Touch brings the exclusive news only for the UG! Major FRAT warning!
Shlemenko got completely railroaded by a Kangaroo Court and will be sueing CSAC in Superior Court shortly. When asked why a "B" sample wasnt taken as is the practice in all anti doping cases as a fail safe and in accordance with the contract between CSAC and UCLA, Executive Director Andy Foster states (paraphrased)- Well there is so much traffic backstage with people back and forth it is very confusing. Pouring urine into two cups can be very dangerous and it could cause a bio chemical hazard. - That was his answer and the Commission accepted it.
The reality is there where 2 fighters, Shlemenko and Curran plus their corners in the locker room that was big enough for an NBA team. There were no other people in the bathroom that had 4 sinks, and numerous toilets and urinals. The next night every fighter on the UFC card had an A and B sample plus blood was done.
One of the Commissioners asked Shlemenko "I did some research and saw your fight, in this fight you looked very strong, I mean really strong, and you really knocked him out. How can you explain that." He said "I dont really understand your question but his style was good for me because I have had trouble with wrestlers but he is a striker like me who comes forward and I had a good game plan and I landed a good punch." She said "you obviously are avoiding my question and refuse to answer."
That night 6 samples were collected and logged by the commission. One was "whited out" on the log violating rules. The remaining 5 were allegedly placed in a Fed Ex envelope and sent to UCLA. The airbills match but according to UCLA only 4 samples arrived. The "tamper proof seal" was a piece of tape put across the top.
We were told that the Commission would be given 20 minutes for opening statement, the we would, then they get 10 minutes for rebuttal, then we would. After their opening we asked if the commission had read our 20 page brief and 6 of the 7 shook their heads no and proceeded to thumb through it while we opened. Half way through we were cut off and told that was enough. We werent allowed to state our case. The commission waived their rebuttal and then we were told because they waived we would not be allowed rebuttal.
Three of the commissioners during the proceeding stated that they didnt like lawyers, that Shelemenko was trying to hide behind a lawyer, that he was trying to win on lawyer talk, and that he should have come in by himself without a lawyer. This shows a predisposed bias that should have precluded their hearing of the case.
The Commission asked if a B sample was even necessary and asked the expert for the Commission if he had ever seen a case where the B sample didnt confirm an A and he stated that he had never seen that. Our exhibits had FIVE examples of redacted test results where the B didnt confirm the A and we tried to speak up and were told to keep quiet. We were allowed to enter them into evidence.
The UCLA lab aknowledged that the contract with CSAC required that an A and B sample be collected so as to confirm the results. The standard practice if the athlete or his representative are not present or dont waive the rights to be present during the testing of the B sample that that alone is grounds for throwing the validity of the test out. There was no B sample at all here. The head of the lab stated that there was a "verbal" agreement to the written contract which violates the basic tenants of contract law. Certifying an A sample when a B sample is not present and required by contract is ground for decertification of a WADA lab and a formal complaint is being filed with WADA given the facts here.
The Commissions expert testified, was asked a series of supportive questions from the Commissioners, and when we started to cross examine to show the violations and huge holes the Commissioners informed him that he didnt have to answer our questions and we were badgering him. At the end we asked if our expert could testify. They allowed him a very brief statement zero questions from us, and the only question the Commissioners asked hi is how much are you being paid to testify here today.
The commission only had the authority to suspend for the duration of the license which expired in Feb. They can not grant a new license but they don't have jurisdiction to suspend beyond that. They also asked for a year and 2500 three times in writing and formally, and offered to settle for less. When we said he was innocent and wanted a hearing, five days prior they jacked up the ask to 3 years and 10k. The boxer before us came by himself and said he had financial hardship. He failed the testosterone test and they reduced his penalty from 9 to 6 months without him asking. It was a Kangaroo Court and a JOKE.
Shlemenko steadfastly maintained his innocence stating that he has never consumed a drop of alcohol, smoked or done a drug in his life. He doesn't use antibiotics choosing to use herbs and allow the body to heal itself. He is a celebrity spokesmen for the anti alcohol movement in his country. He only buys organic and even went strictly vegan for a year because of the steroids and hormones given to animals. Steroids go against everything he stands for as an athlete and person. The results were in error. He claims the presence of a B sample would have exonerated him. The Commission asked him to explain the results and then accused him of lying about being a vegan because he disclosed taking "Animal Pact" which is a multi vitamin on his prefight questionnaire. He also tried to state he resumed eating meat after losing his belt.
