Sean Sherk Stripped of LW Title

Off Topic
21

A couple thoughts:

  1. I think this sets an interesting precedent. Based on this, the UFC should fully disclose all test results and testing procedures from events not held in Nevada and California (and any others that do their own testing).

  2. I wonder if this will force Sherk to press forward with a lawsuit against the CSAC to clear his name.

  3. I agree with the decision to strip the title but I don’t think you could do it any earlier. The UFC should wait until the fighter has exhausted his appeals as set out in the testing procedures.

Does anyone know if Dana has alluded to allowing Sherk to return or is he gone for good?

22

[quote]muscleshark wrote:
I don’t agree with Dana’s decision. He knows full well we all take steriods to be at that level.[/quote]

From a business perspective though, he was smart to squash the issue before it tagged on to the baseball scandal. The sport is too young and has too many critics as it is to add steroids to the mix during a heightened sense of sensationalism.

But it does suck for Sherk to be the fall guy.

23

How is he a “fall guy” if he simply got caught cheating? His samples both tested positive, and he lost his appeal. Case closed.

Is there not supposed to be any penalty for that??

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
muscleshark wrote:
I don’t agree with Dana’s decision. He knows full well we all take steriods to be at that level.

From a business perspective though, he was smart to squash the issue before it tagged on to the baseball scandal. The sport is too young and has too many critics as it is to add steroids to the mix during a heightened sense of sensationalism.

But it does suck for Sherk to be the fall guy. [/quote]

24

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
A couple thoughts:

  1. I think this sets an interesting precedent. Based on this, the UFC should fully disclose all test results and testing procedures from events not held in Nevada and California (and any others that do their own testing).

  2. I wonder if this will force Sherk to press forward with a lawsuit against the CSAC to clear his name.

  3. I agree with the decision to strip the title but I don’t think you could do it any earlier. The UFC should wait until the fighter has exhausted his appeals as set out in the testing procedures.

Does anyone know if Dana has alluded to allowing Sherk to return or is he gone for good?[/quote]

I’d imagine that the UFC will have Sherk back. They’ve taken back other fighters (Tim Sylvia, Stephan Bonnar, etc.) that have tested positive in the past.

As for BJ Penn, to say he doesn’t deserve a rematch with Hughes and GSP is crazy. He dominated Hughes for 2 rounds before he gassed (and also injured). The GSP fight was real close and could’ve easily gone to Penn.

He recognized after those losses he needed to take his training seriously. The result? He detroyed Jens Pulver. If BJ can keep that work ethic up, he’d be a force in the welterweight division, considering he nearly beat the top 2 guys in the division when he wasn’t in peak condition.

25

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
A couple thoughts:

  1. I think this sets an interesting precedent. Based on this, the UFC should fully disclose all test results and testing procedures from events not held in Nevada and California (and any others that do their own testing).
    [/quote]

The precedent was already set before this when they stripped Josh Barnett and Tim Syvlia for testing positive. As for disclosing test results, that is the policy of the individual state athletic commissions, not the UFC.

It is technically private information so it would be a sensitive issue for the UFC to disclose the information without the prior consent of the athletic commissions. The UFC does it’s own testing overseas, however, where there is not an athletic commission. As far as I know those results were never released or discussed.

26

The real question here, is how are guys stupid enough to keep getting popped for nandrolone when you could figure out that it’s probably not a good idea to be using during camp with a 30 second search on google.

27

[quote]Damici wrote:
How is he a “fall guy” if he simply got caught cheating? His samples both tested positive, and he lost his appeal. Case closed.

Is there not supposed to be any penalty for that??

texasguy2 wrote:
muscleshark wrote:
I don’t agree with Dana’s decision. He knows full well we all take steriods to be at that level.

From a business perspective though, he was smart to squash the issue before it tagged on to the baseball scandal. The sport is too young and has too many critics as it is to add steroids to the mix during a heightened sense of sensationalism.

But it does suck for Sherk to be the fall guy.

[/quote]

Following the logic of the post I was replying too, all or most fighters at that level use steroids and it is a well known fact. Sherk was caught, stripped of his title after his case was made public and others juicers are continuing on the same as he was.

You do know what a “fall guy” is right?

28

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:

You do know what a “fall guy” is right?[/quote]

Only the coolest show ever.

29

Sure, only (a.) I believe the guy writing the post about it being a well-known fact that “all” fighters are juicing was just some troll; I wasn’t taking him seriously. And (b.), Sherk recently got CAUGHT, as in, actually tested positive. Not true of, say, Rampage, Serra, etc., etc. It was Sherk who tested positive and as such, he has to be penalized for it. Crystal clear.

The term “fall guy” implies that someone who doesn’t deserve it (or isn’t the only one who deserves it) is being wrongfully thrown under the bus so that others can escape getting in trouble. Name me one other UFC fighter who has in recent months tested positive and who is escaping harm/punishment because Sherk is “taking the fall” for them.

Oh, that’s right . . . there are none.

