Dara Torres-Amazing

I don't think suspicion is a bad thing. Perhaps we would all be wiser if we were more wary and less accepting all the time. I am sure there are cheaters out there but I am not convinced that Dara is a cheater. The doubters seem to base their suspicion on: (I am simplifying now, but I think these are the essence of the arguments) a) We have been burned in the past (Jones, Bonds, Johnson, etc) therefore, we can be burned again. b) No one as old as Dara has done it before therefore, it is unlikely, if not impossible. c) There are drugs out there for which no tests exist and Dara could be using one of those drugs. Yes, we have been burned in the past and I have no doubt that we will be burned again in the future by finding out that someone we believed in let us down. But that is grounds for suspecting Dara? I don't buy the 'it's never been done before, therefore it can't be done' argument either. There is always a first time. If this weren't true we might as well all throw in the towel right now. Twenty years ago it was almost inconceivable that anyone could have done a sub 22 second 50m let alone someone in their 30's (GHJ, Mark Foster). Now we all know it can be done. Yes, she might be using a drug for which no current test exists but this could be true of any elite level swimmer. Once again I see no reason for singling Dara out for this line of argument. Can I prove her innocence? No, I can't, neither can she, nor anybody for that matter. It's a bit unfair really. Of course you could see it as the price any outstanding athlete has to pay. Do something extraordinary and you are going to be suspected. It hasn't seem to upset her, though. She recently said she took the accusations of cheating as a compliment to her success. And, succeed she has. She is only being paid all this attention because she is such a phenomenom at 41. I do think the strongest argument in her favour is her willingness to be tested for drugs. I have no idea if it has been done already but it has been suggested that blood samples could be frozen for the future when a more comprehensive set of tests exist. Even the head of the USADA said anyone using drugs would be crazy to submit to the tests that she has. The thing is I don't see the suspicion as totally unreasonable but it's not convincing enough to make me a doubter. So I am sticking with what I first maintained: Innocent until proven guilty.

I don't think suspicion is a bad thing. Perhaps we would all be wiser if we were more wary and less accepting all the time. I am sure there are cheaters out there but I am not convinced that Dara is a cheater. The doubters seem to base their suspicion on: (I am simplifying now, but I think these are the essence of the arguments) a) We have been burned in the past (Jones, Bonds, Johnson, etc) therefore, we can be burned again. b) No one as old as Dara has done it before therefore, it is unlikely, if not impossible. c) There are drugs out there for which no tests exist and Dara could be using one of those drugs. Yes, we have been burned in the past and I have no doubt that we will be burned again in the future by finding out that someone we believed in let us down. But that is grounds for suspecting Dara? I don't buy the 'it's never been done before, therefore it can't be done' argument either. There is always a first time. If this weren't true we might as well all throw in the towel right now. Twenty years ago it was almost inconceivable that anyone could have done a sub 22 second 50m let alone someone in their 30's (GHJ, Mark Foster). Now we all know it can be done. Yes, she might be using a drug for which no current test exists but this could be true of any elite level swimmer. Once again I see no reason for singling Dara out for this line of argument. Can I prove her innocence? No, I can't, neither can she, nor anybody for that matter. It's a bit unfair really. Of course you could see it as the price any outstanding athlete has to pay. Do something extraordinary and you are going to be suspected. It hasn't seem to upset her, though. She recently said she took the accusations of cheating as a compliment to her success. And, succeed she has. She is only being paid all this attention because she is such a phenomenom at 41. I do think the strongest argument in her favour is her willingness to be tested for drugs. I have no idea if it has been done already but it has been suggested that blood samples could be frozen for the future when a more comprehensive set of tests exist. Even the head of the USADA said anyone using drugs would be crazy to submit to the tests that she has. The thing is I don't see the suspicion as totally unreasonable but it's not convincing enough to make me a doubter. So I am sticking with what I first maintained: Innocent until proven guilty.