Dara just one the national title in the 100M Freestyle in 54.4 at the ripe old age of 40. Simply Incredible. :applaud: :woot:
If that's not inspiring I don't know what is.
I don't see them handing out the life-time ban. History has shown us that they don't do that. Angel Myers tested positive for steroids in 1988 but was allowed to compete in the 1996 Olympics.
That's kinda my point. Why is it such a relatively light punishment? 2 years seems like forever when you're 20 but it's not that long and with today's training, athletic careers are longer so 2 years is a smaller portion of a career than 30 years ago. Why allow people who have abused the rules to continue to participate?
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?"
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.
Hello, McFly? We heard from her first, when she peed in the cup. She had the first and last say. What possibly is she going to say that will excuse a positive test result? Oh yeah, she doesn't know how to spell clen, she got it from a handshake. Maybe she'll cry a lot and get more people to lose all common sense.
There is no doubt in my mind she has a team of people that she is paying a lot of money to that are trying to come up with things to divert the panel.
This whole thing is upside down. Good people have gone crazy. Crazy people have gone crazier and then there's George.
...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.
Well stated Lindsay. The positive test eliminated her from the team for this year. The circumstances behind the presence of clenbuterol in her system are in question now. And if I'm not mistaken, doesn't she get to present her case to the USADA or USA-S before they hand down their sentence? Regardless of what people think, there is a chance that Hardy did not intentionally ingest clenbuterol. It's a small chance, but a chance nonetheless.
Proper handwashing technique is so important. We all need to be more careful.
Exactly, you never know what that person might have been handling. What if they were handling an experimental invisibility drug, then you might turn invisible!
I'm sorry, this isn't a case of her getting lost in the woods and missing badly hidden trespassing signs.
If JH knowingly took a banned substance (and I'm pretty sure I have used the word IF when referring to punishment) in the face of all the info, handouts, policies, seminars, advice, object lessons, etc. then she has only herself to blame.
And a lot of folks seem to be missing the point, the tests are there to see if the conditions of competition are as fair as can be had. A positive test, REGARDLESS of knowingly or unknowlingly consuming a banned substance, indicates that the conditions were not fair. So who cares whether JH knew it, didn't know it, was walking by a massive Clenbuterol spill the day before, she was competing under conditions that the other competitors were not.
But as has been pointed out many times here, there is an established appeals process that will be the final arbiters of punishment. And there may be extenuating circumstances that we don't know. But regardless of that, JH should not be allowed to compete if the test results were valid. And as far as anyone knows, they were.
I agree. I am not arguing with the science that busted her. All I am saying is that jail time, screw you, and a ruined life sound like punishments that are coming from emotion and not critical thought. I think the rules indicate that a ban from swimming will be enforced and that sounds pretty fair to me.
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.
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.
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
