As of October 31st when the last CSAC hearing took place, the CSAC had went from an organization with little credibility to an organization full of disorganization, administrative problems, and inconsistencies in the judgments. The only person that was stopping the CSAC from hitting rock bottom was the commission analyst Bill Douglas. Not only did he state that there were problems with the disciplinary structure and with the organizational aspects of the commission, but he also made compelling arguments as to why Baroni's case had many aspects to it that sounded good, but in reality, didn't make it clear cut that he was innocent. Instead of looking at thin air like the rest of the commission, he look at scientific facts. In the end, Douglas doesn't have a vote though. Last night, Dave Meltzer at the Wrestling Observer reported that the Sean Sherk's hearing was now delayed until December 4th. Another setback! I am officially declaring the CSAC's credibility as a professional athletic commission to be completely gone and here's why.

The newest problems at the CSAC

It all boils down to the category of administrative error. Check out this quote from The Fight Network:

The California State Athletic Commission today confirmed the postponement of UFC lightweight champion Sean Sherk’s Tuesday, Nov. 13 appeal hearing for a steroids-related suspension. CSAC associate governmental program analyst Bill Douglas cited scheduling conflicts as the reasons behind the delay. The hearing has not yet been rescheduled.

Before we get into the heavy ramifications of the CSAC Commission members not having Microsoft Outlook accounts and calendars set up, let me first state that scheduling a hearing with 10+ individuals shouldn't be too hard if they are all in the room at the time of the scheduling at the hearing. One of the big problems that hinders scheduling at the hearing is the fact that at most commission hearings, only a few members are actually present. Also, Christopher Giza left the hearing after lunch. It's debatable whether or not he left because he had a premonition of the horrible decision making skills of the rest of the commission members or he had a legitimate emergency. After all, Giza was the lone member against Toney's reduction.

We have a case of organization rules that allow members to leave the hearings at will or not show up at all. The CSAC must contact each member not present and find a time in which it is suitable for all members to show up for a hearing, but in reality, only four to five members will actually show. It seems absolutely absurd to me. "Half the battle is showing up" is a quote that's thrown around in motivational speeches, apparently the CSAC missed that.

More questions come to light

With the entire scheduling problem taking center stage today and the overall problems at the CSAC being in the spotlight in the past week, it all lends its help to the question as to whether the CSAC will now have mercy on Sherk due to the fact that they have poorly organized these hearings and came to them unprepared. The suspension took place on July 19th for a one-year suspension. He will be nearly 5 months into the suspension when the next hearing will take place in December. If we see a decision in favor of Sherk without some type of explanation that makes sense scientifically or by at least some type of convincing argument from the commission due to the submitted evidence by Howard Jacobs, wouldn't that also hurt the credibility of the organization? It would, if you think it actually still has some. It seems as if the CSAC is in a lose-lose situation because if they uphold Sherk's suspension, the uproar is going to be ridiculous. Dana White already spoke out about the CSAC and fans have become fed up with the UFC lightweight title being in limbo over the case. With White announcing the BJ Penn vs. Joe Stevenson interim title bout for UFC 80, it seems that the problem is solved and White had an inkling that this may drag on even further. If the CSAC throws out the case or reduces his suspension without just cause, the CSAC's credibility is completely gone because it may look as if the commission feels terrible for their horrible mistakes in this case.

Let me elaborate a bit more on that issue. The goal of the athletic commission in this case is to hear out Sherk's case and rebut any evidence that he submits with proof if they feel that it does not prove his innocence. In the case of Baroni, Bill Douglas refuted all of the tests that Baroni submitted either by the fact that the test was self-administered, tested after the event and could have been avoided a timed cycle, and the fact that the original sample was tested at a non-approved facility and looked to be in a different container. Solid argument. This is the type of argument that should be the standard. Instead, the CSAC has eratic decisions that are based on evidence and many that aren't.

With the history of the CSAC, the potential for a reduction without any type of reason is highly likely. John George came into a hearing this year and basically stated that he unknowingly knew about steroids in his supplements. No evidence. He received an 8 month reduction. If the CSAC simply reduces his sentence, Sherk won't be happy and the CSAC will look as if it gave into the Dana White comments and the overall disorganization that the commission has been dealing with will stick out like a sore thumb. Fact of the matter is, it is already completely exposed. It is beyond me as to why the CSAC isn't being investigated for their poor organizational structure and administrative problems.

