Following an in-depth conversation I had with some of the UFCJunkie faithful I have grown to love over the last year, I want to discuss the "What Ifs" for Sean Sherk in his upcoming appeal. In a nutshell, this entails a lot of detailed information on the testing of athletes, steroids in general, supplements, and supplement companies. It also entails the historical aspect of testing in sports in general. How has the industry of anti-doping adapted to new techniques, new drugs, new supplements, and new ways of doping an athlete to increase performance? Have they done studies and tests to really know what can be done to stop the doping or have circumstantial evidence to prove a fighter was doping? Many of these questions were asked following the positive nandrolone tests of Sean Sherk and Hermes Franca. In the MMA community, questions still remain unanswered and the fans in general remain clueless as to how nandrolone is produced and how can Sherk test positive if he swears he wasn't taking it. It's time to look at those questions.

What the hell is Nandrolone?

Nandrolone is a naturally occurring anabolic steroid in the human body. It is detected through the urine indirectly by testing for 19-norandrosterone, a metabolite of nandrolone. The common misconception of nandrolone is that it can only be inside your body if you inject it. This is untrue, but it is more likely if your levels are above the threshold limits that the user did supplement himself with nandrolone into his diet or injected it through a vein. In many ways, it is similar to testosterone. Many users of nandrolone have observed the fact that it acts as elevated levels of testosterone without the side effects of aggression and more body hair.

Allowable Limits of Nandrolone

Limits throughout the world actually vary in some sports. In the United States, the CSAC and NSAC actually follow the WADA regulations, World Anti-Doping Agency. The World Anti-Doping Agency's limit is 2ng/mL of Nandrolone in the urine sample. The confusion of many fans has directly come from this regulation. There have been numerous statements in the media scowling these limits or saying that 2ng/mL is easily breakable. We will go into that later. For now, there is instances where 2ng/mL is broken. When the levels is between 2ng/mL and 10ng/mL, it states in the WADA regulations that any sample in between these limits is considered for the possibility of being unstable. These samples have "stability" tests ran on them. If the stability test is positive, the sample is proven to be unstable and thrown out of the testing process. If it is not proven unstable, the sample is valid and the athlete is proven to test positive since the athlete would be over the 2ng/mL threshold. Unstable urine is a recent development. It can be caused by the unfortunate chemical reaction in the urine after the sample has been gathered. This will cause a positive test in rare cases.¹  These cases have become a bit more abundant as of late, and has even caused the WADA to do more testing in order to find out the problem. This quote from the Telegraph newspaper in the UK about the WADA and nandrolone sums it up ²:

The agency admits there is now evidence nandrolone, or its related compounds 19-NA and 19-NE, can form spontaneously after an athlete's urine sample has been taken away for testing. Research is still being carried out to try to explain the chemical reaction but it could be the result of bacterial degradation of naturally occurring hormones.

The allowable limits have varied in different countries, different commissions, different sports over many years. Nandrolone studies became more extensive around the late 90's into 2000-2001. Historically, a 2ng/mL was the threshold, but has been extended in some circumstances. 10ng/mL is the limit by WADA, but anything over 2ng/mL is tested with stability tests to determine whether it is unstable. If not, the 2ng/mL threshold applies. So why is it that in Nevada, California, and other Athletic Commissions that the testing range is from 2-6ng/mL? As MMAWeekly reported, normal athletes test from 2ng/mL to 6ng/mL.³ I'm assuming that this may be just for factual reference, but it begs to ask many questions that this MMA fan was able to dig deep down and find.

According to many documents and newspaper articles citing drug testing officials, nandrolone limits are set at 2ng/mL for men and 5ng/mL for non-pregnant women. Levels rise if a female is pregnant, and they rise above the threshold significantly. Now, this has little bearing on the current situation, but the 5ng/mL begs the question, is this a weight issue? Is it because females have smaller weight that they have a higher threshold? In researching this, the answer became a resounding "No". Women have a higher threshold because their bodies produce it more quickly and in higher quantities than men. These levels are also threshold limits set for WADA, IOC, and most athletic commissions. Read that again.. these are the threshold limits. Anything above is considered a positive test. Let's get one thing straight about Dana White's quotes with ESPN, they are completely false.¹⁰

I've known Sean Sherk for a long time. He's a really good man. He trains hard and has worked hard to get where he's at. You and me probably have six nanograms [of the steroid Nandrolone] in our system; he had 12. Other guys who've been busted for the same steroid have had over 50 nanograms in their system. What my experts tell me is, there's no way that he would only have 12 in his system. I'm not his father. If he did it, he'll have to face the consequences. People make mistakes. If your life was over every time you make a mistake, that's pretty f---ing harsh. How many times do I have to tell people not to use steroids? It's to the point where it's just stupid.

