Silva's defense leaves more questions than answers

— -- LAS VEGAS -- Like so many Anderson Silva moments of yesteryear, his latest performance at a disciplinary hearing on Thursday left us all wondering: Did that really just happen?

But instead of a front-kick finish to the face, what left us speechless this time around was one of the most ill-conceived, poorly prepared, ridiculous explanations for a failed drug test this sport has ever seen.

Did Silva really just tell us the reason traces of anabolic steroids were found in his system (twice) in January was because he ingested a contaminated sexual-enhancing drug that was given to him by a casual friend from Thailand?

And did he really bring along one "expert witness," who allegedly proved the failed tests were due to this contaminated sexual drug, but provided no physical evidence to support that claim? At an official disciplinary hearing?

As you might have guessed, Silva's case went down in flames. He received a one-year suspension and $380,000 fine.

Let's just say for a second you really want to believe what Silva (and his attorney) said on Thursday was a truthful, complete account of what happened. In order to do so, you would need to believe all of the following:

1. Silva has a need for a sexual-performance drug, and rather than see a doctor for a prescription, Silva, a highly paid, famous athlete, elected to take an unidentified blue liquid in an unmarked vial, given to him by a buddy.

2. This unidentified drug was somehow contaminated with the anabolic steroid drostanolone, prior to Silva receiving it.

3. The contamination of this product was proved by Silva's "expert witness" Paul Scott, who failed to bring any documentation of his findings, nor could remember basic information about all the substances Silva had him test.

4. The other steroid Silva tested positive for on Jan. 9, androstane, was due to some other contaminated substance, not the sexual enhancer. Silva's defense couldn't figure out what substance it was, but it had to be something else he was (legally) taking.

5. Silva did not disclose any of this information in a prefight questionnaire, which asks fighters to list all supplements they are taking, because of its private nature.

In addition to believing all of these, you'd have to ignore Silva backtracking in the middle of the hearing on what dates he ingested the drug. Initially, Silva claimed he discontinued use of the drug well before the fight, but the NSAC's toxicology expert stated the drostanolone metabolites found in his sample would have been traceable for only one week. At that point, Silva changed his story and said he had taken the drug the week of the fight.

Here's the unfortunate truth of the matter: Despite months of time afforded to Silva to prepare an honest, thorough explanation of what caused the most disappointing drug test failure in MMA history, he elected to cast more doubt than ever on his storied career.

Silva's actions since the failed test was announced give the impression he exists in a fairy-tale world. Shortly after the news broke, TMZ caught him in a very short on-camera interview, during which he campaigned for a rematch against Nick Diaz, whom he originally defeated in January at UFC 183. The result was changed to a no contest on Thursday.

Is there any doubt Silva must think we are all very, very dumb? His defense was the equivalent of a bad joke. Assertions were made with no proof whatsoever. Some of the assertions weren't even specific, just generic, unsupported denials.

At one point, one of the commissioners actually asked a member of Silva's defense team why he hadn't bothered to prepare some form of documentation, for the sake of his client's career and reputation.

It really didn't have to go this way.

Silva could have admitted guilt. He could have said he's a human being and gave in to self-doubt coming off a devastating leg injury -- one that everyone remembers quite well.

The truth is, most want to give athletes the benefit of the doubt. Had he owned it, the NSAC would have applauded his honesty. Fans would have slow-clapped him out of the building. We'll see you when your suspension is over, Anderson. God bless.

And if he was committed to pleading innocence, at least come with something that halfway resembles a legitimate defense. Bring some kind of supplement analysis. Put a portfolio together, use one of those shiny covers on the front. Something.

Instead, it appears Silva revealed his true arrogance. He provided a blatantly shoddy explanation and must have assumed we would eat it up because of who he is.

There's a big risk in showing us that arrogance, because now that we have a genuinely good reason to be mistrustful of what Silva says, what else should we look into?

During the hearing, Silva's defense brought up the fact he had never failed a test in his career before January. But any educated fan knows that was the first time he had ever been subjected to out-of-competition testing.

He's 0-1 in that regard. What sort of truths are buried in that statistic?