Dara Torres-Amazing

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

And in case no one has said it recently....... 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 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 ...