 Really? We all walk around with 6ng/mL? Here's the rebuttal:

Olympic laboratories, tasked with ensuring that their tests are fair as well as effective, have researched natural nandrolone production regularly over the past quarter-century, the most recent study being conducted at the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan. There, of 621 competitors tested after competition, only five produced results where their nandrolone levels exceeded 0.1 nanograms per millilitre of urine (ng/ml).All five were women. The levels in women are marginally higher, as a result of a different hormonal make-up and use of the contraceptive pill. But the levels are still minimal. Nobody in the Nagano tests exceeded 0.4ng/ml.

This has been posted on numerous sites.¹¹  So... only 5 people tested over .1ng/mL, all athletes and all women. NOBODY exceeded .4ng/mL. These aren't even average run of the mill people either. These are Olympic athletes who work out, work hard, and sweat everyday. Come on Dana White, do some research before you blab to the mainstream media.

What if.. History repeats itself

With that said though, what's the historical record for overturning a case like this? In some cases, the case lasts so long that the suspension is served before they are acquitted. Sunita, an Indian long-distance runner in the Busan Asian Games, tested positive for nandrolone at 21ng/mL, but four days later dropped amazingly to only 6ng/mL. Her defense was that there was absolutely no reason a long-distance runner would take muscle building steroids because the muscle mass would just slow her down. Indeed, the results and testing were odd. Her levels fluctuated even after she was monitored. The case dragged on, and she ended up serving the time of suspension before the case was ever resolved.⁵ To quote the article:

A rash of nandrolone positives had come up in international athletics in 1999 including that of British athletes Linford Christie and Jamaican Merlene Ottey. Later the list got enlarged with Britons Doug Walker and Mark Richardson (reprieved under the exceptional circumstances rule) dragged into it and several top European footballers also getting sucked into the nandrolone net. German runner Dieter Baumann tested positive, served a suspension, fought a case and lost. In fact there were more than 300 cases of nandrolone world-wide in 1999 alone.

Historically, this began becoming a bigger problem circa. 2000. More positive cases were being found and this takes us to a different point. A good number of athletes have been cleared by various athletic commissions due to contaminated supplements. Now, the NSAC and CSAC state that this is a non-excuse, and that the fighter is responsible for testing the supplements. But if we look historically at overturned rulings, we will find that most rulings that are overturned in fact are because supplements were found to be contaminated. Interesting quote...

Athletes have once again been warned about the use of nutritional supplements after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) found that 15% of the 634 supplements it tested contained banned substances, including nandrolone.

This was around 2000 when the study was done.⁶ I've read reports where the number is around 20% now. But in this particular study, 240 supplements were tested from the U.S. and 45 were found to contain chemicals or steroids that would lead to a positive doping test. So, almost 20% in that study, average for the world was 15%. The Netherlands had over 25% of their supplements containing a chemical that would cause a positive test. It is clear that there is a problem with supplement companies adding chemicals that either react with your bodies natural process that produces a positive or they actually add steroids into their product.

With that research to indicate that there is an upward trend of bad supplements out there, the International Olympic Committee, various Athletic Commissions, and the World Anti-Doping Agency want athletes to be aware of their supplements. You don't want to come into an event and end up like U.S. Olympic Shot Putter C.J. Hunter and test over 1000 times the legal threshold.⁷  If Sean Sherk has any chance at beating this wrap, he will have to hope he can find a tainted supplement and hope the CSAC has flexibility in its language of the rule in place. Two very hard things to prove.

What if... Sherk wins.. or loses, but proves it was the supplement

Sherk wins, and the UFC will most likely compensate him a bit if he's having trouble providing for his family, etc. He will get a fight scheduled for good money right away and begin training again. But the real interesting question is.. what if the decision is upheld. What if the decision is upheld and he still is able to provide evidence linking a supplement with a positive test? Yeah, yeah... many of you will say he tainted it himself. What if he goes to the local GNC, takes a damn case of the crap off the shelf and all of those test positive? Can Sean Sherk sue a supplement company for loss of wages, damages for reputation loss, damages from losing sponsors, or losing position for contract negotiations. He could potentially sue for a large amount of money based on the fact that emotionally he is going through a stage where people don't believe in him. People think he did it, but if he proves he didn't, people may still be inclined to say "Well, he was on them, he just didn't know it." Is that his fault? No. He was unaware of the steroid, and he should be punished for taking trainer advice, working his ass off, and winning that fight while he thought he was completely clean.

