Inside the CSAC

MaxBoxing.com's ran an interesting three part feature on the CSAC last week. The series provides an in-depth look at the policies and politics of one of the most influential athletic commissions in the country.

• Part I - Civil War?
• Part II - Overkill and Inefficiency?
• Part III - The Commission v. The Cornermen
  

Vera's Management Dispute Provides Rare Glimpse Into UFC Negotiations

Brandon Vera's dispute with his former manager, Mark Dion, was recently settled in an arbitration hearing before the California State Athletic Commission. The commission ruled in Dion's favor and the entire affair is documented on Dion's website, CityBoxing.com. The myriad of documents made available by Dion provide a rare public glimpse into the UFC's negotiation tactics.

The entire affair was detailed by the Canadian Press. The highlights:

• Vera's second three-fight UFC deal (renegotiated prior to the expiration of his original contract) started at $16,000/$16,000 (win bonus), $20,000/$20,000, and $24,000/$24,000. The deal also included a $100,000 signing bonus.
  
• Two fights into that deal, following Vera's knockout of Frank Mir at UFC 65 in November 2006, the UFC approached Dion to negotiate a long term deal. The UFC flew Dion to Las Vegas to meet with Dana White. White gave Dion two offers on a post-it note:
• A three fight deal at $90,000/$90,000, $100,000/$100,000, and $115,000/$115,000 with an automatic upgrade to $150,000/$150,000, $170,000/$170,000, $185,000/$185,000 provided Vera became Heavyweight Champion, or
• A four year deal worth $7 million. Dion testified that White made a verbal offer of a $100,000 bonus if Vera won the title.
  
• Dion told the CSAC that the post-it note was standard operating practice:
  
• "UFC doesn't send no letters, period. They've tried to avoid all that stuff... This is all I got from Dana White. This is all I could show to Mr. Vera. There was no e-mails. Dana White likes to keep - keep himself covered on all aspects."
  
• Dion made an admittedly outrageous counter offer three days later in an effort to move negotiations. The two options presented were:
• A one-year three-fight contract at $150,000/$150,000, $175,000/$175,000, and $200,000/$200,000 with a $1.5 million signing bonus, or
• A guaranteed three-year ten-fight contract worth a total of $9 million ($3 million per year) plus a $1.5 million signing bonus. Vera would also receive a $1 million bonus if undefeated at the end of each year.
  
• In response, Joe Silva, VP of Talent Relations, offered a three fight deal at $50,000/$50,000, $60,000/$60,000, and $70,000/$70,000, escalating to $90,000/$90,000, $100,000/$100,000, and $110,000/$110,000 if Vera became champion along with a $100,000 signing bonus.
  
• Dion rejected the offer in an email to White at 4:46 PM on December 26. At 7:16 PM the UFC replies, saying it is exercising its right to extend the contract by three months per Vera's refusal to fight in June due to injury.
  
• Dion informs the company that Vera was never injured and was ready to fight as soon as possible. He hires a lawyer in January to contest the company's three month contract extension.
  
• In March Vera tells the UFC not to deal with Dion anymore.
  
• Vera's attempted to void his management contract with Dion goes to arbitration in September, claiming he was never informed of the $100,000 signing bonus offer.
  
• In October, after an 11-month layoff, Vera returns to the UFC in a loss to Tim Sylvia with a reported purse of $100,000.
  
• The CSAC ruled in Dion's favor earlier this month, finding no illegal conduct,but severed the management contract (which ran through 2010) due to deterioration of their relationship.
  
• Dion received one-third of the Sylvia fight purse as well as $100,000 in consideration of future fight purses.
  
• Garcia said: "It seems to the arbitrator that the ambiguity of the Post-it note, which appears to be the root of the current dispute, could have been avoided if the UFC had put their offer in the form of a proposed contract and sent it to (the) manager."

Vera subsequently re-signed with the UFC and will face Fabricio Werdum at UFC 85.

