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?


  • Jay K. says:

    I am not a legal beagle but that was one of the most comprehensive smackdowns I’ve ever seen. In MMA terms this would be a KTFO like Houston did to Jardine!!

    Jay K.

  • dizzle says:

    thank you sam!

    I couldn’t agree with you more!

  • According to Garcia during the Sherdog interview after the hearing, the samples are also undergo four seperate tests. As I stated in a few articles I wrote regarding Sherk’s positive, Quest would have to have someone incompetent enough to allow the sample to be tested FOUR seperate times while the machine had carryover. The probability of that occurring is slim to none. Garcia was right… Sherk was throwing up a smokescreen of evidence that didn’t prove his innocence, just putting the blame on the CSAC and Quest.

    It’s funny because I felt the exact same way when this all came out. Sherk didn’t provide paperwork to the media, which could have helped his cause. When you want proof to stick, play the Zuffa game and present paperwork much like they did when the Couture debocle occurred.

    The contamination of the glucosamine supplement is also another smokescreen. Fact is, it didn’t cause a nandrolone positive, and Sherk just happened to find 2 or 3 supplements in his cache that fell in line with the studies that indicate 15-20% of all supplements contain substances that cause positives. Plain and simple, the AC tells you these stats and tells you to be careful. He wasn’t, end of story.

  • Sam Cupitt says:

    …who’s Sean Sherk?

  • Gong says:

    Completely agree. The best way to handle this is to just drop the issue and move on. Don’t be like OJ Simpson after your acquittal and still keep bringing the issue up. Or attempt to write a book about it. Everyone’s sick of the issue, and he still has a handful of fans either way. It’s a win-win situation for him (surprisingly) and he should just work to rebuild his rep.

  • garth says:

    think of the other fighters that got positive tests. sure, they get slammed for a while, and they get called cheaters, but they do their time, come back and piss clean, boom, it’s over. uh, Stephan Bonnar? Josh Barnett? While I feel they deserve censure for breaking the rules, I don’t believe they should be exiles forever…unless they continue to lie about it in the face of evidence.
    Coming clean has enormous powers of catharsis with fans.

  • Mike Wolfe says:

    Excellent point about the use of supplements in your original article, Sam. Because they’re not subject to the scrutiny of the FDA, nobody knows their long term effects. Supplements are chemical substances, and nobody in their right mind should ingest them without solid evidence about their effectiveness and safety. I can remember in the late ’80’s and early 90’s when L-tryptophan was touted as a remedy for insomnia and depression. Turns out some of the stuff from a particular manufacturer was linked to serious health problems, and it was banned. Bottom line: Don’t be a lab rat.

  • Evan says:

    I honestly am nor sure if he did it or not. The more I read about how poorly these situations are handled byt he CSAC makes me lean towards him being innocent but he has spoken his piece, time to drop it.

  • Jesse Denis says:

    grow some bals. fight bj penn without steroids.

  • screwface says:

    “…who’s Sean Sherk?”

    couldnt of said it better :)

  • Very well said on all points Sam.

  • Drewdoodoo says:

    I have a hard time with a guy who is so particular about what he puts in his body but takes a bunch of supplements and then cries, “how am I supposed to know something bad was in there?” Well, the answer is, you should should f*cking check. “How do you check 50 or 60 supplements?” I don’t know, how do you find time to take that many? X grams of naldorone plus three contaminated tests plus one polygraph plus one overpriced attorney equals exactly zero sympathy from me. Sorry Sean.

  • steve24 says:

    Personally, I don’t read anything Iole writes. It’s not news or anything, it’s just some dumbass re-writing a story we’ve already read about 100 fucking times.

  • Ron Z says:

    Sean put himself in this position because of his own stupidity. His lawyers are good dealing with the Athletic Commission, but they’re not experts in the court of public opinion. He should followed the same lead Phil Baroni and show the public he’s not a cheater. In addition, he examine those supplements he taking because they hurt his body in the long term.


You must be logged in to post a comment.