Sean Sherk's Suspension Reduced

UFC lightweight champion Sean Sherk (Pictures), who was suspended for one year after testing positive for Nandrolone Metabolites following his victory over Hermes Franca (Pictures) at UFC 73 on July 7, had his suspension reduced to six months on Tuesday, reports Sherdog.com editor Josh Gross.

The California State Athletic Commission upheld a fine of $2500. Sherk, 34, will be eligible to return to the Octagon in January.

Link

so, basically he is guilty .

6 month or 12 month it is the same in matter of his guilt .

I'm really glad that it''s official. Now I don't have to use words like alleged or worry about fighter bashing. I think admitting he did it should be a pre requisite to fighting again. BTW, It's absolutely pathetic that he got it reduced just cuz he fought. Most guys have the balls to admit when they have done something wrong. But that's how it often works in courts. Even traffic tix you can often get rid of just by fighting and wasting their time and money. So he achieved that. We've all known for a long time he's a juicer and now the proof is in the pudding.

This whole system is just one big JOKE!!!!!!!!

What is the motivation behind reducing the suspension? Did he plead "guilty with explanation" or something?!

I'm glad thats over. Now Sherk will tell us what he really thinks without fear of pissing off the commission.

I bet he never fights in CA (by choice) ever again.

sherk vs. penn in the near future, i dont care if sherk is guilty or not this fight could be the most anticipated of the year.

This is kinda bad, in this scenario.

Sherk can fight by January but Bj is already fighting Joe Daddy. I dont think dana will strip sherk of the belt and if BJ beats Joe. Bj said he doesnt want to fight sherk if he is guilty.

So either you strip sherk of the title. Or See if Joe beats BJ.

i'll be suprised if he's not stripped of the belt. Examples must be made....on every level.

hopefully lesson learned.

What is the motivation behind reducing the suspension?

I would not be suprised if the commision did not just F&%K the whole thing up and reduce his suspenion so he can fight asap but are still calling him guilty, (and colleting the money) just to try to make them self look better. or he could just be guilty

The BJ vs Joe fight will be a No. 1 contender fight now more than likely. I doubt they will keep an interm title hanging around when an eligible champion is active.

Maybe Sherk knowingly took steroids, maybe he didnt. Probably only he knows. Either way, if you are fined and suspended for using them, you should lose the belt. You cannot make exceptions here.

---

Posted by JimiMak

I'm really glad that it''s official. Now I don't have to use words like alleged or worry about fighter bashing. I think admitting he did it should be a pre requisite to fighting again. BTW, It's absolutely pathetic that he got it reduced just cuz he fought. Most guys have the balls to admit when they have done something wrong. But that's how it often works in courts. Even traffic tix you can often get rid of just by fighting and wasting their time and money. So he achieved that. We've all known for a long time he's a juicer and now the proof is in the pudding.

---

Man, that's bullshit. For a long time we've "known"? The **** we have, he's fought 35 times and this is the first time any test has indicated this. Is it because only the wonderful CSAC (which is clearly above reproach in these matters) could manage to nab him? He passed a polygraph saying he didn't knowingly use steroids. One of the supplements was shown to be tainted, with no way of him knowing this.

You want to say that it's his responsibility to know these things, and to not use so many supplements, fine, that's a different argument. If you want to say, even if he wasn't using to his knowledge, he should be punished anyway, because it still helped him win (which is how I feel), fine. But to impugn his character, saying he's a 'juicer', and somehow discredit his very impressive record based on this one very questionable circumstance, saying it's completely damning evidence? That's complete bull.

It's amazing the hatred for this guy.

Why would the change the sentence? Are they saying they were partially wrong, like he only took half steroids? That doesnt even make sense. Did I miss something? You either cheated or you didnt. Either full suspension or none, right?

it might have to do with the fact that the hearings were held off for so many months, already affecting his fight schedule.

basically sounds like it worked out like a plea bargain

sounds like the evidence against him was so thin that had they maintained the full suspension, the CASC would face some type of investigation. The way these proceedings went was laughable, and had this been a real court situation its likely that the decision would've been different. In the legal system, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

- passed a lie detector test saying that he didnt knowingly take steroids
- he was found using a contaminated xyience supplement
- didnt get busted in the florian fight despite having the same physique
- had 12 units of the steroid in his test which is a fraction of what most fighters have when they are busted; i think gracie had around 40

the only evidence against him would be that one positive test. All other evidence, including testimonies regarding his character would suggest that he was a victim of using supplements from the ufc's biggest sponsor which he didnt know were tainted.

For people to be saying that he's a cheater, a horrible person, a 'juicer', or a disgrace to the sport.. get over yourselves, look at the facts and come up with your own conclusion, not the one that revolves around talking shit about any fighter who gives you a remote excuse to do so.

