From what i have heard, from several credible sources, someone on the us women's team tested positive. As of now only the persons family, roommate, and usa swimming know, but im sure it will begin to leak out. Nothing matters though until we get results of the B test.. which could be a few days or even weeks. Not sure when the test was taken, but probably trials. I will try to post more information when I get it, but if anyone could confirm or post what they know, im sure it would be appreciated
Former Member
Any decision to take drugs is calculated.
In her decision regarding PED's it would be. Thoguh it could be calculated as "nobody is going to find out" that's where the dumb, cocky, naivete comes in.
Blondes are evil, FACT.
Brunettes are vindictive, FACT.
Redheds are fiery, FACT.
Hatemail to: SwimStud, c/o USMS forums....
;) I'm joking ladies...just figure thread could use a little levity. Now you can villify me....
In the "Why do they do it?" vein I recall seeing several news articles about the high rate of cheating in academics, so a lack of rational evaluation of consequences doesn't seem to be confined to athletes.
The nice thing is we can change our hair color anytime depending on the mood that we are in. Wonder if I could use the excuse of the hair dye kit if I tested positive for a banned substance?
Who's performance are you trying to enhance! They've got a pill for that!
i'm sure you're lovely how you are ;)
Besides an old man once advised his.grandson: "Johnny, Marry a Redhead; they don't change the colour of their hair! Never trust a woman who changes the colour of her hair!"
Geek, I know you did, at least that's consistent.
Um, yes. Or at least a 5 year stay in a nice prison. I have ZERO tollerance for that specific behavoir.
Most of us probably know somebody convicted of DUI. Do we tell them screw you and I hope your life is ruined forever?
Last time I knew one, I just told him he was stupid. He agreed.
Has anyone heard anything about Lara Jackson's reaction to the matter involving Jessica? Is she going to petition for a place on the team?
SwimmingWorld online has an interview with her on the Mornings Swim Show from Friday. Doesn't sound like she is going to do anything.
From the New York Daily News:
www.nydailynews.com/.../2008-07-26_swimmer_jessica_hardy_claims_doping_inno.html
Excerpt:
...Laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency, like the UCLA Olympic lab where Hardy's samples were apparently tested, have black-and-white criteria for positive and negative tests.
Even abnormal samples must meet the strict criteria for a "positive" reading. Technicians are trained to think like lawyers when they read the tests, because they may just end up facing Jacobs down the line.
On the other hand, samples that pass as clean but raise the suspicions of the scientists can trigger more targeted testing. The laboratories, which only see a number on the test tube, can suggest that sport authorities collect out-of-competition tests from the donor. And if they see something weird on one specific aspect of the test, they can go back to stored samples and take a closer look: In other words, "low positive" means positive because there are wide margins of error built into most testing protocols. That is the case for two of the most commonly discussed blood profiles in anti-doping science, hematocrit percentages (which often reflect endurance) and testosterone/epitestosterone ratios (which indicate steroid use).
Just last week, an expose by the BBC explored how WADA-accredited laboratories had cleared a startling number of Olympic-sport athletes for competition even though their samples had suspicious scores on the test for erythropoietin, or EPO - a notorious banned endurance-booster.
Reviewing lab documents for the BBC, prominent Danish doping expert Rasmus Damsgaard demonstrated that many athletes were probably using small doses of EPO - microdosing - gaining athletic benefit while technically beating the EPO test.
Hardy told CBS on Friday that she was in "complete shock" when anti-doping officials called her with the results of her July 4 test. "In my heart I know I'm 100 percent clean," she said, claiming to have never heard of Clenbuterol.
That may be true, but the WADA Code, now 10 years old, was built on a "strict liability" philosophy, wherein athletes are responsible for every molecule in their system, even if they have never heard ot it.
Last year, the Code was tweaked to allow a tiny measure of flexibility in enforcement when an athlete can prove he or she took something inadvertently. WADA seemed to want to offer a little lenience in cases where second-hand marijuana and innocent cough medications put careers at risk (and cost WADA huge legal fees).
But the new language hasn't been tested in a trial setting, and history indictates that WADA's definition of lenience is closer to reducing ban from two years to 18 months, rather than green-lighting a trip to the Olympics....
The rules are the rules--and the testing is for ALL----you fail----you are dirty---I know people who know her well--and they say no way---YET, she tested + which makes her a doper! We have set very serious standards and when these standards are exceeded then the person tested is OUT!
Frankly, I think her coach is involved and has a very poor history with people under his guidance that testied +. That adds creditable certainty to this test. I believe she did PED and knew she did it--and like the cycle guys---now claims, "Oh no, I am clean, I had no knowledge of this!" I say BS and nonsense! Guilty as charged---
Next!
I'm still giving her the benefit of doubt. The negative-positive-negative results are strange ...
It probably means that she was near the threshold to trigger a positive result. They set the threshold fairly high enough to guard against too many false positives and to be able to make a good court case (beyond a reasonable doubt, and all that). This is also the reason they also need a positive result from the B sample.
A negative result does not mean the absence of all traces of PEDs in the sample. Think about testing blood alcohol levels: just because one isn't above the legal intoxication limit doesn't mean the person didn't have any drinks.
I assume all the proper analytical protocols were followed (if they weren't, I don't think we would have gotten to this point), so there is no question in my mind that she had the PED in her system.
How it got there -- accidental, intentional, with the coach's blessing, whatever -- is another story and maybe isn't relevant anyway.
