twitter google

Sean Sherk can go cry me a river!

In all my comments about Sean Sherk regarding his testing positive for steroids, I’ve never said if I felt he was innocent or guilty. I have done my best not to get caught up in the guilty vs. not guilty debate because I honestly don’t know.

I don’t know to this day one way or the other so I’m not going to condemn a man simply for having an impressive physique. I’m growing tired of all these people who claim that they “know” Sherk is guilty because they claim a human can’t look the way he does without taking something. Believe it or not, it is possible to have a great physique. Good genetics combined with hard work can go a long way.

But at the same time I also don’t like it when people claim Sherk has to be innocent for what doesn’t amount to much more than just because he said so. Excuse me, but how many times has a professional athlete said they were innocent of using performance enhancers only to be proven guilty later on?

Wasn’t it just the other day that Marion Jones was walking out of a courthouse with a six month jail sentence? In reality, she isn’t getting six months for using performance enhancers, she’s getting six months because she lied about it! Oh yeah, there’s also that check fraud issue too.

But my point is this: athletes thus far haven’t gotten into much trouble for admitting they use performance enhancers. They get in trouble for getting caught using them and lying about it to important people.

My beef with Sherk isn’t whether he’s guilty or innocent. It’s about how he’s handled himself during this ordeal. Regardless of whether he’s guilty or innocent, Sherk has represented himself poorly. The case he brought before the California State Athletic Commission was light on evidence and he’s making a lot of statements with little in the way of substance to support those statements.

Truth be told, I became infuriated after reading Kevin Iole’s recent column about Sherk. After reading the article, there were some specific things I wanted to comment on in addition to some general comments.

– At one point in Iole’s article, Sherk is quoted as saying that the machine that was used to test his sample was not cleaned properly:

The three tests that were done before mine all tested positive (for steroids),” Sherk said. “They are supposed to clean the machine, which they did, but there was still carryover. That’s documented.

What’s documented? That Quest is supposed to clean the machines or that they have proof Quest didn’t clean the machine properly prior to his test? If the latter is true, why hasn’t Sherk made this documentation available to the public? If he was talking about the former, how does that prove his innocence?

– Another quote I have an issue with is:

He said Jacobs’ investigation found contamination in a supplement he’d been taking and he passed a blood test, which he said is more accurate than a urine test at discovering steroids.

It’s all a bunch of “he said.” Anyone can say anything they want. Forget hard evidence, Sherk is failing to even provide circumstantial evidence. He’s only presenting a lot of hearsay. Let’s see the blood test results. And if one of Sherk’s supplements was contaminated, which one was it?


Follow 5OZ