After reading the Dave Meltzer articles over at Yahoo! Sports, there are a few more issues that have been raised regarding the Phil Baroni steroid case and the Sean Sherk steroid case. In particular, Meltzer's story regarding the flaws in the CSAC was one of the articles that gave some insight into specific details that I've been looking for. Let's get right into the details.

The Phil Baroni Epic Saga

According the Meltzer article, Baroni claims to have spent about $20,000 dollars to clear his name. He also lost sponsors and believed he came out of his steroid suspension with a damaged reputation. He stated that he probably lost a six-figure payday for a possible November 16th Strikeforce fight. This is all monetary problems that can occur with a steroid suspension. Many fans don't ever think about the background profit that fighters are making from sponsorships. Many of us also don't think about the potential salary loss, especially for a guy who has been a veteran in the sport and still has a brawling style that many fans seem to love. We'll talk about this later.

Baroni made a good point in his talk with Meltzer. This is a point that I was hoping to point out when I wrote my article regarding the facts and details of the problems at the CSAC. If you read the excerpts from the meeting minutes in the article about the CSAC here on this site, you will see that Baroni is a first-time offender with a large amount of evidence, a lawyer who is presenting his evidence, and some interesting points that contradict the CSAC's evidence that Baroni was on steroids. James Toney's case that was presented in August was the complete opposite of Baroni's case. His evidence was simply a statement claiming he did not take steroids and did not need to take steroids in order to compete. Toney also had a previous suspension, this was his second offense. There was no physical or scientific evidence to prove his claim, yet he still received a reduction in his suspension. Baroni makes a point and opens up a can of worms as to the bigger issue of why the CSAC's decisions are not consistent. I made the same argument as well.

There is also a flip-side in Meltzer's article that provides a different light to Ken Pavia's story from the MMA.tv Underground forums, also mentioned in my previous article. According to this article, also by Meltzer, Baroni's four tests that he claimed were clean had some discrepancies in the collection and testing of those samples. Here's the excerpt:

While Baroni presented evidence of four clean tests to the commission, they could have dismissed three of them for a variety of reasons. One test was self-administered at the behest of manager Ken Pavia, who gave two reasons for testing Baroni himself.

The first was the fear that Novaldex, which Baroni had been using, could have an effect on his testosterone/epitestosterone ratio and cause him to fail on a testosterone positive. The second was that Baroni was taking dozens of supplements, and in the past, some supplements have been shown to be tainted with steroids.

Two other tests, done in mid-July, shortly after Baroni was informed of his positive, could also be dismissed because if a fighter slightly mistimed his cycle, tests done weeks later would be clean.

The fourth test is the most important. After repeated requests from Baroni’s side, they were able to get his urine sample from Quest Diagnostic, which handles the drug testing for both California and Nevada.

They sent the test to the Carlson Company in Colorado Springs, Colo., to be examined both for steroids and DNA because they wanted proof the sample was from Baroni. There was not enough urine to confirm through a DNA test that it was Baroni’s sample, but the test came back negative for both Boldenone and Stanazolol on what theoretically what the same urine that had been tested twice by Quest, and found positive for both drugs each time.

At the hearing, the commission attacked that finding, noting there wasn’t a complete chain of custody, as well as attacked the credibility of the Carlson lab which isn’t on the commission’s approved list. Pavia said they went to the lab because it was one of the few that would test not only for the presence of steroids, but for DNA, to prove it was Baroni’s urine.

I don’t believe it was the same urine,” said Bill Douglas of the CSAC, who said that Dr. Barry Sample of Quest Diagnostics, who testified for the commission against Baroni, said in the photos shown as evidence of the sample being taken in for testing, that it looked like a different container.

Novaldex is the odd drug in there. It's an anti-estrogen drug, and is synonymous with chemotherapy drugs as well, but in this case, it's for the hormone therapy. We won't really touch on that much as it clearly didn't cause a testosterone imbalance. The testing is, however, a bit skeptical because of a few issues mentioned. The first test was self-administered. The CSAC will automatically throw that out. The other two tests were done after the fight and the CSAC will obviously claim that he could have avoided the positive due to timing a steroid cycle. Boldenone has a large half-life, but it would be interesting to see what his levels were at in the CSAC administered testing. The fourth test is the most proving test though. It was a second test of the CSAC sample obtained. Pavia had it tested at Carlson Company in Colorado Springs because they also do DNA testing of urine along with steroid testing. As previously mentioned in many other sources, the lab used was deemed to be CSAC approved, but the CSAC states that it was not. Carlson and Quest Diagnostics results were contradicting. This is where the difference lies and it comes down to what the CSAC Analyst Bill Douglas believes.

Douglas clearly believed that the sample was tampered with and then submitted to Carlson. It came up clean and he believes Baroni is trying to pull a fast one by the CSAC. Douglas claims that there is a lack of credibility in Carlson Company and he also believe that the container looked different, therefore there was a point in which it was changed. Compelling arguments that are now coming out.

The statements make an interesting argument from both sides. The CSAC's expert analyst has a point in that the sample could have been tampered with, especially if there is evidence supporting a different container once it hit the someone else's hands. The credibility of the lab is also in question because it was not a CSAC-approved facility. The other three tests have reasonable reasons for being thrown out as well. The only real sample that matters is the sample that the CSAC took.

