I know nothing about that case and therefore chose not to speak on it. But, you keep right on quoting it like it excuses her cheating ways. I do know that JH is a lying cheater, which is the topic for this thread. You somehow seem to think because she has a lawyer and can't spell the cheating drug she took that she must logically not suffer the consequences of her actions.
By your own admission she is a cheater and not contesting the results of her test. Why continue to defend her? Supplements are Russian Roulette, take them at your own risk/peril.
The KV case doesn't excuse anything JH may have done and I never said or implied that it did. What it does do is illustrate that not everyone who tests positive knowingly cheated and that if you give people a chance to defend themselves sometimes you get surprised that things didn't happen the way you ASSUME they did. The Dumont case is another example. You ASSUME that JH deliberately cheated. There's a good chance you are correct. But I think that the hearing process was designed to ensure that people have the opportunity to demonstrate that assumptions aren't necessarily correct. The KV and RD cases demonstrate that a positive test isn't always the result of a deliberate attempt to cheat and that the truth sometimes comes out in the ensuing process.
If you reread what I wrote more carefully you might realize that I am not defending HER, I am defending the right to a fair process including the chance to present a defense. The conclusions you have come to about my position cannot reasonably be inferred from what I've written.
I know nothing about that case and therefore chose not to speak on it. But, you keep right on quoting it like it excuses her cheating ways. I do know that JH is a lying cheater, which is the topic for this thread. You somehow seem to think because she has a lawyer and can't spell the cheating drug she took that she must logically not suffer the consequences of her actions.
By your own admission she is a cheater and not contesting the results of her test. Why continue to defend her? Supplements are Russian Roulette, take them at your own risk/peril.
The KV case doesn't excuse anything JH may have done and I never said or implied that it did. What it does do is illustrate that not everyone who tests positive knowingly cheated and that if you give people a chance to defend themselves sometimes you get surprised that things didn't happen the way you ASSUME they did. The Dumont case is another example. You ASSUME that JH deliberately cheated. There's a good chance you are correct. But I think that the hearing process was designed to ensure that people have the opportunity to demonstrate that assumptions aren't necessarily correct. The KV and RD cases demonstrate that a positive test isn't always the result of a deliberate attempt to cheat and that the truth sometimes comes out in the ensuing process.
If you reread what I wrote more carefully you might realize that I am not defending HER, I am defending the right to a fair process including the chance to present a defense. The conclusions you have come to about my position cannot reasonably be inferred from what I've written.