Sherk deserves to be stripped of the title because he tested positive for steroids, he does however deserve no1 contendership once he's ready to fight because beyond a reasonable doubt, he was not using performance enhancing drugs to improve his performance.

---

Posted by wapttn

sounds like the evidence against him was so thin that had they maintained the full suspension, the CASC would face some type of investigation. The way these proceedings went was laughable, and had this been a real court situation its likely that the decision would've been different. In the legal system, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

- passed a lie detector test saying that he didnt knowingly take steroids
- he was found using a contaminated xyience supplement
- didnt get busted in the florian fight despite having the same physique
- had 12 units of the steroid in his test which is a fraction of what most fighters have when they are busted; i think gracie had around 40

the only evidence against him would be that one positive test. All other evidence, including testimonies regarding his character would suggest that he was a victim of using supplements from the ufc's biggest sponsor which he didnt know were tainted.

For people to be saying that he's a cheater, a horrible person, a 'juicer', or a disgrace to the sport.. get over yourselves, look at the facts and come up with your own conclusion, not the one that revolves around talking shit about any fighter who gives you a remote excuse to do so.
javascript:Emote('');
Sherk deserves to be stripped of the title because he tested positive for steroids, he does however deserve no1 contendership once he's ready to fight because beyond a reasonable doubt, he was not using performance enhancing drugs to improve his performance.

---

TRUTH!

---

Posted by wapttn

sounds like the evidence against him was so thin that had they maintained the full suspension, the CASC would face some type of investigation. The way these proceedings went was laughable, and had this been a real court situation its likely that the decision would've been different. In the legal system, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

- passed a lie detector test saying that he didnt knowingly take steroids
- he was found using a contaminated xyience supplement
- didnt get busted in the florian fight despite having the same physique
- had 12 units of the steroid in his test which is a fraction of what most fighters have when they are busted; i think gracie had around 40

the only evidence against him would be that one positive test. All other evidence, including testimonies regarding his character would suggest that he was a victim of using supplements from the ufc's biggest sponsor which he didnt know were tainted.

For people to be saying that he's a cheater, a horrible person, a 'juicer', or a disgrace to the sport.. get over yourselves, look at the facts and come up with your own conclusion, not the one that revolves around talking shit about any fighter who gives you a remote excuse to do so.

Sherk deserves to be stripped of the title because he tested positive for steroids, he does however deserve no1 contendership once he's ready to fight because beyond a reasonable doubt, he was not using performance enhancing drugs to improve his performance.

---

you obviously have no idea what beyond a reasonable doubt means. He would've been convicted much easier in a court of law. The Xience thing is a bs story, most likely, if not it doesn't matter he competed w/ illegal substances in hsi system. The facts are clear. You sound like a baby, cuz you didn't get what you wanted out of the regulating body. A pos test is all you need, it's INDISPUTABLE PROOF. How do you think personal testimonies counter real evidence to the contrary. His #s were low cuz he was caught at the end of a cycle w/ it almost gone. FACTS. As determined by a guilty finding as well as all appeals being exhausted. You can choose to believe what you want, doesn't change facts. And this just gives him the benefit of the doubt, cuz I personally thought he was a juice head for a long time and now have proof.

ps lie detector tests are inadmissible in courts of law because they prove nothing.

I still don't understand the verdict....

.....

..... nope still don't.

Is he guilty? If he is then why did they reduce; if he isnt why didnt they completely dismiss?

Why must the courts be so greedy and useless! GIVE CLEAR FULL VERDICTS!

---

Posted by JimiMak

you obviously have no idea what beyond a reasonable doubt means. He would've been convicted much easier in a court of law. The Xience thing is a bs story, most likely, if not it doesn't matter he competed w/ illegal substances in hsi system. The facts are clear. You sound like a baby, cuz you didn't get what you wanted out of the regulating body. A pos test is all you need, it's INDISPUTABLE PROOF. How do you think personal testimonies counter real evidence to the contrary. His #s were low cuz he was caught at the end of a cycle w/ it almost gone. FACTS. As determined by a guilty finding as well as all appeals being exhausted. You can choose to believe what you want, doesn't change facts. And this just gives him the benefit of the doubt, cuz I personally thought he was a juice head for a long time and now have proof.

ps lie detector tests are inadmissible in courts of law because they prove nothing.

---

Congradulations for being the first person on mmaplayground to try and take some kind of personal shot at me.. sorry that this post is going to be so long.

In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. For example, a person has to prove that someone is guilty or not guilty (in a criminal case) or liable or not liable (in a civil case) depending on the allegations. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position against a prima facie other position.

