Dara Torres-Amazing

You've really made some very good points here. Has anyone here ever heard of Ockham's Razor - I love it... it says all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. From all we have heard up to this point, it does sound like she has cheated. I'm not sure Occam's razor applies in this case. Part of the idea is that the most simple/straightforward conclusion based on the available evidence is the most likely one, but it also asserts that incremental evidence beyond what is necessary to prove a point should be avoided. We have the piece of evidence we need to assert that JH had drugs in her system--the positive test. To then add that she's had significant time drops over three years (as many 2008 olympians did) does not change the the outcome based on the evidence we already had. (Keep in mind that her 100 BR has not improved at all over the same period of time in question since her breakout swim in 2005.) To assert malicious intent on JH's part by saying she's a "cheater" and has been throughout those years of improvement arguably voilates Occam's razor, as it is a) ultimately speculative, rather than fact-based; and b) implies that she's been actively deceiving a ton of people, including her family, teammates, coaches, and friends for an extended period of time. Making this slightly more, rather than less complicated goes agains Occam. Is it possible that this is what happened? Of course, although I hope not. But if we're going to hang our hat on Occam's razor, we have two pieces of evidence: a positive test and a claim of innocence. My own sense at this point is that the real story lies within some gray area between freak unintentional contamination and premeditated, overt plan to cheat, that may or may not ever come to light.

You've really made some very good points here. Has anyone here ever heard of Ockham's Razor - I love it... it says all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one. From all we have heard up to this point, it does sound like she has cheated. I'm not sure Occam's razor applies in this case. Part of the idea is that the most simple/straightforward conclusion based on the available evidence is the most likely one, but it also asserts that incremental evidence beyond what is necessary to prove a point should be avoided. We have the piece of evidence we need to assert that JH had drugs in her system--the positive test. To then add that she's had significant time drops over three years (as many 2008 olympians did) does not change the the outcome based on the evidence we already had. (Keep in mind that her 100 BR has not improved at all over the same period of time in question since her breakout swim in 2005.) To assert malicious intent on JH's part by saying she's a "cheater" and has been throughout those years of improvement arguably voilates Occam's razor, as it is a) ultimately speculative, rather than fact-based; and b) implies that she's been actively deceiving a ton of people, including her family, teammates, coaches, and friends for an extended period of time. Making this slightly more, rather than less complicated goes agains Occam. Is it possible that this is what happened? Of course, although I hope not. But if we're going to hang our hat on Occam's razor, we have two pieces of evidence: a positive test and a claim of innocence. My own sense at this point is that the real story lies within some gray area between freak unintentional contamination and premeditated, overt plan to cheat, that may or may not ever come to light.