UFC's Sean Sherk Has Suspension Reduced

After defending his UFC lightweight championship with a unanimous decision over Hermes Franca last July, it was revealed that Sean Sherk had tested positive for the banned steroid substance, nandrolone. Franca also tested positive for a banned steroid substance.

Both men initially received one-year suspensions from the executive officer of the state's athletic commission, Armando Garcia, barring them from competing in the state of California and, in effect, anywhere in the U.S. as suspensions are typically respected from one state's regulatory body to all others.

Franca admitted to knowingly using steroids to help him heal from an injury he sustained in training and his suspension was kept at one year. Sherk denied knowingly using banned substances and decided to appeal the ruling.

On Tuesday, Sherk appeared before the state commission with his attorney Howard Jacobs to appeal the suspension begun in July. According to Garcia, after two motions and two votes, the commission decided to modify Sherk's sentence to six months.

"The commission modified the suspension from one year, $2,500 to six months and $2,500," Garcia told InsideFighting on Tuesday.

Garcia said that the commission did not and does not give reasons for their votes. "The commission doesn't give a reason they just voted 4-2 to modify the suspension."

Garcia went on to give an account of the day's proceedings pertaining to Sherk's case. "The executive officer, which is me, has the authority to suspend or fine a fighter and the fighter has the right to appeal. The commission then hears that appeal. I recommended a suspension of one year [after Sherk's positive test in July], he appealed and his case was heard today," said Garcia on Tuesday.

"Howard Jacobs, Mr. Sherk's attorney, presented their case. Karen Chappelle the Deputy Attorney General presented the state's case. She had as an expert witness Barry Sample who is the Director of Science at Quest lab. The Deputy Attorney General presented the facts of the case and a timeline. Mr. Jacobs gave a power point presentation, basically claiming several possibilities; Contamination of the sample, a poor chain of custody and improper testing by Quest laboratories.

"There was an initial motion to uphold the original suspension and fine and it was seconded. But there was a vote of two to uphold and four opposed to upholding [the original suspension and fine]. Then there was a second motion. That motion was to modify the original one year suspension to six months," recounted Garcia.

The vote on that motion succeeded along the same lines as the first one, according to Garcia, with four members of the commission voting to cut the suspension in half and two voting against that motion. Garcia says that voting by the commission is and was done right after the presentations from both sides, with no collective or secret deliberation.

"It's [voting] going on right after all the evidence is presented. The commission can't go into closed session because it's an open public meeting. And the commissioners are not supposed to caucus with each other," said Garcia.

Despite the fact that his recommendation was modified by the commissioners, Garcia expressed no opinion one way or another regarding the move. "I don't have an opinion about that. I make my recommendations based on the situation and by law in their role the commission can vote to uphold modify or rescind that recommendation," he said.

With no official rationale given by the commission for the modification, many onlookers are sure to be uncertain as to how the commission's actions Tuesday should be interpreted. Should the reduction in suspension length be viewed as a tacit admission of Sherk's innocence while saving face and not having to admit errors in the testing process used or is the fact that Sherk still has had to and will continue to serve a suspension for having banned steroids in his system during his last fight mean he is viewed as guilty, regardless of the length of the suspension?

"I think the only way to look at this decision is that the commission by majority vote believes that Mr. Sherk used nandrolone, had nandrolone in his system during the time he fought Hermes Franca, tested positive, and that testing was complete and was fine enough in order to find him guilty. If they had rescinded the recommendation of a suspension and fine that would have meant they did not believe he was guilty. But if they decide to modify it, for whatever reason, to be less time and or money, that doesn't mean they don't think he was guilty," said Garcia.

Garcia said that as long as Sherk pays his $2,500 fine he will be eligible to compete again in January. Though InsideFighting reached Sherk momentarily on Tuesday for comment, he was in transit and unable to talk at length and an agreed to time to speak later was made. Several subsequent calls to Sherk have gone unanswered, though InsideFighting will continue to try and reach him for comment.

Sherk opponents react to ruling.

Sherk won the previously vacant UFC lightweight title with a decision win over Kenny Florian in October 2006. Florian says he has followed the fall out from Sherk's first title defense against Franca.

"I was kind of curious the first time Sherk was going to appear before the commission (Sherk's appeal was originally scheduled for August. His attorney requested and was granted a continuance until late October. In October, confusion between the commission and Sherk's side forced the appeal back to the December date)," says Florian.

But Florian expresses some level of disgust with what has transpired since that time, including Tuesday's reduction in suspension length.

"I think the whole thing has just been kind of ridiculous in many ways. We are always going to see usage with performance enhancing drugs in the sport like in other sports. People are always going to take those risks. And people are always going to deny [using]. Why not then follow through on those that are found to have it in their system? It's kind of a circus," says Florian.

"It's very easy for someone who got caught to claim that they didn't know. It's kind of foolish. It's easy to take an easy way out. If you see a fighter who gets a reduced suspension, what kind of fear does that put in the mind of other fighters? I'd like to see more strict rules against using but what can I do? I'm just a fighter," Florian concludes.

After losing the decision to Sherk in July, Franca saw a positive test come back for him as well. Unlike Sherk, Franca admitted to knowingly using a steroid and unlike Sherk, Franca's sentence stands at one year.

"It's kind of like I don't know if I'm sad or disappointed or happy. It's those three things at the same time," says Franca. "First of all I'm happy that I'm not a guy that is going to lie. I can go to the bed and sleep well. On the one hand I'm not upset they reduced Sean Sherk's suspension."

At the same token, Franca has a hard time understanding what he feels is a mixed signal from the commission.

"The substance was in his body. So why did they reduce [the suspension]? A lot of guys don't know but Sean Sherk's level was high. Either he's guilty or he's not. I feel a little bit disappointed with the commission," admits Franca.

"You have to prove you didn't take. I'm not saying Sean Sherk is guilty but he has to prove it [once tests have shown a banned substance in his system]. Until he proves, he's guilty. If he proves it, cool. But if not he's guilty and they have to give a year," Franca says.

Franca says he has learned a "big lesson" from his mistake of using steroids before his fight with Sherk, is eager to be able to return to action and also says that if he could choose the location for his first fight back he would choose somewhere in California.

Source: msn.foxsports.com