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?

- I've read comments from a lot of people who claim that Sean Sherk shouldn't be considered guilty because we have a justice system that believes you are innocent until proven guilty. Well, Sherk didn't subject himself to the rules and regulations of the justice system. He was not tried on criminal charges. He was deemed guilty by the California State Athletic Commission, and for better or worse, the commission works in a way in which that if you test positive, you are found guilty and reprimanded. You have a right to an appeal, but you are considered guilty until proven innocent when you appear before the commission. Right or wrong, that's how the commission operates and they are up front and open about it.

When a fighter signs a bout agreement, they are subjecting themselves to the rules and regulations of the commission they are seeking licensure from. If they aren't prepared to accept the rules, regulations, and operating procedures of a state, they should not fight in that state. Crying foul after the fact is no good. You knew how the system operated. Everything was cool until they found you guilty. If you want to take a stand, take that stand before you find yourself caught in the system.

Partaking in sanctioned violence is a privledge, not a right. But some people try to suggest it's a person's right to fight. No, it's not. Violence in non-self defense situations is illegal. Fighting is illegal, regardless of whether it's consenual or not. If you get into an argument at a bar with someone and the two of you verbally agree to take the dispute outside, the police can still arrest you even if both of you agreed to the fight. Commissions are granting fighters permission through a license to participate in sanctioned violence. In other words, they are getting a waiver, which means that you are not entitled to fight. You have to follow the rules and if you're not willing to play by them, then I'm sorry about your luck, kid.

Hey, but Sherk is now saying he doesn't like the California system and says he won't go through it again. That's one move he's making that I can actually respect.

- Sherk had his day before the commission and his case lacked compelling evidence. I really don't care how much his legal fees were. No one told him to go out and hire Howard Jacobs, a high-priced attorney who specializes in appealing penalties given to athletes for testing positive for performance enhancers. Now, Sherk has a right to hire whoever he wants. It's his life and it's his future at stake. But he made the decision to hire Jacobs and he needs to stand by that. A by that I mean he needs to stop whining about how much his legal fees are in public. Live with your decisions.

Furthermore, Sherk should ask for a refund because he didn't get his money's worth. Walking into a room and just slinging a bunch of mud against the wall and hoping some of it sticks isn't a great strategy. When the commission already sees you as guilty, the burden of proof is on you. You need to provide answers for the commission, not raise a bunch of questions.

For as much as Sherk paid Jacobs, I find it funny that Ken Pavia did ten times a better job of representing Phil Baroni. Pavia is not only an agent, but also an attorney. However, coming into Baroni's appeal hearing, he didn't have a reputation for representing clients in appeal hearings before State Athletic Commissions. Despite his inexperience in regard to this specialized matter, Pavia presented a much more compelling case than Jacobs did.

- And just like no one told Sean Sherk to go out and hire Howard Jacobs, no one told him to take a ridiculous amount of supplements. Many fighters use supplements. It's a part of the game. I understand that. So much of MMA training is endurance training, which takes a toll on the human body. Fighters that train every day need something to help their muscles recover so they can wake up the next morning and do it all over again. I get that. But the amount of supplements that Sherk has been reported to take on a daily basis is obscene. Frankly, I think it's borderline obsessive-compulsive behavior, but I'm not a shrink.

Regardless, I'm not going to buy the statement that Sherk is health conscious and careful about what he puts into his body. Those are just words. His reported actions tell me that he's a little too liberal with what he puts into his body. While I'm not doctor, it's common sense to know that the amount of supplements he's putting into his body is not good for his long-term health. Supplements are not regulated by the FDA. Just because something is sold over the counter does not make it safe. What's legal today could be illegal tomorrow. When I was a teenager, you could buy herbal ecstasy at the GNC. When I lifted weights in my early-20s, I used Andro, which is now illegal but was legal at the time.

I've also been told by fighters that used to use an insane amount of supplements that they've gone to professional nutritionists who informed them that many of them don't even provide the benefits that they say they do.