Heres the wikipedia definition of beyond a reasonable doubt, i was gonna use the definition from one of my textbooks but this one's a little easier to understand.. oh ya, i'm a law student.

I acknowledged that he competed with an illegal substance in his body, the arguement is that he did not knowingly take it. This is the conclusion which seems most logical to me. The burden of proof would be on the prosecutor if this case was civil so how would the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sherk deliberately administered steroids to himself when the only evidence is a slightly higher level of nandrolone than the average athlete competing in this sport?

The xyience situation is not bs. The CSAC, xyience, and sherk all released statements confirmed the contamination of his joint supplement. If it was bs then xyience wouldnt've stopped all shipments of that supplement.

He did compete with a banned substance in his system, I never said that he didnt.

How do i sound like a crying baby? i agree with the ruling decision assuming that the ufc strips sherk of the title as well.

A positive test is not indisputable evidence. Look through the history of suspensions and hearings from the CSAC, you will find that there have been false positives which resulted in overturned cases. Other factors must be considered, just because the stick turns blue doesnt mean ur wife is pregnant.

Personal testimonies are often a way of establishing character in civil and criminal courts in order to help the judge and/or jury to gain a better understanding of the likelihood of the accusations. If everyone who knows sherk, those who have a personal interest in the case and those who do not, describe sherk as an honest person who always abides by the rules and would never do steroids, then this increases the chance that he did not knowingly take the steroids.

His numbers were low because they caught him at the end of a cycle.. thats a fact? from who? Theres a lot of reasons why he numbers could've been low, truth is that the only person who knows why would be sherk.. and he may not even know.

How have all his appeals been exhausted? he appealed once, requested a small extension to gather evidence and from that point on, it was the CSAC dropping the ball which led things to drag out so long.

For the record, i choose to believe nothing, i choose to understand the facts and decide for myself what the most likely reality was and keep my mind open to new suggestions, ideas and facts.

Sherk being a hardcore juicer who needed the boost to compete at that level, who by bad luck or poor planning got caught at the end of the cycle does not seem to fit the evidence. Obviously you had you own verdict long before any evidence was presented so please dont try and give me a lesson in justice.

---

Posted by wapttn

sounds like the evidence against him was so thin that had they maintained the full suspension, the CASC would face some type of investigation. The way these proceedings went was laughable, and had this been a real court situation its likely that the decision would've been different. In the legal system, you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

- passed a lie detector test saying that he didnt knowingly take steroids
- he was found using a contaminated xyience supplement
- didnt get busted in the florian fight despite having the same physique
- had 12 units of the steroid in his test which is a fraction of what most fighters have when they are busted; i think gracie had around 40

the only evidence against him would be that one positive test. All other evidence, including testimonies regarding his character would suggest that he was a victim of using supplements from the ufc's biggest sponsor which he didnt know were tainted.

For people to be saying that he's a cheater, a horrible person, a 'juicer', or a disgrace to the sport.. get over yourselves, look at the facts and come up with your own conclusion, not the one that revolves around talking shit about any fighter who gives you a remote excuse to do so.

Sherk deserves to be stripped of the title because he tested positive for steroids, he does however deserve no1 contendership once he's ready to fight because beyond a reasonable doubt, he was not using performance enhancing drugs to improve his performance.

---

well put

I agree with Wapttn's conclusions. All we know for certain is that he tested higher than normal and that some of his supplements tested positive. We don't know if he knowingly took steriods or not. At first I was against stripping him of the title, after all, it is questionable what was going on. I also was considering that Hermes knowingly took steriods. However, ultimatley, he did compete with steriods, knowingly or unknowingly, in his system. It is just a shame this took soooo long to resolve.

---

Posted by wapttn

---

Posted by JimiMak

you obviously have no idea what beyond a reasonable doubt means. He would've been convicted much easier in a court of law. The Xience thing is a bs story, most likely, if not it doesn't matter he competed w/ illegal substances in hsi system. The facts are clear. You sound like a baby, cuz you didn't get what you wanted out of the regulating body. A pos test is all you need, it's INDISPUTABLE PROOF. How do you think personal testimonies counter real evidence to the contrary. His #s were low cuz he was caught at the end of a cycle w/ it almost gone. FACTS. As determined by a guilty finding as well as all appeals being exhausted. You can choose to believe what you want, doesn't change facts. And this just gives him the benefit of the doubt, cuz I personally thought he was a juice head for a long time and now have proof.

ps lie detector tests are inadmissible in courts of law because they prove nothing.

---

Congradulations for being the first person on mmaplayground to try and take some kind of personal shot at me.. sorry that this post is going to be so long.

In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. For example, a person has to prove that someone is guilty or not guilty (in a criminal case) or liable or not liable (in a civil case) depending on the allegations. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position against a prima facie other position.

