Since this site's purpose is to provide in-depth coverage of current mixed martial arts events, news, and fighters, it would be beneficial for the fanbase to see both sides of the story. Yesterday, I received support for my analysis that also included my opinion on the matter. I came to the conclusion that I felt Sean Sherk must have cycled in order to reach the level of nandrolone that was found in his body. There is a completely different side to my analytical support of my argument. That is the view that I am going to try to sift through today and make a case as to the possibilities that Sean Sherk may be innocent. With that said, let me make one observation from sifting through many pieces of research.
The world of drug testing can be tricky. Specifically, nandrolone testing is not 100% accurate as I will support in the following text later. In fact, the amount of studies available is moderate, but they are not consistent. Some studies claim that it is very hard to reach levels above the threshhold of 2 ng/mL and other studies suggest that it is possible to reach 10 ng/mL and one study even indicates that a level of 37 ng/mL was reached in one subject. These are two opposite extremes in the nandrolone testing area of drug testing. The conclusion we can come to is that nandrolone testing is in its infancy and needs to be researched thoroughly to be more accurate in the future. It could be compared to the studies regarding certain foods or vitamins attributing to cancer. One minute, a study comes out suggesting that something causes cancer, and the next year, a study comes out that refutes that study. The only difference is that none of the studies are claiming that nandrolone levels are not detectable. Let's take a look at some of the factors involved in the Sean Sherk case and his innocence.
Sean Sherk's defense
To outline the argument here, I want to list the defense items that Sherk mentioned during his radio interview on the Stephen Quadros show and some of the aspects of the defense as outlined by an interview by MMAWeekly:
-
Over-the-counter supplement statistics
-
Chain of custody of the original sample collected
-
Contamination of the sample collected
-
Polygraph testing
-
WADA Statutes compared to CSAC's statutes
-
Quest testing procedures - "water blank" test had nandrolone in it
These are some of the arguments that were highlighted during the interviews. Specifically, Hamlin over at MMAWeekly added some remarks from Sherk and the hearing. It was said that it was presented that the Xyience Joint Formula did contain Nandrolone. This is either a contradiction of an earlier report by Sherdog.com that it contained 1-androstendione. We may be able to connect the two steroids through some reading however. More on that later.
UK Study in 2000
Before I heavily hit every specific point, I want to point to a study done in the United Kingdom by a committee that reported to the UK Sport, Anti-Doping Directorate. This study has tons of useful information regarding nandrolone's recent rise in positive tests. In the study, all the samples used were collected by statutes set by the IOC, which are fairly strict and have a laid out system of collecting samples. All of the study's sampling and testing was done by an approved International Olympic Committee lab.
First and foremost, the report nullfies the possibility that microbiological action could have occured in the samples. This is the "unstable urine" theory. The study refutes the fact that it could happen, although to be fair, some of those studies that it can occur were done after this study saw the light of day. Secondly, I found that the testing procedure was very interesting. The IOC procedure is as follows:
The current internationally adopted system of urine collection is that a specimen collected from an athlete is divided between two sample containers, usually designated A and B, and the containers are then sealed in the presence of the athlete. Both containers are sent to the same IOC accredited laboratory, the A-sample seal is broken and the urine analyzed. Should there be an adverse finding for the A-sample, the athlete and/or his representative may choose to witness the breaking of the seal on the B container and the subsequent analysis. Additional tests on the B sample may be requested during that time or at a later date.
This is the internationally adopted system, but most likely isn't the system that the CSAC is using. If in fact it was the system, Sherk would have had the option to witness the breaking of the B sample, confirming the signatures on the label, seeing the sample tested, and requesting additional tests. One of the defense points involved WADA statutes that were not the same as CSAC statutes. The World Anti-Doping Agency has similar procedures as the IOC, nearly identical.
In fact, here is the next item in the report:
We have examined this and other procedures and conclude that the current ‘two sample’ system is satisfactory and raises no specific problem in relation to nandrolone. If a positive result on the A-sample is challenged, the athlete should be encouraged to have an independent expert present at the B-sample analysis.
The athlete should be encouraged to have an independent expert? I don't believe Sherk even had this option, which is unfortunate for him. In items 25 and 26, the report talks about testing procedures and what tests are qualified to be used. Interestingly enough, the report lists the gas chromatography-mass spectrometry as one of four different tests that can be used in testing for nandrolone. Item 26 suggests that due to insufficient data, the committee would not consider other sources for samples such as blood, hair, and saliva.