There Are No Winners in Sherk Steroid Saga

The train wreck that was the Sean Sherk steroid suspension proceedings finally came to an end on December 4. Neither Sherk, the California State Athletic Commission, nor the UFC emerged unscathed after six months of grand standing by all parties involved. No one had much to be happy about at the end of the day.

The CSAC's creditability was left in doubt after it reduced Sherk's suspension from one year to six months on the strength of evidence calling into question the chain of custody of his urine sample and thus the validity of its testing procedures. Actually the commission found no merit to those claims and stood 100% behind its testing procedures and the result they produced.

Instead, the commission was moved by Sherk's candor and honesty in admitting that he had made a mistake in taking performance enhancing drugs leading up to his UFC Lightweight Title defense against Hermes Franca in July. Except, instead of showing contrition, Sherk stood defiant, insistent about his innocence before, during, and after the proceedings. What then prompted the commission's leniency? If only we knew.

This after the commission, in it's highest profile doping case yet, with a man's reputation and livelihood on the line, failed to provide even a semblance of organization and preparedness, much less a fair, rational proceeding. Instead, Sherk was left to face a kangaroo court, reminiscent of the star chamber of English lore, that made up the rules as they went and handed down penalties as they pleased.

The UFC and its President Dana White fared little better. White was steadfast in his support of Sherk, publicly professing his belief in Sherk's innocence and refusing to strip him of the Lightweight Title up until the bitter end. Following the CSAC's postponement of Sherk's initial hearing, White signaled solidarity with Sherk, vowing to leave the Lightweight Title around his waist regardless of the CSAC's ruling.

The tenability, or lack there of, of such a position seemed abundantly evident from the outset. Ignoring the ruling and questioning the authority of a major regulating body of your sport while touting your company's embrace of regulation is not the most coherent of positions. Risking the creditability your company has built as a champion of regulation on a dominant fighter who has marginal box office value seems like a fairly high risk, low reward situation.

White subsequently backed away from that position and ultimately bowed to the commission's ruling, reluctantly stripping Sherk of the title while maintaining his belief in Sherk's innocence. However, his respect for the ruling, or lack there of, is evident from the fact that immediately after stripping Sherk of the title he announced that Sherk would be next in line for a title shot at the winner of January's BJ Penn-Joe Stevenson fight for the vacant Lightweight title.

Last, but certainly not least, in the parade of the disgraced and disappointed is Sherk. He spent considerable time, financial resources, and personal creditability in defending his name. At the end of the day he was left frustrated, if not downright bitter, at a haphazard process that more closely resembled an informal straw poll than a quasi-judicial proceeding. Now he is left to face the fact that his career will forever carry the asterisk of a failed steroid test, regardless of its true validity.

At least in his defense, whether guilty or innocent, his behavior was completely rational and exactly what would be expected of any athlete in a similar position. The same cannot be said for the CSAC and the UFC who should have each reacted more professionally in the situation. The entire ordeal was an embarrassment to the sport, best quietly learned from and quickly forgotten.

UPDATED: Sherk's Suspension Reduced

UPDATE: Josh Gross has a great piece at Sherdog.com with Sherk and his attorney's reactions to the process afforded by the CSAC.

Sean Sherk finally had his hearing before the California State Athletic Commission today. The CSAC reduced his suspension to six months while upholding his $2,500 fine. Sherk will now be eligible to fight again in mid-January.

Dana White has not officially addressed the ruling, but based on previous comments it seems that the UFC has little choice but to strip Sherk. Of course, that's a moot point for all practical purposes since White has already indicated that the winner of BJ Penn-Joe Stevenson for the Interim Lightweight Title will face Sherk when he is eligible to return. That appears to setup Penn/Stevenson v. Sherk for April or May of 2008.

The ruling is really the worst of both worlds. The CSAC once again reduced the penalty of a fighter who it apparently believes has been proven guilty. Worse still for the creditability of the commission, this mercy was granted despite the fact that Sherk showed no remorse and made no admission. Sherk was obviously upset with the ruling, continuing to protest his innocence and promising to continue the fight to clear his name following the hearing.

