"The only new plan is to fire Shubert and let him deal with the lawsuits that are coming. Scheduling Trials to late and not taking action to name alternates after the positive test(s)...even Geek isn't that stupid.":rofl:
What role is Gull/Daniel Craig playing in the forum movie version? If it's not taken, I put dibs on the role of Tara Kirk's lawyer. Definite negligence case -- breach of a duty of care by USA swimming. Maybe we can also throw in some intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. And I wonder if she had any endorsements or incentive clauses contingent on her making a second Olympic team?
I think for all but the truly naive the statement by Hardy's rep about her doing something for "the good of the team" was just appalling. It was transparently self-serving. It would have rung less false if she had merely said she wanted to avoid further distraction and left it at that.
I am weary of the references to the criminal justice system. This isn't it. We shouldn't even be using words like "guilty," "innocent," or, far worse, "proof positive." They have no relevance here. It's really a strict liability standard as Gull notes. Intent only goes to damages or, in this case, the length of the ban.
Question: Is the positive test set at X level solely to avoid false positives? Or is taking a PED in a quantity less than X level simply not that performance enhancing? I'm assuming it is, but am still curious.
"The only new plan is to fire Shubert and let him deal with the lawsuits that are coming. Scheduling Trials to late and not taking action to name alternates after the positive test(s)...even Geek isn't that stupid.":rofl:
What role is Gull/Daniel Craig playing in the forum movie version? If it's not taken, I put dibs on the role of Tara Kirk's lawyer. Definite negligence case -- breach of a duty of care by USA swimming. Maybe we can also throw in some intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. And I wonder if she had any endorsements or incentive clauses contingent on her making a second Olympic team?
I think for all but the truly naive the statement by Hardy's rep about her doing something for "the good of the team" was just appalling. It was transparently self-serving. It would have rung less false if she had merely said she wanted to avoid further distraction and left it at that.
I am weary of the references to the criminal justice system. This isn't it. We shouldn't even be using words like "guilty," "innocent," or, far worse, "proof positive." They have no relevance here. It's really a strict liability standard as Gull notes. Intent only goes to damages or, in this case, the length of the ban.
Question: Is the positive test set at X level solely to avoid false positives? Or is taking a PED in a quantity less than X level simply not that performance enhancing? I'm assuming it is, but am still curious.