Items 28-29 are pieces of data that I have reported here in the past supported the notion that reaching levels above .5-.6 ng/mL naturally is next to impossible to reach. Specifically, item 29 talks about the Nagano Olympics statistics while item 28 references 3 seperate studies that are sourced within its appendix. Even more interesting is that the study reports a process for correcting analysis of samples due to dehydration causing levels to be enhanced:
During intense exercise, some degree of dehydration may occur, causing the urine to become concentrated. This will, to a degree, increase the measured concentration of excreted substances. This is allowed for in the laboratory analysis by correcting for the specific gravity of the urine sample if this exceeds a specified concentration. We consider that this is the most appropriate method of correction when necessary.
This suggests that there is a process for correcting dehydration nandrolone levels. There isn't any elaboration on this process, but it will be a topic of interest later. Ultimately, the study came to the conclusion that the current process was satisfactory in determining correct levels of nandrolone. The study also concludes with reccomendations that we have heard in the past. To be a bit informed about the nandrolone testing, check out the report.
Over the counter supplements
USA Today reported a story that states roughly 25% of the over-the-counter supplements in the United States contain substances that are banned stimulants or steroids. The article also referenced a report that I have referenced in the past talking about past figures. The U.S. was in the 18% range, but the Netherlands was significantly higher, near 25%. It seems that as these sports continue to grow, the number of supplements that can cause positives grows.
The IOC and WADA hold lists of supplements that have contained substances that produce positive tests. Sherk did not know about the list, and it isn't exactly preached to the fighters. The argument becomes whether or not Sherk is responsible for what he puts in his body. If he is responsible, he would have to spend money to test his supplements and himself before fights to provide proof that his supplements do not contain nandrolone. Should that be his responsibility?
That argument involves one specific philosophy: A fighter should be responsible for his own body and what he puts in his body. If that fighter tests positive, the commission wouldn't have to worry about argument involving supplements because of that stipulation in their regulations. Fact is, it is still argued anyways in many cases. In this case, Sherk provided evidence that one of his supplements did contain a steroid, 1-androstendione. From what happened at the hearing, it seems that commission took the stance that Sherk was responsible for what he put into his body and he is guilty of being enhanced, or they felt that the evidence that suggests 1-androstendione in the Xyience formula did not cause the positive test. Is there a connection between 1-androstendione and nandrolone? I'm not a chemist, and I'd have to research this further.
Chain of custody and Statutes
This refers to the changing of hands and the documentation trail that goes along with the sample's whereabouts. Sherk stated this in his interview with Quadros yesterday. What was found by his attorney, Howard Jacobs, was that there were gaps in the documentation. This results in the sample basically being labeled as lost in those gaps because it was not accounted for in paperwork. Obviously, the sample was in the hands of an official and it was given to the lab. Nonetheless, there is still not a consistent trail of paperwork and this gives doubt to the chain of custody.
What kind of doubt? Theories from the sample being switched to the sample being tampered with come into play when you hear about the chain of custody being broken. Jacobs suggested during the hearing that the case be thrown out because of the discrepancy in the chain of custody. This brings up the WADA vs. CSAC statutes. The World Anti-Doping Agency has strict rules and procedures unlike the CSAC. If the chain of custody was incomplete, the test would be thrown out. Unfortunately for Sherk, the CSAC doesn't follow WADA to a "T". They have their own procedures for the chain of custody and it didn't seem that the CSAC cared if they had gaps. I believe Sherk has a legitimate gripe in this capacity. Whether or not the sample was actually tainted or tampered with is a whole different matter.
Contamination of the sample
It wasn't outlined exactly what the case was regarding possible contamination, but there are a number of scenarios. Because of the gaps in the chain of custody, the case could be made that it was contaminated by someone during a gap in time that the sample was unaccounted for. It is unlikely, but possible. Another argument could be that the sample microbiologically formed nandrolone metabolites after the sample was taken. This article can confirm that this is a continuing study and has been proven to have occured in rare instances. It is also one of the sole reasons as to why many believe that many of the tests in Europe regarding the Olympics may have actually been "false" positives.
The obvious other arguments are that the supplements he was taking were tainted either by someone, which didn't seem to be his argument, or that they were tainted out of the factory. Again, the commission didn't seem to care that the Xyience formula was contaminated.
"Water blank" vial, polygraph test, and Sherk's demeanor
According to the MMAWeekly article, a "water blank" vial is introduced as a third test to the testing process. The point of this test is unclear in the article, but it is either a baseline test to check the levels and make sure the machine isn't maintaining results when the water clearly has no steroids in it, or it is a comparable baseline test to compare the "zero steroids" test to a "steroids" positive. Either way, Jacobs seemed to indicate that the "water blank" test contained nandrolone. I'm purely speculating on the meaning, but this would indicate that the machine was testing a vial of water and finding nandrolone. Jacobs may be suggesting that the machine is tainted with nandrolone metabolite in the testing instrument. Although this could have been cleared up by other tests that Quest could provide, nothing was mentioned regarding it.