Hermes Franca tested positive also, copped to it and will be serving out his punishment for it.

This is very simple: You test positive, you’re suspended and/or fined, and if you happen to be a title holder at the time you’re also stripped of your title. If you don’t test positive, you’re fine.

As for arguing about whether his positive test could’ve come from “tainted supplements” or something else, that’s another story. I personally don’t buy that theory, but I’m admittedly no expert on that.

I just don’t get why people are all up in arms to defend Sherk. Unless they know something I don’t know, what is there to be upset about? Guy got caught.

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Damici wrote:
How is he a “fall guy” if he simply got caught cheating? His samples both tested positive, and he lost his appeal. Case closed.

Is there not supposed to be any penalty for that??

texasguy2 wrote:
muscleshark wrote:
I don’t agree with Dana’s decision. He knows full well we all take steriods to be at that level.

From a business perspective though, he was smart to squash the issue before it tagged on to the baseball scandal. The sport is too young and has too many critics as it is to add steroids to the mix during a heightened sense of sensationalism.

But it does suck for Sherk to be the fall guy.

Following the logic of the post I was replying too, all or most fighters at that level use steroids and it is a well known fact. Sherk was caught, stripped of his title after his case was made public and others juicers are continuing on the same as he was.

You do know what a “fall guy” is right?[/quote]

31

[quote]Damici wrote:
Sure, only (a.) I believe the guy writing the post about it being a well-known fact that “all” fighters are juicing was just some troll; I wasn’t taking him seriously.[/quote]

Then you were ignoring the conversation at hand that I replied to, making your whole rant pointless.

32

Nope, I understood your point perfectly. I still just don’t see how anyone (including the guy who made the allegation about all the fighters supposedly juicing) can call Sherk a “fall guy” when . . . there’s no one else who’s tested positive and who’s getting away with it, or anything.

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Damici wrote:
Sure, only (a.) I believe the guy writing the post about it being a well-known fact that “all” fighters are juicing was just some troll; I wasn’t taking him seriously.

Then you were ignoring the conversation at hand that I replied to, making your whole rant pointless.

[/quote]

33

[quote]Damici wrote:
Nope, I understood your point perfectly. I still just don’t see how anyone (including the guy who made the allegation about all the fighters supposedly juicing) can call Sherk a “fall guy” when . . . there’s no one else who’s tested positive and who’s getting away with it, or anything.

texasguy2 wrote:
Damici wrote:
Sure, only (a.) I believe the guy writing the post about it being a well-known fact that “all” fighters are juicing was just some troll; I wasn’t taking him seriously.

Then you were ignoring the conversation at hand that I replied to, making your whole rant pointless.

[/quote]
“Sure, only (a.) I believe the guy writing the post about it being a well-known fact that “all” fighters are juicing was just some troll; I wasn’t taking him seriously.”

Ignoring the basis of the original comment has you arguing a tangent, pretty much with yourself.

34

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Djwlfpack wrote:

As for BJ Penn, to say he doesn’t deserve a rematch with Hughes and GSP is crazy. He dominated Hughes for 2 rounds before he gassed

If you’re talking about the second Hughes/Penn fight I think you better take another look at it.[/quote]

Penn clearly won the first round and nearly stopped Hughes with a triangle in the second round. I think if he had 30 seconds more, he would’ve gotten the tap.

35

[quote]Balle wrote:
Outrage247 wrote:
The 155 division is way more stacked than most division. Also why would BJ fight GSP/hughes again? He lost to both of them what has he done to earn that shot. People give BJ to many hand outs and not enough based on what he has done.

Totally agree. I can’t really see BJ do much against strong guys with conditioning like GSP and Hughes unless he catches them in a submission before they knock him out.[/quote]

36

There have been some serious problems involving the California State Athletic Commission and their testing since they started hosting MMA events last year. Numerous positive tests have been contested by those who failed;

Ceasar Gracie tested positive for weed
Bas Rutten tested positive for a variety of pain killers

Now in these two instances there were problems. Rutten’s failed test was for pain killers that he was prescribed by doctors for a back injury. He was not given a list of illegal meds before the fight as tends to be SOP for athletic commissions and testing agencies.

In Ceasar’s instance, he said as soon as he was contacted that he had failed his drug test for weed he wanted to challenge the test but was told by Armando Garcia (of the CSAC) that it was okay, he wouldn’t be fined or suspended. But then he ended up being listed on a public record of failed drug tests despite being denied an appeal. He doesn’t smoke weed, but maybe ND gave him a contact high.

In both cases their names were submitted to public record for failing drug tests despite inconsistencies in the drug testing procedures. They aren’t the only ones, there have been a ton of positives from California MMA contests for a variety of drugs.

How is this relevant to Sherk and a positive steroid test? It isn’t directly related, but it does cast a shadow of suspicion over an athletic commission that is operating without much of the legal structure the rest of us live under. Basically Sherk was told he tested positive and it was on him to prove otherwise, then when he attempted to do so, the entire proceedings turned into a fiasco . I don’t know if Sherk used steroids, but popular opinion on the matter is that he did simply because he’s muscular and trains hard.

