Dara Torres-Amazing

If that is indeed the case, then why do they even have an appeals process? It would be far simpler and cheaper to say "If you test positive on your A and B samples, you are guilty, no appeals, no chance to challenge it and we will mail you your sentence. Have a nice day." A process like that would also save a lot of time and money in the criminal justice system as well. The evidence is strongly against her, but why not wait for the process put in place to protect the athlete to deliver the final "verdict" before potentially trashing her life? There have been instances where samples were mislabelled or chain-of-custody was violated or there were questionable positives, etc. -LBJ Because many of these comments regarding Hardy are emotionally driven, IMHO. :2cents:

Thanks for levity, I have been called drunk and off my medication because I want to wait for the whole process to be completed. If that is indeed the case, then why do they even have an appeals process? It would be far simpler and cheaper to say "If you test positive on your A and B samples, you are guilty, no appeals, no chance to challenge it and we will mail you your sentence. Have a nice day." A process like that would also save a lot of time and money in the criminal justice system as well. The evidence is strongly against her, but why not wait for the process put in place to protect the athlete to deliver the final "verdict" before potentially trashing her life? There have been instances where samples were mislabelled or chain-of-custody was violated or there were questionable positives, etc. -LBJ

Wait for what? It's over. All we're waiting for is to determine the length of the ban on the odd chance there might be hypothetical, though implausible, mitigating circumstances that are more than just "I don't even know how to spell clenbuterol" posing. There is no question that she had banned substances in her system WHEN RACING that gave her an edge over her competitors. If that is indeed the case, then why do they even have an appeals process? It would be far simpler and cheaper to say "If you test positive on your A and B samples, you are guilty, no appeals, no chance to challenge it and we will mail you your sentence. Have a nice day." A process like that would also save a lot of time and money in the criminal justice system as well. The evidence is strongly against her, but why not wait for the process put in place to protect the athlete to deliver the final "verdict" before potentially trashing her life? There have been instances where samples were mislabelled or chain-of-custody was violated or there were questionable positives, etc. -LBJ

George - I've had it with you, that is the final result. You do not seem to understand that she has tested positive, end of story. She is now in the appeals phase which will not change the fact that she doped. There are various factors that can mitigate her outcome, I guess. But, nothing will change that she was on drugs for the trials. It would not matter if she was held down and injected while eating Jazzy's dope laced veggie burger with a bogus prescription for horse asthma inhalers in hand. She was juiced for the trials, period, get it straight please.

Speaking of PEDs, speculation etc. has anybody read about gene therapy? From what I am understanding, if John Doe got it done (gene therapy) starting three years ago and if there are no blood samples of him on file before three years ago, he would never get caught even if they develop a test tomorrow or five years from now. The reason? There is no baseline for a comparison to see what his true DNA was. Blood samples tested next week or five years from now will not tell us anything because we do not know what his "normal" blood looked like. We now may have athletes being made - "better, stronger, faster" - and may never be able to prove it. I suspct the "smart cheaters" would go out of the country to get it done - reduces problems with witnesses and records.

I really feel for Tara Kirk. We all know what it is like to beat yourself up over losing by such a small margin--now magnify that by it being the olympic games and what that could mean. That being said, I am disappointed in Hardy and besides her dad's explanation that it could have come from a handshake, I have no idea what she is going to do to prevail. As for the tests where she did not test positive, in the Tour De France, Ricco tested positive for EPO. While origanlly denying it, he admitted it. This is what he had to say about the tests and their accuracy. If the ones given to Hardy had the same measure of "reliability" , then I seriously doubt she can prevail on an appeal. Statements from Ricco: "During the tour they made a lot of tests, they made 10 tests in about 13 legs, two were positive and in fact in theory all the tests should have been positive therefore the method needs to be checked," he said. www.stuff.co.nz/4638068a1823.html

It is such a shame that the mindset of people is "Guilty until proved innocent" rather than "Innocent until proven guilty". I am 46 years old and though I am not an elite swimmer like Dara, she has shown me there is no reason I can't tie or beat my times as a kid. In one season with the right coach I have gone from breaking 30 for the 50 Free and going 27.83 lead off on a relay at Nationals this spring. I am only 1.84 seconds off my best time which I did back in 1980. My goal is to make it this year. Training techniques have changed since my old days several little changes have really made such a difference. Innocent until proven guilty!

If that is indeed the case, then why do they even have an appeals process? It would be far simpler and cheaper to say "If you test positive on your A and B samples, you are guilty, no appeals, no chance to challenge it and we will mail you your sentence. Have a nice day." A process like that would also save a lot of time and money in the criminal justice system as well. The evidence is strongly against her, but why not wait for the process put in place to protect the athlete to deliver the final "verdict" before potentially trashing her life? There have been instances where samples were mislabelled or chain-of-custody was violated or there were questionable positives, etc. -LBJ True, but this isn't the criminal justice system and we're past the initial "trial" stage under FINA rules. They can't undo her "enhanced" races or her edge over her competitors. A failed test results in suspension. That was my point. So we're onto the next stage of the proceedings, where the burden of proof shifts to her and an irregularity may be discovered. (Like all appeals, the burden is heavy.) I just consider an irregularity unlikely, although admittedly not impossible. I think it's far more likely that she intentionally ingested clenbuterol to gain an edge. Just stating my prediction. If I'm wrong, I'll say I'm wrong. Right now my sympathies are with the women denied an Olympic berth. I read today that Kirk still plans to sue USA Swimming. My comments are not emotionally driven. They are based on my understanding of the rules, my dislike of cheaters and my cynicism about drug use in sports. More logic, than emotion. Now the Smiths ...

And in case no one has said it recently....... Dara Torres-Amazing!!!!!!!!!!

Hijack much? Note the title of the thread......:rant3: Good point. Time to start a new thread.