this was the NSAC, which has problems as well but is, in my eyes, more credible, we’d have seen a Sherk suspension upheld and had this over with months ago. Keizer has the right idea. State that fighters are at their own risk with supplements and are responsible for testing their own or getting tested before bouts if they take excessive supplements. If they come up positive, it’s on them.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  • dizzle says:

    dood they postpone this case fuckin 2 or 3 times now. By the time they finally do the case it’ll be 2010 and dana would still have sherk being the champion.

    Agree or Disagree: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0


You must be logged in to post a comment.