Erin Bucknell over at MMACalifornia.net got the goods from Armando Garcia involving his side of the story in this entire saga that was Nick Diaz being pulled from Saturday’s Strikeforce card. Erin posted an email that she received from Armando Garcia explaining the entire situation from his side of the lines. These are some of the pieces of the email that strike me as potentially damaging for Nick Diaz.

The employee was told by the Doctor’s office that the actual medical examination reports would be ready on Monday March 17, 2008. He advised the Doctor’s office that he would return with another fighter on that date and would pick them up then.

There is absolutely no doubt that both the employee and the fighter were given the necessary instructions.

On March 17 the promoter’s employee went back to the Doctor’s office with another fighter and was given the medical examinations for the previous fighter.

Early in the business day on Tuesday March 25, 2008 (eight days later and three days from the fight) the promoter’s employee called our office and asked a series of ‘hypothetical’ questions regarding the use of marijuana by a fighter, medicinal marijuana, having or not having a marijuana card, etc.

In the paragraphs before this excerpt, it was determined that Diaz completed his medicals on March 13, 2008. Diaz disclosed that he did use marijuana for medicinal purposes and had used it in the same week as the examination. He stated that he had a card to prove it, but did not have the card with him at that time. He told the office that it would be provided.

The hypothetical questions are bit mysterious. Also, the medicals were in fact turned in only three days prior to the event. In any case, the CSAC FAQ does state that if you have prescription drugs disclosed on your medicals, you should not wait until the week of the fight to turn those papers into the CSAC. It warns that it could very well lead to the participant not being able to compete.

Later we identified the fighter and the exact information and discussed the actual fighter’s situation. At that point, based on the exact situation, and new information that the fighter and the promoter were disclosing, which was not disclosed to the Doctor, I felt that it was highly unlikely that the matter could be resolved by the fight date on Saturday March 29, 2008.

Early on Wednesday March 26 I asked the Legal team for an opinion on the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 as it relates to licenses/contestants. On the same day I spoke with both the fighter and the promoter. The promoter asked me to ‘test’ the fighter. I advised him that I could not test someone who wasn’t licensed. In this case not only did I need additional medical information for licensing, but I had no ‘card’ and no application. Please note that even if I did, and could legally test him, the test results would not be back in time for the fight.

Please also note that the fighter previously tested positive in another state in a high profile case. In that case he tested positive for marijuana and the nanogram level was the highest known in combative sports history. I have the minutes of his hearing and he stated that he used marijuana ‘recreationally’ and he promised never to do it again. He never disclosed any medical condition that would require the use of marijuana and he never contended that he had a ‘card’. He has never fought in that state again. Now, he states that he has a condition which is helped by smoking marijuana yet he provides no evidence, or no evidence has been provided.

Garcia contends that since new information was provided at a time period of three days before the event. The new information was not disclosed in the first round of medicals on the 13th of March according to the quote. As I stated above, turning in medicals the week of the event with prescription drug disclosure is not a smart idea, and Garcia has the right to stop the fight from happening.

In an interview with Josh Gross and TJ Desantis during the "Beatdown" Radio show on Sherdog.com, CSAC Executive Officer Armando Garcia made comments regarding Sean Sherk's defense and attempt to clear his name in front of the CSAC appeal committee. Before I delve into each of the comments, I want to address one comment that Garcia made regarding blogs and the research that is done when looking analytically at both sides of the story.

As hard as it is to listen to people downgrade blogs as places that can spit out false information, I have tried to push both sides of Sean Sherk's case to the readership. Not only have I presented my own analytical piece regarding why I believe Sherk is guilty, but I also pushed a piece today regarding the opposite side of the story. It is up to the reader to decide which pieces of research out there are legitimately valid and which may have flaws. I do not necessarily agree with many of the studies and I question their validity. My vision, however, for this site is to present the arguments and the details, along with some opinionated pieces to begin a general conversation regarding the topic. A conversation that is intelligent and spawns intelligent thinking in regards to mixed martial arts topics.