Insight on Sherk's case

Here's a quote from MMAFightline.com that I found interesting:

As far as supplements go, just multi-vitamins and protein right now. As I get closer to fight time, I have to train harder and take more supplements. I’m going to have to take a real serious look at what I’m taking. I mean, in the past, I had no idea that you could actually buy a supplement over the counter and it was illegal. I figured if it was at GNC it was legal. Fortunately for me, nothing I was taking was illegal. That was just a fortunate circumstance for me that I was not taking any illegal, over-the-counter supplements. I’m going to have to take a hard look at it, but with all the contamination in the supplements, there are ingredients that are not listed in supplements, you’ve got to be careful. Obviously I can’t send every single one of my supplements to a lab and have it tested for contamination before I take it, that’s going to cost me a lot of money. So I’m just going to have to take a look at what I’m taking and be a little bit more on the careful side.

Obviously, Sherk's case involves his supplements having the potential for containing steroid traces. It's been proven in previous articles and sources that around 15% of over the counter supplements could cause false positives. Unstable urine can cause positives after the urine has already been collected and could be potentially negative of any nandrolone as well. In my opinion, Sherk is barking up the wrong tree. If this was Nevada, his appeal would have been thrown out and his suspension upheld already, but it isn't. In the great state of California, they have still not made a consistent disciplinary structure when it comes to these types of cases. The argument that Sherk is presenting is the most common argument as well, which baffles me because you would think that a common argument would have a common disciplinary action. It's just like when you were in school, a fight with another student was an automatic suspension, or throwing spitwads when you were 9 was a detention. There wasn't an appeals process in which you argued your case to get it reduced. There are always special cases though, and it seems that almost every one of the cases the CSAC sees is special.

What should the common disciplinary action be since you are pushing it? Many of you may ask that to me. It's simple. Keith Keizer at the NSAC has stated in the past that fighters should be responsible for the supplements that they ingest in their bodies. I favor this idea. Here's a few reasons why I like this concept:

• Fighters who can't afford to test their supplements may be inclined to use less supplements or research their own supplements more.
• Fighters who do take a lot of supplements could simply test their urine throughout their training process to see if traces of steroids show.
• This takes the blame off the commission and puts it solely in the fighter's hands.
• It also allows the commission to waste less time with continuances and sifting through evidence that may suggest supplements unknowingly being tainted with steroids.
• Less time, less room for error among voting when a disciplinary action is set already for this type of case, less uproar for a case being dragged out.

Some of you may state that many of these fighters can't afford to be testing their supplements like this. That's very true, but a fighter must weigh the risk. If we look at an up-and-coming fighter who is making $3k/$3k per win, would he be inclined to take 60+ supplements? If he is, he's a bumbling idiot. Supplements aren't cheap and the risk to reward is horrible. He risks being suspended for nearly a year and fined nearly all of the money he just made on the fight. The risk is working at McDonald's for a good year sidelined. Until their is FDA regulation in the supplement industry, it seems very risky to take anything that is fairly unknown from the GNC shelves. I see both sides of the argument however. It's a tough sell.

Sherk's argument, in my eyes, doesn't prove he didn't take steroids. Whether he knowingly did it or not, the point of the appeals board is to prove that his sample was actually clean when in fact it tested non-clean. It wasn't clean. Now the focus has changed to where the positive came from and if he can prove that he unknowingly ingested supplements with traces of nandrolone. Fact is, he still had steroids in his system that is thought by many commissions to give a fighter an advantage. It seems unfair to suspend him if he didn't knowingly do so, but it looks like a mistimed cycle to nearly everyone who looks at a 12ng/mL level. I'd love to see research on the effects of a tainted supplement that produces nandrolone positives and what kind of levels it would churn out, especially if Sherk still hasn't found one in his plethora of supplements to produce those levels.

Final thought

Uphold the damn suspension and let's get the show on the road. Fact is, Sherk was on steroids. If he wants to either clear his name by proving he did not take them knowingly, that's fine by me. I'm even fine with the fact that if he can prove it, reduce his sentence by 6 months. Why not just throw it out? Because he still had a scientifically proven edge in a fight. With the reduction and a declaration by the commission that Sherk's supplements were to blame, he'll be able to fight in a month anyways.

On the other side of the spectrum, I've lost faith completely in the CSAC's organizational skills and administrative processes. Apparently, distributing documents to commissioners is a horrendous problem. I can actually see why this problem exists when commissioners don't show up for hearings or walk out halfway through it. This also sets up a problem trying to schedule another hearing. Add in the fact that the disciplinary structure of each hearing has been as inconsistent as the Chicago Bear's defense this season, the saga continues to prove the CSAC has unbelievable problems.

Even with that weak point in the CSAC's credibility, they still have one of the best testing centers in the U.S. doing their testing for athletes. Stick to a policy that doesn't allow fighters to come in with no evidence and get a reduction. The polygraph test is probably the most interesting part of the entire case for Sherk. It draws the line in the sand for the CSAC. Should they create a policy that should punish fighters for not testing their supplements or should they show leniency and allow the polygraph to show that he unknowingly took the steroids? This seems to be a case where policy may be created for once. It could prove to be a case that will be referenced by many other fighers in future cases as well.