Dara Torres-Amazing

Lynch mentality. She stole the horse hang her high. Good old western justice. Hang em first ask the questions later. I would hate to have you as my Defence Lawyer. Um, she tested positive on both samples, George. She's not accused of a crime, George. Are you off your meds, George?

I posted last week, maybe on the "Crap.. someone pos." thread that we all need to get back to basics, like relying on the food we eat. Why the obsession over supplements and vitamins and this powder/that drink? Rely on your body to tell you how training is going, getting through more workouts and harder workouts because you ingested a chemical compound can't be healthy to the person overall. This was stupid when you posted it in the other thread, and it's still stupid. You're kidding yourself if you think that the food you buy in a grocery store is less of a "manufactured chemical compound" than something in a supplement bottle. You mentioned V8, a chicken sandwich, and ice cream. Do you have any idea how many artificial systems and substances are involved the production of those things? Ice cream, for example. The cows that produced the milk were likely fed a diet of primarily corn, which cows don't naturally eat. The diet would have to be supplemented (oh no!) with isolated fats, proteins and vitamins (chemical substances!), and of course the cows also got antibiotics and artificial growth hormones. The resulting milk was pasteurized and homogenized before being frozen and sweetened with processed sugar. Then things like guar gum, cellulose, "mono and diglycerides" and dextrose were added to hold the whole contraption together. Or were you thinking of one of those ice creams with Oreos in it?

Lynch mentality. She stole the horse hang her high. Good old western justice. Hang em first ask the questions later. I would hate to have you as my Defence Lawyer. George, what more do you want? The test showed that she had a banned stimulant in her system. The test wasn't wrong...if anything, those tests err on the other side (not catching cheaters). The only time that the circumstances should come into play are to determine whether she gets a lifetime ban or just a two year ban.

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.

Lindsay, Correct me if I'm wrong, but Rick Demont was partially screwed by the team physician at the time who refused to admit any wrong doing on the part of Rick or himself. Yes, this was exactly the aspect that I was thinking about, that it is possible for someone other than the athlete to screw up, and while medals or spots on the team may have to be forfeited the athlete isn't necessarily worthy of extreme moral condemnation or, as some have suggested, jail time. In one of these threads George brought up the case of a Canadian rower who took a cold medication that the team doctor said was ok, but turned out not to be. She and her teammates lost their medals, which I support, but she was not banned from competition, which I also support. Some posters are unwilling to draw any distinction based on the circumstances when making moral judgements, that runs counter to my personal sense of justice.

Why can't people believe in the tests and levels we set, which are high to test +, rather then the fact that everyone caught always says, "Oh no, not me, I am innocent?" Then everyone gets sucked in to this ridicules argument of, "spiked, the coach gave it to them without knowledge, it was in my supplements, the dog ate my homework, and the checks in the mail." You test + these days on BOTH the A & B splits, then save your RAP, you did it, face the medicine and admit you are a simple cheating butt head! I watched JH on the TV with her nonsense about spelling it and her total shock and all the BS and she was not credible then, and she will never be credible again until she admits she did it, got caught and should move on from there to find real redemption in the truth.

I am sure they will investigate the whole thing then decide what is going to happen. Who knows until it is completed. They may fulfill all of your desires they may let her off with a scolding and they may ban her for 1 year or two years or lifetime whatever they wish. None of us will determine anything no matter what anyone here thinks. It seems most of you want a lifetime ban no matter what really happened. I don't think that last statement is true. In the ridiculously unlikely event that the ingestion was truly accidental, no one will want her "lynched." George, I'm having a hard time understanding your posts. You seemed to suggest that most people would have done what Hardy did, i.e., cheat. Hardly. And frankly, I think that, once an athlete has cheated, it's probably an easy step to lie about that cheating. The moral compass has already gone awry.

Answer this question - what could possibly be uncovered that would cause her not to have tested positive at Trials and therefore have a competitive advantage over her rivals? Don't dodge the question, answer it.

I don't really understand how the "circumstances" are relevant. The WADA very clearly advises athletes that they are responsible for what they ingest. It's called personal responsibility. The implication is that these banned substances are ubiquitous and easily consumed unkowingly. That is not the case.

Ok, here is my take and bottom line thinking on JH and PED. She had a great NCAA Swimming career going and was well liked at CAL and doing very, very well. She was well coached and was progressing very well. Then out of the blue with little or no warning, she turns PRO. She saw the dollar signs, the glitter, the neon, the possible huge money possibilities if she became a multiple Olympic Gold Medal Winner, then she made a decision to cheat by getting that extra edge by taking PED. She is very attractive, well educated, presents herself pretty well and figured she would cash in at any cost. BUT, she did it the wrong way by cheating and got caught. Now, her chances are slim and her future will always be tainted by PED and the underlying greed that drove the PED bus in the first place. She is guilty so don't kid yourself or be swindled into thinking otherwise.