Comments on: Sean Sherk eligible to return to action in January http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:47:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jeremy (not that Jeremy) http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43726 Jeremy (not that Jeremy) Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:20:21 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43726 I've never heard that UFC pays ANY fighter a salary. Given how Sherk mouthed off about UFC and Dana on HDNet over the weekend, I wouldn't bet on it having happened here either. I’ve never heard that UFC pays ANY fighter a salary. Given how Sherk mouthed off about UFC and Dana on HDNet over the weekend, I wouldn’t bet on it having happened here either.

]]> By: 45 Huddle http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43724 45 Huddle Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:38:04 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43724 But who knows if the UFC has paid him a "salary" during his time away. Anything is possible, especially if they supported him. But who knows if the UFC has paid him a “salary” during his time away. Anything is possible, especially if they supported him.

]]> By: Grape Knee High http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43723 Grape Knee High Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:31:05 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43723 Suspension withheld or not, Sherk is feeling the hit where it counts the most: in his pocketbook. As long as Sherk has to wait until June for his next fight, his effective time out is still basically a year. If Zuffa dumps Stevenson from Penn/Stevenson and fast-tracks Sherk instead, then and only then, will Sherk have beat his 1-year suspension. Hopefully Zuffa has enough sense to NOT do this. Suspension withheld or not, Sherk is feeling the hit where it counts the most: in his pocketbook. As long as Sherk has to wait until June for his next fight, his effective time out is still basically a year.

If Zuffa dumps Stevenson from Penn/Stevenson and fast-tracks Sherk instead, then and only then, will Sherk have beat his 1-year suspension. Hopefully Zuffa has enough sense to NOT do this.

]]> By: 45 Huddle http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43722 45 Huddle Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:59:30 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43722 By the end of June, this issue will be a thing of the past. Sherk will fight the winner of Penn/Stevenson, and a unified champion will be established. Next step after that is to get the linear champion (Frank Edgar) to fight for the title to unify that fictional belt as well. Then everything will be nice in the land of the UFC Lightweights. By the end of June, this issue will be a thing of the past. Sherk will fight the winner of Penn/Stevenson, and a unified champion will be established. Next step after that is to get the linear champion (Frank Edgar) to fight for the title to unify that fictional belt as well. Then everything will be nice in the land of the UFC Lightweights.

]]> By: Johnny P. http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43721 Johnny P. Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:56:01 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43721 Sadly, i think the answer to your question is six month suspensions would become 3 months and by the time they had the hearing a guy would be 4 months in and they'd be reimbursing him his fight purse and voiding the fines. Sadly, i think the answer to your question is six month suspensions would become 3 months and by the time they had the hearing a guy would be 4 months in and they’d be reimbursing him his fight purse and voiding the fines.

]]> By: Leland Roling http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43715 Leland Roling Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:06:45 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43715 Exactly, it does prove that you should never admit your guilt. To be honest though, I'm surprised at the CSAC's decision. I would have thought with the parade of evidence that really didn't prove his innocence, and the blatant stupidity of the CSAC's decisions in the past that Sherk would have beat the positive on the pure fact that he was parading so much crap in the CSAC's faces that they would get confused. Perhaps he should have just screamed at Christopher Giza like James Toney did. Exactly, it does prove that you should never admit your guilt.

To be honest though, I’m surprised at the CSAC’s decision. I would have thought with the parade of evidence that really didn’t prove his innocence, and the blatant stupidity of the CSAC’s decisions in the past that Sherk would have beat the positive on the pure fact that he was parading so much crap in the CSAC’s faces that they would get confused.

Perhaps he should have just screamed at Christopher Giza like James Toney did.

]]> By: Zack http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43714 Zack Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:59:55 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43714 The whole process just proves that you should never admit you're guilty. The whole process just proves that you should never admit you’re guilty.

]]> By: JThue http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43713 JThue Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:39:46 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43713 Body_Shots: I was blaming the CSAC and (potentially) the UFC. Dammit, the anti-spam for this post was "juiced". Gotta love it :D Body_Shots: I was blaming the CSAC and (potentially) the UFC.

Dammit, the anti-spam for this post was “juiced”. Gotta love it :D

]]> By: Body_Shots http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43712 Body_Shots Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:29:23 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43712 <i>[We all knew this would happen, but it still stinks. The only thing missing is Sherk sitting ringside in Newcastle with his belt and being recognized as the real champ who is ready to fight the interim-winner.]</i> Blame CSAC, not Sherk. I don't understand upholding a suspension and reducing it at the same time. It's almost like they're saying he's kind of guilty or he's kind of innocent. Either throw it out or give the full year suspension, but this is the M.O. of CSAC - total incompetence. [We all knew this would happen, but it still stinks. The only thing missing is Sherk sitting ringside in Newcastle with his belt and being recognized as the real champ who is ready to fight the interim-winner.]

Blame CSAC, not Sherk. I don’t understand upholding a suspension and reducing it at the same time. It’s almost like they’re saying he’s kind of guilty or he’s kind of innocent. Either throw it out or give the full year suspension, but this is the M.O. of CSAC – total incompetence.

]]> By: ilostmydog http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/comment-page-1/#comment-43710 ilostmydog Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:22:03 +0000 http://www.fightopinion.com/2007/12/04/sean-sherk-eligible-to-return-to-action-in-january/#comment-43710 Sherk went through way too much hassle for this whole thing. At the initial hearing he should've just followed Toney's lead and called some board members 'fucking cocksuckers' and 'assholes.' He would have got the same result in less time, and would've saved himself some lawyer money. Sherk went through way too much hassle for this whole thing. At the initial hearing he should’ve just followed Toney’s lead and called some board members ‘fucking cocksuckers’ and ‘assholes.’

He would have got the same result in less time, and would’ve saved himself some lawyer money.

]]>