Dara Torres-Amazing

Proper handwashing technique is so important. We all need to be more careful.

From my perspective, failing a drug test seems pretty objective and straightforward.

Leonard, on what basis do you doubt the validity of a urine test which detected a banned substance? I don't, although I am also mindful that there have been mistakes made in testing in the past. In fact, I have consistently conceded that, based on that evidence, her position of appeal seems very bad. However, what I am saying is that until she has a chance to defend herself, I will not string her up. It is not the evidence that is at issue here (for me, at least), it is that I do not agree with a process that "tries" a person in the court of public appeal before they get a chance to defend themselves. Geek - This is NOT about her being a victim. I want to hear her side (not counting the pro forma nonsense) before I condemn her. Period. -LBJ

Correct me if I am wrong but the number of successfully appealed cases is greater than zero so the probability of a successful appeal is greater than zero even if it is highly improbable. I doubt any of the skeptics here would have believed Kicker V's claim that his supplements were contaminated before it was proved that they were. And for the N+1th time, no, even if it turned out that the doping was inadvertent that wouldn't mean she should get to go to the Olympics but it does have bearing on the appropriate punishment. Whether she should get to go to the Olympics and what the appropriate punishment is are two separate issues.

You can all state what you think what is going to happen. I will wait and find out what does happen. Geek you are wishfull thinking. You just want to see someone go down.

There it is - the victim speech right before our eyes. What exactly could change the fact that her A and B samples were positive, Leonard? What exactly would change the fact that she was on PEDs at Trials? I can think of a couple of scenarios that might benefit her. One would be a chain of custody matter. The other would be some sort of testing equipment malfunction but then you would think that would have impacted multiple athletes. I guess a third would be some sort of malicious sabotage. But, I'm inclined to think that two positive samples is pretty much all you need. BTW - ever notice the first words out of a busted athlete's mouth are "I'm gonna appeal?" If the chain of custody of the samples was broken....the results will be thrown out....that chain has to be proven. If the samples can be found to have been tampered with in any way...results could be thrown out. Being in the military and seeing these things happen before I know it is possible.

Leonard, on what basis do you doubt the validity of a urine test which detected a banned substance?

You and George seem to be confused about the process. The failed test is all that is necessary and sufficient to suspend her. Period. She has the right to appeal the test results, which she plans to do. The final authority is the Court of Arbitration for Sport. How many times have the results been overturned by the CAS? Actually, I'm not, but perhaps I am being less than clear. Therefore: Her A & B samples have come back positive according to whoever was directly in charge of the testing. Fine. Under FINA/WADA rules this makes her, for their purposes, guilty. Fine, if you accept a process where the accused is guilty before they have a chance to defend themself (and her media protestations and lawyer's posturing don't count as a true defense - those are pro forma.) I don't, but I am also cognescent that my take on that point is not that of WADA's/FINA's and apparently many people here. Fine - we must agree to disagree. Do I BELIEVE that she will utimately fail in her appeals? I think it highly probable. However, until she at least has her say and gets through the process, I am not comfortable condemning her to the same pit as Ben Johnson, Regina Jacobs, et. al, given the ramifications to her life and reputation. I have the "luxury" of that since her guilt or innocence has small bearing on my life and, having been drug tested a number of times "back in the day", I'd want the same for myself. So, perhaps I'm just being an absurdist WRT the "golden rule." Fine, I can live with that as well. If she gets her chance to defend herself and is still found to be a witch, then I'm OK with burning her at the stake. -LBJ

But seriously, a 2 year ban? Puh-leeze. Unless this is an accidental ingestion (yeah riiiiight), this should be a life-time ban. 'Sorry, this part of your life is over, time to pursue something else' I would tend to agree with that as well. Found guilty of doping, lifetime ban. No arguments at all with that. I just take issue with the ruining of ones entire life and locking them up in jail.

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 I have read several articles in the past that the tests during the TDF are a challenge to analyze because the tests are usually done AFTER a stage. The cyclists often are dehydrated, and their body chemistry is abnormal due to intake of unusual food (sports drinks, gels, etc.). So I am not surprised that many of these tests were negative for Ricco.