Sherdog.com: Few Answers, Many Questions Following Hearing

Josh Gross has comprehensive coverage at Sherdog.com of the 10/31 CSAC hearing with quotes from all the major players (Baroni, Pavia, Sherk, Jacobs) and a preliminary report on the evidence that Jacobs submitted, or at least tried to submit, to the commission challenging Sherk's positive test. Key excerpt:

To that end, Jacobs' pre-hearing brief, a copy of which Sherdog.com obtained, lays down two possibilities for the positive test of nandrolone metabolite. The first comes with the potential of serious testing irregularities by Quest Diagnostics. Jacobs alleges several testing flaws, both in the chain of custody between CSAC and Quest, as well as in testing procedures inside the lab.

During testimony, Dr. Sample stood by the lab's results.

If the commission deems Sherk's sample contained banned substances, Jacobs will argue it could have resulted from the many supplements the Minneapolis-based fighter ingested leading up to the fight.

Seven tests totaling $3,000 were conducted on supplements Sherk took before his bout against Hermes Franca. One such product was the Xyience-branded "Xyience Xtreme Joint Formula." Five capsules were analyzed according to a report supplied by Don H. Catlin, M.D., president and CEO of Anti-Doping Research, Inc.

"No anabolic steroids were detected in four of the capsules," Catlin wrote. "In one capsule 1-androstendione was identified."

FULL ARTICLE: Few Answers, Many Questions Following Hearing

Sherk Retains Title; Penn-Stevenson to Fight for Interim Title

Dana White has added his voice to the growing chorus of complaints about the CSAC's handling of Sean Sherk's appeal. White told Kevin Iole of Yahoo! Sports that "the way this whole thing has been handled has been a mess." As a result, Sherk will not be stripped of the UFC Lightweight Title, regardless of the outcome of his hearing before the CSAC. BJ Penn will meet Joe Stevenson at UFC 80 in January to decide an interim champion.

It will be curious to see what the CSAC's reaction to White's decision is.

Kangaroo Court: CSAC Unprepared to Handle Sherk Appeal

Sean Sherk was well prepared for his 10/31 hearing before the CSAC. The UFC Lightweight Champion hired a well regarded attorney, Howard Jacobs, who has made a name for himself representing athletes such as Marion Jones and Floyd Landis in doping cases. Jacobs had Sherk take a polograph test, which he passed, performed numerous tests on Sherk and the supplements he takes, and subsequently submitted a detailed brief to the commission in advance of the hearing. Sherk told MMAWeekly that he had spent roughly $20,000 preparing to appeal his one year suspension for failure of a steroid test in July.

Unfortunately, the CSAC's preparation for one of the most high profile hearing in its history left much to be desired. After the hearing was well underway, the commission realized that it had failed to disseminate Jacob's brief to all its members. It had also failed to decide in advance whether or not the polygraph test would be admissible in the hearing.

One commissioner's initial response was to propose "recessing" the hearing and conducting the vote by mail. Fortunately, the commission as a whole realized the gravity of the situation for Sherk and the end result was a postponement until November 13.

These comments from Jacobs and Sherk sum up there thoughts on commission's performance:

In an exclusive interview with MMAWeekly.com, Jacobs expressed his disbelief at the postponement.

“We would have finished it today,” Jacobs said. “I did send [the brief] to the head of the commission. In California law, polygraphs are not admissible for criminal proceedings, but they are admissible in other types of cases. So it’s our position that it is admissible here. I mean, this is quasi-judicial at best. They should have worked it out beforehand.”

The lightweight champion was fairly reserved about his opinion on the hearing, but only because he felt he had to be.“I can’t give you my true opinion,” he said gruffly. “I’m ready to fight, to get this behind me, and now it’s a longer process.”... “I was confident coming in here that the facts would speak for themselves, but after today, I’m not so sure.”