Sherk also submitted a polygraph test, which he passed, that was supposed to show that he had no knowledge of the steroids. Those tests aren't 100% accurate, but it was a valiant effort to add additional evidence. The problem is that the questions that were asked during the polygraph have enormous ramifications in the actual test result. On the Stephen Quadros show, however, Sherk's demeanor was the showcase. He seemed angry, pissed off, and genuinely upset over the CSAC's ignorance and the whole process in general. To be honest, he sounded very innocent and truly "screwed" by the system in this case. Does that translate to an innocent man? Who knows. He could very well be telling the truth, or playing us all for fools. Either way, if Sean Sherk believes he is truly innocent, fight it until you can't fight it any longer.
Interesting studies regarding Nandrolone
In receiving emails regarding the Nandrolone debate as well as commenting on various mixed martial arts community forums, I've come across many interesting articles that suggest both sides of the argument. Specifically, some studies suggest that you can reach outrageous levels such as 12 ng/mL and even higher. I want to submit those articles and research as evidence that it may very well be possible, but I believe they pinpoint a broader point in that nandrolone testing isn't perfect and it needs to be researched more extensively and a new process surely needs to be created.
-
Study produced by Journal of the American Medical Association - One of the main studies that was done to indicate that over the counter supplements contain steroids and other stimulants that can produce a positive drug test. Moreover, the positive tests in the study are related to androstendione and nandrolone.
-
Article by Mauro Di Pasquale, M.D. at ThinkMuscle.com - Article references several studies and facts about Nandrolone, specifically studies that have proven that nandrolone can reach high levels. One study found that there were varying levels between 9 ng and 37 ng/mL in subjects during the test. Another study indicated that a level of 10 ng/mL was easily obtainable by exercise and supplements. Read this one for an array of studies.
-
CrainsMuscleWorld.com Newsletter from July 30th, 2001 - An article that has specific details to the 9-37 ng/mL test by Debruyckere, talking about how people can consistently and easily produce over 2 ng/mL. 11% of the subjects he tested were over the threshhold. He actually states that it is increased by a factor of 4.
These are all studies that Sean Sherk could have used, but whether or not they would have been taken into consideration is beyond me. I will say that most of those studies have a very small sample size than that of the Nagano Olympics study. Also, if levels can be increased by a factor of 4, we should be seeing MANY more nandrolone positive tests. It seems very hit and miss with positive testing.
Conclusions
If you haven't read my other analytical piece regarding the nandrolone debate and the Sean Sherk case, read it here. These are the two sides of the story in my research, and both could be argued and both have been proven to have cases either upheld or thrown out in many areas of the world. Whether or not the commission or the committee who is making the decision regarding the test believes the studies is another topic. We can conclude one major point. Nandrolone testing needs significant improvements if there is studies that indicate one point and studies that indicate another point entirely. In my research, I have learned that there is a significantly different side to the story and hearing Sherk talk about the case does offer a hint that it is possible the CSAC made mistakes. Is Sean Sherk innocent? All I can say is that he needs to prove it with evidence.
That brings me to the CSAC. There needs to be a system laid out. Obviously in this case, it was something that was put on a pedestal and shown to the MMA community as being a problem. There is no process or procedures for presenting evidence. The CSAC does not seem to follow WADA's procedures or the IOC's procedures. Should they? It'd be better than the current process of making rules on the fly. My suggestion is the make it much like the court system, even though that of course has some flaws at times as well. It would, however, set procedures and rules on objections, submitting evidence, cross-examining witnesses, and making statements. Specifically, Dr. Barry Sample, Director of Science & Technology at Quest Laboratories testified regarding the discrepancies in the chain of custody, the testing process, the "water blank" vial, and all of the evidence that Jacobs submitted. After Sample made his remarks, Jacobs tried to rebut the statements but was cut off and not allowed to speak. This seems rather unprofessional of an appeals hearing. Jacobs was not allowed to try to question Sample's remarks that may have been detrimental to his case.
Finally, I will say that if Sean Sherk truly feels he is innocent, he should fight this to the end, even so far as going to a court in the U.S. justice system to clear his name. If he can do so, I'll pay attention. For now, the testing still seems consistent with an athlete who "cycles". The studies indicating that it's possible to reach high levels still have small sample sizes, are fairly outdated, used older testing techniques, and aren't aligned with results of today's positive tests in that if so many people were testing positve in the studies, why hasn't it correlated to the real world? Some studies are fairly recent, but don't suggest outrageous findings and could become something of substance in the debate. Either way, it all points to problems in the process and the fact that there needs to be some funding to improve the process.