It's also important to discuss the USA Today study that one in four supplements is contaminated. To me, there's a difference between false positives and contaminated supplements. A false positive is a test that showed up positive for a performance enhancer in your body that isn't really in your body. Contaminated means that a manufacturer produced a supplement they sold under the guise of being legal even though it contains illegal substances. What, there can't be steroids in something you buy at a store? Yeah, right! Remember, the supplement industry is not regulated!

And why does a human being need 60-plus supplements? Why can't someone just take 10-12? I really wonder if the fighters who take a high number of supplements are getting legitimate benefits from them or if they really do have an obsessive-compulsive issue. Perhaps the benefit they get is placebo-like in nature? Such as, if you put an extreme amout of crap in your body, you train and fight better because you engage in competition believing you have an edge, thus, giving you more confidence.

- Sherk's argument that he shouldn't be held accountable for contaminated supplements is a joke. We've been down this road before. Most commissions have said, in high-profile cases, that even if you did not knowingly take a performance enhancer, you are still guilty because you still competed with an illegal performance edge. In other words, even if you didn't know it was in your system, you're still guilty because you competed with it in your system. This is a philosophy that many major commissions subscribe to and it is not a secret. Sherk's stance in regard to this matter is five years behind the times. He's acting like it's some big surprise. If he truly cares about his reputation, he'll come up with something better. By continually taking this stance he only further injures his reputation.

- The bigger joke is this argument that Sherk is innocent because he passed a lie detector test. Do I even need to bring up the basic fact that polygraph tests are not entirely accurate and aren't even admissable in a court of law? Okay, let's try a new angle then. When did this alleged lie detector test take place? Who administered it? Where did it take place? Who was present? What questions were asked? Were written results of the test made available to the media? Was anyone from the media present for the polygraph such as when Phil Baroni allowed the media to be present for one of his drug screenings?

If Sherk did use performance enhancers, he should consider coming clean. No, not everyone will forgive him, but a lot of people will be able to regain some respect for him. He also might wake up in the morning with a clearer conscious and he might be able to finally move on and start to distance himself from this as much as possible. The truth really can set you free. There are many people who might be willing to forgive him if he's really guilty, but first he needs to apologize.

If Sean Sherk is reading this, chances are you will discount everything I am saying because I'm not saying positive things about you. But here is some advice that I really feel you should take to heart if you truly are innocent:
 
1) Take greater responsibility for what you put into your body. You should really perform internal tests of all supplements before you use them. Find out if they will give a false positive or are contaminated BEFORE you use them. I realize it won't be cheap, but had you done this before the positive test, think about how much money in the long run you would have ended up saving.

2) Stop pointing fingers in all of the wrong directions. You said someone should be held accountable other than you? Well, why should the commission be responsible for contaminated supplements? They aren't advising fighters to use them and they aren't manufacturing them. You should blame the companies that are selling you substances over the counter that are contaminated. Test all the supplements you used. Try to pinpoint the one or ones that caused you to test positive and go after the companies that make them and sue them for damages. You could very well in fact be a victim.

3) If you're sincerely worried about your reputation and your public image, you should hire a consultant. While your image will never be what it once was, you're not helping yourself with the way you've represented yourself in interviews. You should hire a professional who can help you convey what you want to say in a more professional manner. I know you're angry, but showing that anger in public is making you look worse in the minds of a lot of people. Your situation can improve if you start doing some of the right things.

4) Anytime you take a drug test or a polygraph in the future, make it an open process and involve the media.You can say it's none of the public's business and that such access is intrusive, but you're the one asking the public to take a leap of faith and believe your word over the commission's. You're the one asking for the public to support you. A lot of the public doesn't know who to believe at this point. Make it easier on the public.

5) If there is anything remaining from your original sample, do what Phil Baroni did and have the sample sent to another lab for testing. If you feel Quest made some sort of mistake, then try and prove it.

6) Most of all, please hire a nutritionist if you haven't already done so. I'm not a professional but I'm sincerely concerned that you might be doing long-term harm to yourself with all the supplements you are putting into your body. Again, the supplements you are using are not regulated by the FDA. I'm sure you have a lot of knowledge about nutrition, but it couldn't hurt getting additional professional advice about whether or not using all those supplements are really giving you the benefits you think they are.

--

Sam Caplan

Lead Writer/Editor - ProElite.com

SamCaplan.ProElite.com