The Double Leg Breakdown: 05.03.08: Sean Sherk's Ill Willful Ignorance

Posted by Don Nguyen on 05.03.2008

Many fans are upset at the UFC's decision to give Sean Sherk an immediate title shot after being stripped of his belt for failing a steroid test. Sherk has claimed innocence and Dana White believes his friend. Was Sherk telling the truth? Was the California State Athletic Commission out of line in upholding their decision not to overturn their suspension? Was it unfair for the UFC to grant Sherk a title shot so soon?

Hi, and welcome back to the Double Leg Breakdown! This month, we will see the culmination of the Sean Sherk saga when he fights BJ Penn at UFC 84: Ill Will (doesn't the promo poster look like it says "Fill Will?" Fire your art director, Dana). I have my opinions about this matchup, but I'll save that for a later column. With many fans still questioning whether or not Sherk deserves a title shot so quickly after coming off a six month suspension, I'd like to revisit the Sherk steroid scandal and give my thoughts on the situation.

ILL WILLFUL IGNORANCE

Since failing a drug test following his fight with Hermes Franca at UFC 73, Sean Sherk has masterfully played the role of martyr, taking every opportunity to publicly declare his innocence. His saga culminated in December with a high profile hearing with the California State Athletic Commission.



There, Sherk presented to the commission his carefully assembled case with accompanying evidence. He asserted that his sample was not tracked carefully enough and that there were periods of time during which the sample was not accounted for. He alleged that during these periods, his sample could have been tampered with. He also noted that the vessels that contained his samples were not cleaned properly asserting that the dirty vessels could have contaminated his sample causing a false positive.

Finally, Sherk had the supplements he was taking at the time tested and found that, while advertised as containing only legal ingredients, some of the supplements contained Nandrolone, the substance that was found in his sample. In the end, Sherk's defense was that he did not "knowingly" take Nandrolone and should therefore not be held accountable for the positive test. He even passed a lie-detector test to prove his innocence. Frankly, I believe him, but I also believe that he is too smart a guy not to know that taking that many supplements might result in a positive test.


A recent photo of Sean Shrink-- ummm... I mean Sherk

I once read that Sean Sherk is such a health freak that he will roll up his car window if he should be stopped at a light next to a smoker. As we all know now, on his UFC All Access, he revealed that his training included the ingestion of something like 20 different supplements a day. For a guy who is so concerned with his health, why would he fill his body with so many substances without doing proper research on what he was taking. A search on the internet would have given him fair warning that the supplements may result in a positive test. He is certainly not the first athlete to test positive as a result of ingesting contaminated supplements.

I suspect Sherk knew of the potential for the supplements to cause a positive test but did not care because he wanted that competitive edge. If he did not overtly know it, he was at least willfully ignorant of it. With his rock solid alibi, I suspect he knew if he were to test positive, he would at most get out of a suspension, but at least, he could go into the history books as an unintentional steroid user.

Whether I am right or wrong about Sherk, ultimately, I think the CSAC made the right decision in upholding his suspension. If it were the supplements that caused the positive test, Sherk is still accountable for knowing what goes into his body. As for the possibility that the test was tampered with or contaminated, even if this were to have been decided in the court of law, Sherk only made points to cast doubt on the positive test and brought no real evidence that he did not have Nandrolone in his system at the time the test was done. This would not be criminal case so "reasonable doubt" would not be a valid reason to force the CSAC to overturn their decision. The only thing we know for sure is that the sample that was taken from Sherk did contain Nandrolone, and ultimately, that is what we must go by.

Am I upset that Sherk will be fighting Penn this month? Absolutely not. It is the best, most compelling fight that could be arranged in the Lightweight division at this time. Ultimately, this fight in my opinion is not about whether or not Sherk deserves a chance to get the title back, but moreso, it is about Penn having a chance to prove that he is the true undisputed UFC Lightweight Champion.