The credibility question is interesting. I couldn't come up with a whole lot about Carlson Company, but their website is pretty horrible. They do seem to have a good amount of accreditations, but accreditations in almost any field are plentiful. They may not mean a whole lot. Quest Diagnostics is known as one of the best labs in the country. Douglas has a good argument, as bad as that looks for Baroni. There does seem to be enough to warrant the samples to be thrown out of the evidence and to simply give Baroni a reduction in his suspension. I'd love to hear Pavia's rebuttal to Meltzer's comments or if any information was inaccurate.

Chapter II in the Sean Sherk Chronicles

Sherk was also mentioned in both articles. The main issue that has come to light in the past week was a report from Sherdog.com regarding Sherk's evidence. One piece of the evidence that he submitted to the commission as part of some of the paperwork that they misplaced is the fact that a supplement he was taking tested positive for an anabolic steroid when it should have not. Xyience's Joint Formula tested positive for 1-androstenedione in 1 out of 4 samples that were tested. This is an interesting development, but I have to say that I'm not surprised or convinced that this will help his case.

It is fairly well known that around 15% of over the counter supplements contain ingredients that will either cause a false positive or actually contained traces of anabolic steroids that will add up to a positive. Xyience isn't immune from the statistics. Meltzer does mention this little blurb about androstenedione:

While the name should sound familiar – androstenedione was the steroid precursor that gained worldwide attention in 1998 when Mark McGwire was found using it during his home run record chase – this is not the same thing. The technical name for the McGwire supplement is 4-antrostenedione, while 1-androstenedione is part of the testosterone family.

Xyience officials have said they will be halting shipments of the product pending their own investigation. While this is evidence of tainted supplements, an excuse that is now commonly used by athletes who test positive, this may not help Sherk's case. 1-androstenedione would not cause a positive for Nandrolone, which is what was found in Sherk's urine.

Fact is, Sherk's positive test for nandrolone won't be proven false with this development. Sherk's defense may be trying to prove that supplements that he has been taking do in fact contain traces of steroids and that is why he tested positive for nandrolone. I think that the CSAC may want more evidence and more testing. Sherk has spent nearly $3,000 on testing of his own supplements according to the articles. Can he find a supplement in his battery that is causing the positive test? It seems more likely that a mistimed cycle is to blame. I'm sure Bill Douglas will believe the same thing as well.

Suggestions from the experts

Oliver Catlin of Anti-Doping Research Inc. made a statement that I couldn't have said better myself... actually, I did mention this in my Sherk article regarding nandrolone. In a summary, Catlin mentioned that there is a need for FDA regulations on the supplement industry. In my opinion, the supplement industry should have to adhere to the same regulation as the food industry. They should have to list every ingredient or face stiff fines if caught not labeling them. Each supplement should have a clear labeling telling the user where it is FDA-approved. There should be stiff fines due to the fact that it can affect professional fighters' livelihood. Granted, the market isn't exactly huge as far as people who are up to be tested for a professional event, but it's getting bigger.

CSAC Expert Bill Douglas also mentioned in the article that he basically has the same thoughts that I have about the discipline being laid out by the CSAC. He stated that both decisions in the Baroni case and the Toney case caused the viability of the program to come under scrutiny. The inconsistency of judgments in both cases is ridiculous. One fighter has evidence to support his argument, the other has no evidence and goes on an irate tantrum on Dr. Giza yet they receive the same reduction. There is obviously a broken disciplinary structure at the CSAC.

Lawsuits

I mentioned this a while back when talking about a hypothetical situation in which Sherk found a steroid in a supplement that caused him to test positive. Could fighters sue supplement companies for their lost wages due to fights that were lost and sponsors lost? I found that it has happened before, read about some of those cases here. Most supplement companies settle these cases out of court without those cases being blown into the public domain. What about a situation like Baroni's case? Would he be able to take this to a court of law and sue the CSAC for hurting his reputation, causing loss of wages, and potential wages from sponsors?

This opens up a huge argument that could go into various facets of the law. Baroni could try to sue the State of California for his lost wages, sponsorships, and reputation damages. He would still have to prove his tests were clean and basically go through the same hearing as he did as the CSAC, but in an actual civil courtroom. This was one of the arguments that Pavia stated was a deterrent in trying to get the case presented. The CSAC apparently had no procedures in exactly  how they hear a case and decide how to present evidence. In a civil court, there would be a set procedure as it is done in the court system.

Another interesting aspect of all of this, could he legitimately clear his name as well? Yes, if the court proves that the evidence he presented was sufficient enough to award him a financial sum to compensate for what he lost. Is this even a possibility? I would think a court case may not be the best endeavor for Baroni as it would cost him a good amount of money to mount another case, but the potential to clear his name along with getting financial compensation and damages for destroying his reputation could sway him to consider it. Sherk could also be in the same boat after the Nov. 13th hearing. It's going to be an interesting couple of weeks.

Credit where credit is due

Dave Meltzer is a great addition to the Yahoo! team, here are the articles that I sourced in this breakdown:

More Questions Than Answers 
Baroni's Case highlights CSAC's flaws

Check out both articles for some good insight into some of the sparse details we've got from both fighters.