Armando Garcia's argument

Garcia's stance on the issue is obvious. He is the executive director of the CSAC, but he does not have a vote in the appeals process, only a reccommendation. His stance on the issue was that the evidence Sherk provided was not valid to prove that the test was not positive. Here's some quick notes:

• Appeals process: Garcia does not see any real problem with the process, but will begin the process of getting an appeals process on paper and procedures/steps that need to be followed in the process.
• Concrete rules: Garcia stated he is always looking for ways to better the program. Rules will be set on paper.
• Drug Testing opened: CSAC recently opened doors for the media to see how the drug testing worked.
• Samples: Person tested can choose to have representatives, friends while testing. If sample or documentation doesn't arrive at lab in great condition, sample is thrown out.
• Quest Diagnostics: Thousands of test per year. Suggesting that their process is flawed, it is an insult to the thousands of people that have tested clean before in California. It suggests that their tests may have been tainted and that person ended up testing clean.
• Contaminated supplements: "You must be responsible for every single thing you put into your body."
• Xyience: Commented that when you bring in a test for a supplement that was positive for a substance that the lab doesn't even test for, it is a "smokescreen".
• CSAC: Leading the way in anti-doping in combative sports
• Hearing process: Stated he is for the process of giving a fighter rights to an appeal, but not for "clever smokescreens".
• Nandrolone levels: 50 ng/mL and 4 ng/mL are both positive, no difference because of the levels.
• Contamination: Microbial degradation - slim and none chance and it helps the drug user.
• Fighters: Many big name profile fighters all tested clean, does it mean that their clean test is tainted?
• Claims of testing: Says that many fighters who claim to have been tested many, many times sometimes weren't even tested.
• Labs: Some labs are much different than others, threshhold levels differ, chain of custody procedures differ.
• Praise: We should praise the fighters who don't use steroids and test clean.
• USA Today Study: Hasn't seen it, but is willing to look it over and educate himself and get it to the commissioners.
• Supplements: "When you take supplements, you are taking a risk."
• Nagano Olympics Nandrolone report: THANK YOU ARMANDO GARCIA! This is a report that I've used as a basis for my argument time and time again. Garcia makes a very good point during the radio interview regarding this report.
• Sherk's evidence: Presented no evidence to suggest that a supplement produced the nandrolone positive
• Threshhold: Garcia confirmed the 2 ng/mL threshhold
• WADA statutues: Garcia has problems with punishing someone for 2 years due to marijuana. Believes it is a little too much, but is considering some of the language in their codes to structure the appeals process.
• Testing Process: The labs would be in very deep trouble if there was a false test. Have procedures to make sure false positives don't occur. The testing process tests the sample four times, not one. The individual essentially tested positive four times.
• Quest Diagnostics: Decided upon through the contract process through the State of California. Picked because of its large number of tests it does per year, NSAC uses it as well, and it provided the best value to the state.
• James Toney: Didn't comment too much, but did state that the incident was an ugly chapter in the commission's history and he did not have any logic as to why the decision that the commission made was made.

It was a very interesting interview for a number of reasons. The main reason being that it offers insight into Sherk's case and into Garcia's thinking behind the entire ordeal. Not surprisingly, I tend to support Garcia's stance. Although he does not have control over what the commissioners ultimately decide as a punishment, he does offer insight as to why the case had no real shot at being thrown out.

My observations

Garcia mentioned that one of the key pieces to Sherk's case involved microbial degradation. I sourced in the past some studies that suggest microbial contamination of a sample could possibly cause a false positive, but in fact, microbial degradation has been proven to cause false negatives. In this study, it is proven without a doubt that false negatives occured in nandrolone tests. I actually find it amazing that this was a key piece to Sherk's defense that was not researched extensively enough. The above study contradicts a report by the Telegraph in England that states "bacterial degradation" was causing false positives. Interesting stuff, although the I want to hear some type of comparison of the two reports. Is it possible that both raising of the level and degrading of the level can occur in different instances? Which is it?

The Nagano Olympic report holds a lot more weight than many people believe. Fact is, it is one of the larger studies done to support nandrolone being a drug that is very tough for an athlete to physically produce at levels over 1 ng/mL. This study has one of the largest sample sizes and has the ability to rebut many of the smaller studies that indicate otherwise. It also has a sample size of all Olympic-level athletes.

Another comment that confirms the stance by the CSAC on supplements was Garcia's statement regarding the statistics on supplements. He stated that a fighter is responsible for what he puts into his body. This is much like the statement Keith Kizer of the NSAC said in a TAGG Radio interview. If the fighters are responsible, it is their perogative to make sure they are clean before fight.

The testing process was revealed by Garcia. The fighters who test positive actually test positive four times because the lab actually tests the samples that many times avoid false positives. He also commented on the fact that the labs make sure that false positives do not happen because it is their reputation on the line and would have unfavorable consequences.

Overall, it was a solid interview by Josh Gross and TJ Desantis and clarified a lot of information that was very much desired by the MMA community. In my personal opinion, I believe Garcia's logic in the case is a breath of fresh air to what we've been hearing lately regarding other studies. The fact is, as I've stated before, many of these studies out there have low sample size, older testing techniques, and are outdated. The Nagano study has the advantage of being a huge sample size of all athletes. I will, however, follow up on the conflicting reports revolving around bacterial degradation.