I did a bit of research to see if athletes have sued supplement companies. I wanted to see if the possibility was there for these cases to turn into landmark trials where the FDA would be forced to make supplement companies list all ingredients in their supplements. I found that some athletes have sued, and won fairly easily. In most cases, the supplement companies settled to hush the athlete up. Guillermo Coria had one such case. A 19 year old tennis player who was found to have taken nandrolone nearly 6 years ago sidetracked his tennis career. He is seeking $10 million in damages because it "branded him as a cheater and steroid user". He was ranked 30th in the world until the ban. He was taking a multivitamin that was tainted with steroids, even out of the bottle.⁸ This is a very similar case to Sherk's if Sherk can prove the supplement did make his test positive. The case is also set up the same way that Sherk could potentially mount an attack if his ban is shortened, but still upheld.

The article also lists many athletes who have successfully done the same thing. What is very puzzling is that in Coria's case, the supplement was F.D.A. Approved, but had traces of nandrolone that accumulated in Coria's body. The nandrolone was not on the label. This incites a big question. What the hell is the FDA doing? Why don't they regulate this? Why don't they take the IOC studies and listen? Nobody really knows, but what I know is that we will be seeing many more lawsuits. We will see many more companies being sued, and eventually we will see a big name company sued for ruining an athlete's career. Anabolic steroids can ruin your muscles, and that will eventually be the cause of an athlete's career ending fairly shortly because he/she was taking a supplement religiously that contained steroid ingredients. It will happen, huge money will be at stake, and it will cause the FDA to take a look.

What if.. Sherk loses his appeal

If the California State Athletic Commission upholds its ruling, there are a number of reasons as to why. As stated on TAGG Radio, Keith Kizer of the Nevada State Athletic Commission had some insight as to the ways he saw fit for Sherk to legitimately get something overturned. Kizer stated two legitimate ways. He either proves that the sample that was taken at the event was tainted or spiked by another person or contaminated by the environment or he proves that a supplement he used was tainted with nandrolone.⁹ With the latter, the NSAC would uphold the suspension anyways because the fighter did fight under the influence of anabolic steroids whether he knew it or not. It's the fighter's responsibility to check all supplements, Kizer has been stated as saying. This is good practice. There are many studies out there that test supplements and disclose their findings. There are also many labs that will do it for a fee. Spend a little to save your ass, don't hope the government will finally regulate supplement companies. Now, with the CSAC, we may have a different story. CSAC lightened Toney's suspension even though he was abrasive to the commission.⁴ 

My Take

Either way, Sherk will serve a suspension. If he does prove it was a supplement, I will not be surpised at all. As I went through a lot of this research, I found that the number of positives due to supplement contamination has risen dramatically. Positives have also risen due to unstable urine as previously mentioned at the beginning of this article. There have been studies that attributed over 70% of the positives before circa 2000 to unstable urine and most of those athletes may have been falsely accused. In this case, testing has grown and is better, but that doesn't stop the fact that FDA still does not require every single nanogram of ingredient on supplement bottles. If Sherk didn't know about the supplement, my advice would be to sue the pants off the company for causing you a reputation stab to the heart. Seeing someone go down because a company was careless is not something I want to see. If Sherk cannot prove it and is found guilty, then he deserves what he has coming. Theoretically, we can add this up. Let's say Sherk's base is a 2ng - 3ng/mL and that's very good considering the research above from the Nagano Olympics had guys UNDER .1 ng/mL. But none of them had to cut weight or dehydrate themselves, so we'll give Sherk a 2-3ng/mL limit. He'd have to somehow gain 4 times that limit to hit 12ng/mL with some type of injection or tainted supplement. Even Kizer of the NSAC has stated that it may be just that Sherk should have stopped juicing two days earlier and he may have beat the wrap. You can easily look at the charts and see that nandrolone can go from a 12ng/mL limit to below 5ng/mL is just over 2 days. Kizer could be right. Or will Sherk prove to us that a supplement was tainted? It's a very interesting story.