Heres the wikipedia definition of beyond a reasonable doubt, i was gonna use the definition from one of my textbooks but this one's a little easier to understand.. oh ya, i'm a law student.

I acknowledged that he competed with an illegal substance in his body, the arguement is that he did not knowingly take it. This is the conclusion which seems most logical to me. The burden of proof would be on the prosecutor if this case was civil so how would the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that sherk deliberately administered steroids to himself when the only evidence is a slightly higher level of nandrolone than the average athlete competing in this sport?

The xyience situation is not bs. The CSAC, xyience, and sherk all released statements confirmed the contamination of his joint supplement. If it was bs then xyience wouldnt've stopped all shipments of that supplement.

He did compete with a banned substance in his system, I never said that he didnt.

How do i sound like a crying baby? i agree with the ruling decision assuming that the ufc strips sherk of the title as well.

A positive test is not indisputable evidence. Look through the history of suspensions and hearings from the CSAC, you will find that there have been false positives which resulted in overturned cases. Other factors must be considered, just because the stick turns blue doesnt mean ur wife is pregnant.

Personal testimonies are often a way of establishing character in civil and criminal courts in order to help the judge and/or jury to gain a better understanding of the likelihood of the accusations. If everyone who knows sherk, those who have a personal interest in the case and those who do not, describe sherk as an honest person who always abides by the rules and would never do steroids, then this increases the chance that he did not knowingly take the steroids.

His numbers were low because they caught him at the end of a cycle.. thats a fact? from who? Theres a lot of reasons why he numbers could've been low, truth is that the only person who knows why would be sherk.. and he may not even know.

How have all his appeals been exhausted? he appealed once, requested a small extension to gather evidence and from that point on, it was the CSAC dropping the ball which led things to drag out so long.

For the record, i choose to believe nothing, i choose to understand the facts and decide for myself what the most likely reality was and keep my mind open to new suggestions, ideas and facts.

Sherk being a hardcore juicer who needed the boost to compete at that level, who by bad luck or poor planning got caught at the end of the cycle does not seem to fit the evidence. Obviously you had you own verdict long before any evidence was presented so please dont try and give me a lesson in justice.

---

Also, in a real court, the CSAC would have been under constant interogation and there case would have been slowly dismantle by lawyers who would have been able to interogated them.
it would have been a judges outside the CSAC who would have decided who told the truth and who has the best case.
a simple resonable doubt would have been enough for Sherk to be judge not guilty and to have all charge abandoned.
In an appeal like we saw , it was like some lawyers who were trying to defend Sherk but no interogation of CSAC personnel was allowed i think and the judges were from inside the CSAC.

with that said, i think that Sherk should lose his belt even if the CSAC are " questionable " it is there laws and the UFC have to back those who gave them there license .

First off, that was not a personal shot.

That was a really long reply which didn't address the relevant points so I won't bother to quote it. If you're really a law student (and hopefully even if not) you understand that this was an appeal. Burden of proof was on him. There had already been a verdict.

This is also not a court of law. We all try to use that as a standard for them, but that is not what they are. The biggest issue is that according to the rules he knew he had to abide by he had to prove that he didn't even accidentally take them. He proved that he accidentally took them, which prob'ly had a lot to do with the fact that his sentence was reduced.

I'd like to see him just say "hey, mistakes happen. I'll come back clean and ready to retake my position. I'm sorry." It doesn't have to be real detailed or anything, but a continued fight that he cannot win echoes something to me... it's something I heard a long time ago, don't know where.... "You'll always hear the biggest protests from guilty men. Innocent ones don't make such a scene cuz they don't have to." Not saying it's always true, but jails are full of guys who've said they were innocent so much they can pass a lie detector.

I knew this would happen ....................

Same thing as Baroni but the difference is Phil is blatantly innocent yet they refuse to acknowledge their mistakes and just give a compromise sentance

In Sherks case i think they still know he is guilty but cos he has appealed so vehemently and spent so much on lawyers etc they have also given him a gift compromise sentance

The CSAC is obviously run by a bunch of absolute retards

---

Posted by JimiMak

You'll always hear the biggest protests from guilty men.

---

I think my head is going to explode.

If they are still saying that hes guilty he should be stripped of the title. Using steroids is cheating, its that simple.

---

Posted by Twenty20Dollars

This is kinda bad, in this scenario.

Sherk can fight by January but Bj is already fighting Joe Daddy. I dont think dana will strip sherk of the belt and if BJ beats Joe. Bj said he doesnt want to fight sherk if he is guilty.

So either you strip sherk of the title. Or See if Joe beats BJ.

---

i hope BJ sticks to his guns on this, and Zuffa is stuck trying to force him to do the fight.