Comments on: The case against Sean Sherk

By: Ivan Trembow

Ivan Trembow — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 11:43:43 +0000

“If Sherk didn’t do it, and 12 mg of Nandralone is the norm for him(as his argument ), what’s stopping this from happening again?”

It’s not the norm for him, or for any other human being. That was among the more ridiculous assertions from Sherk and his camp. They should be thankful that the commissioners of the CSAC who vote on the suspensions appear to know very little or nothing about steroids (ie, one of them saying that repeat steroids offender James Toney should be given the benefit of the doubt since he had no idea how that illegal horse steroid got into his body).

There is a good article specifically about Nandrolone at this URL: http://www.channel4.com/sport/microsites/S/sportuncovered/nandrolone.html

By: bubbafat

bubbafat — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:20:06 +0000

If Sherk didn’t do it, and 12 mg of Nandralone is the norm for him(as his argument ), what’s stopping this from happening again?
Sherk’s got an even bigger problem IF he’s telling the truth. Has he gotten any type of drug test done by an independant lab to come up with a negative reading? If he hasn’t , why? I know that an average human can produce up to 6 mg of nandralone naturally in their body, is Sherk an exception to that theory? Is it a theory or fact? Initially I swayed towards believing Sherk(as he is clearly not an average human, the guy is stacked, could he produce more nandralone naturally?) But the more questions and “if’s” I come up with make me think otherwise. Add to that, lack of genuine constructive action as opposed to straight denial leads me to side with the CSAC. So why did they chop his suspension, unless there was weight to his argument?
Forget it… I’m just confused.

By: Leland Roling

Leland Roling — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:02:43 +0000

Nobody is going to beat a positive test of Nandrolone right now. As Armando Garcia pointed out with Sherdog, the lab basically tests you four seperate times, and all of those must test positive. Using studies to defend your point is out of the question. I’ve done a lot of research regarding the studies, and there are studies that refute other studies. My point: Anything they throw at the commission can be contradicted by the Nagano Olympic case regarding levels of nandrolone in the human body. It is an older study, but has the largest sample size and most convincing argument. It won’t be beat until they update it or do a new study that does find levels through the roof. Then it becomes a game of finding out what that person is taking.

In the end, it’s next to impossible to beat anything unless you can get the chain of custody point across.

By: drewdoodoo

drewdoodoo — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:41:27 +0000

CSAC: Sherk, you tested positive.

Sherk: It wasn’t me, it was the one armed man.

CSAC: Is that all you got?

Sherk: Pretty much.

CSAC: Guilty.

By: Sam Caplan

Sam Caplan — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:32:46 +0000

So I’m not the only one who was completely underwhelmed by Sherk’s case?

He needs to ask Howard Jacobs for a refund.

By: Ivan Trembow

Ivan Trembow — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:02:23 +0000

Also, the whole “urine tests” are ineffective angle is a joke unless Sherk and other fighters are going to submit to voluntary blood-based drug tests every single time they fight. I’m sure a lot of fighters would be thrilled with that, especially given that WADA’s current test for HGH is only available in blood test form.

Again, it can’t be repeated enough: The whole entire testing system is only going to catch a tiny fraction of the people who are knowingly using steroids because it’s not a random testing system. Other sports have had mini-scandals when it came out that their competitors had HOURS (as in less than 24 hours) notice of a pending drug test that they’d have to take. Mixed martial arts have MONTHS of notice because the testing date is always the date of the fight or the day before the fight. Any drug test with that much notice is more of an IQ test than a drug test.

By: drewdoodoo

drewdoodoo — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:58:26 +0000

Sam, not for nothing, but the chain of custody defense sounds like BS to me. I sat on a jury for a DUI case and that was part of their defense. I bet it is pretty standard in cases than involve any type of lab tests. Discredit the evidence to discredit the charges. OJ?

The bottom line is that the test came back positive. I haven’t read the actual rules but my guess is that it doesn’t say a positive test is ok as long as you didn’t know you were taking whatever.

If you are a UFC champ, you should know better. These guys should protect themselves be taking their own piss tests to make sure they can pass. Yes, it is that important if it is the way you feed your kids. The “oops” or “I don’t know how that happened” defense isn’t going to cut it.

Dana’s (UFC’s) response will let us all know exactly what he thinks about drugs in MMA. There is nothing to be gained by letting Sherk keep the title.

By: Ivan Trembow

Ivan Trembow — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:56:49 +0000

I guess the UFC has a zero tolerance policy on steroids unless you tell Dana White that you’re innocent and he believes you.