In Hermes Franca’s instance, he went before the commission and admitted to his transgression while asking for a reduction in his suspension. In return he did not get his suspension reduced. Those that fought their failed drug tests and lost received reduced sentences. The message here? Whether or not you’re guilty, you might as well go ahead and fight the fucking test.

My argument is not against drug testing in MMA. It is simply with the CSAC’s procedures in regards to their testing. There should be some oversight into their dealings and transparency to their methods of operation in order to prevent people from being wrongly accused of steroid/drug use. As the sport gets more and more mainstream, false positives could spell the end of a fighter’s career and should not be in the hands of a couple of jackasses operating behind closed doors.

Nick Diaz beat Gomi via gogoplata, Feb. 24, 2007

37

Dude, I’m actually not even trying to argue with you, or with anyone for that matter. It’s not a tangent, it’s not contradictory and, hell, it’s not even an argument! It’s a fucking discussion.

I don’t give a shit about the poster who claimed that all the fighters juice. Maybe he’s legit and knows things, maybe not. (Probably not).

Regardless, my point, as I just said, is I don’t see how anyone can call Sherk a “fall guy” when he’s the only guy who got caught for this.

That’s all. I don’t think you would necessarily disagree.

[quote]texasguy2 wrote:
Damici wrote:
Nope, I understood your point perfectly. I still just don’t see how anyone (including the guy who made the allegation about all the fighters supposedly juicing) can call Sherk a “fall guy” when . . . there’s no one else who’s tested positive and who’s getting away with it, or anything.

texasguy2 wrote:
Damici wrote:
Sure, only (a.) I believe the guy writing the post about it being a well-known fact that “all” fighters are juicing was just some troll; I wasn’t taking him seriously.

Then you were ignoring the conversation at hand that I replied to, making your whole rant pointless.

“Sure, only (a.) I believe the guy writing the post about it being a well-known fact that “all” fighters are juicing was just some troll; I wasn’t taking him seriously.”

Ignoring the basis of the original comment has you arguing a tangent, pretty much with yourself.
[/quote]

38

[quote]Donut62 wrote:
Ruggerlife wrote:
A couple thoughts:

  1. I think this sets an interesting precedent. Based on this, the UFC should fully disclose all test results and testing procedures from events not held in Nevada and California (and any others that do their own testing).

The precedent was already set before this when they stripped Josh Barnett and Tim Syvlia for testing positive. As for disclosing test results, that is the policy of the individual state athletic commissions, not the UFC.

It is technically private information so it would be a sensitive issue for the UFC to disclose the information without the prior consent of the athletic commissions. The UFC does it’s own testing overseas, however, where there is not an athletic commission. As far as I know those results were never released or discussed.
[/quote]

Thanks, I forgot about those two guys.

As for the other point, Dana did make a comment after one of the overseas shows that all fighters were tested and passed the test. If the UFC is going to ensure all shows are tested, then they should have a disclosure policy (and appropriate appeals) for the shows they take responsibility to test.

You were correct in your other post, what the hell are these guys thinking taking a steroid that will test positive. I you’re going to cheat, at least get creative! :slight_smile:

39

[quote]slimjim wrote:
There have been some serious problems involving the California State Athletic Commission and their testing since they started hosting MMA events last year. Numerous positive tests have been contested by those who failed;

…

My argument is not against drug testing in MMA. It is simply with the CSAC’s procedures in regards to their testing. There should be some oversight into their dealings and transparency to their methods of operation in order to prevent people from being wrongly accused of steroid/drug use. As the sport gets more and more mainstream, false positives could spell the end of a fighter’s career and should not be in the hands of a couple of jackasses operating behind closed doors.

Nick Diaz beat Gomi via gogoplata, Feb. 24, 2007[/quote]

Good post!

40

[quote]Ruggerlife wrote:
slimjim wrote:
There have been some serious problems involving the California State Athletic Commission and their testing since they started hosting MMA events last year. Numerous positive tests have been contested by those who failed;

…

My argument is not against drug testing in MMA. It is simply with the CSAC’s procedures in regards to their testing. There should be some oversight into their dealings and transparency to their methods of operation in order to prevent people from being wrongly accused of steroid/drug use. As the sport gets more and more mainstream, false positives could spell the end of a fighter’s career and should not be in the hands of a couple of jackasses operating behind closed doors.

Nick Diaz beat Gomi via gogoplata, Feb. 24, 2007

Good post!

[/quote]

            I think a lot of guys DO actually use gear, they just do it a bit smarter than Franca and Sean apparently. I mean for them to use something with a long half life like nandrolone is dumb. Probably a good portion use shorter estered gear to their advantage and stop when they need to before the test with enough clearance time.
     It's the same with Bonner, he was using boldenone, another choice with a long clearance time.
         It's going to be done by some, I'm sure a lot of them use GH too for its healing effects on soft tissue as well.
       Some get caught, some don't that's it.