"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.
I am amazed that people several people here still can't manage to draw a distinction between whether an athlete should lose medals, records, and a place on the team and whether they are an evil no-good bad person. Now that she is no longer contesting the validity of the test the first question is settled. I'll be surprised if any of the regular posters to this thread are willing to argue that she should get a spot on the team at this point.
Please, Gull, Geek, and Matt, do you consider Kicker V and Matt Dumont to be low down dope-cheating scum? They both had positive tests. For the record I don't. The USADA and WADA codes also recognize intentionality in assigning duration of suspensions, which can be zero duration, two years, four years or lifetime bans.
And no, this isn't a criminal case but the criminal law system is designed the way it is to maximize the likelihood of justice, and the same principles can be applied here regardless of whether this is a criminal case.
Lindsay, all I am saying is that she clearly had the chemical in her bloodstream at the time of Trials so her performances were illegally aided to a certain degree. I can understand that the intent, or lack thereof, will play a role in the punishment phase. It makes sense that it would. Regarding any athletes who took PED's without their knowledge (Kicker V.), I don't consider them to be dirty scum.
The system is set up fine, hold that athlete accountable for their actions. Instead you propose giving money to dope narcs? WTH? Yeah, that won't bring out the crazies.
Given the number of injustices involved with plea bargains, paid informants, the reliability of people involved in doping as witnesses, etc., you are probably right that rewards for people who turn in dopers would not be a great idea.
I would still like to see the law ask JH where she got her drugs so that she would be faced with possible prosecution if she lied. Failing that, USADA or WADA ought to have a regulation that says if you impede their investigation by lying, and it is proven that you did, you will get an automatic lifetime ban. But then I would support a lifetime ban for any doping that can't be shown to be inadvertent (ala cold meds or trace amounts of non-PED, etc.).
Matt: as I suspected we are in basic agreement, I'll be interested to see if Geek will address the Kicker V case.
Lindsay, I posted this on the Jessica Hardy-Amazing thread. I will post it again, as you may have missed it. If not, then perhaps you can explain to me what it is that you find unclear or ambiguous in the wording.
From the WADA Athlete Guide:
Athletes should know that, under the Code, they are strictly liable whenever a prohibited substance is found in their bodily specimen. This means that a violation occurs whether or not the athlete intentionally or unintentionally, knowingly or unknowingly, used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault. It is very important therefore for athletes to understand not only what is prohibited, but also what might potentially cause an inadvertent doping violation...
Extreme caution is recommended regarding supplement use. It is WADA's position that a good diet is of utmost importance to athletes. The use of dietary supplements by athletes is a concern because in many countries the manufacturing and labeling of supplements may not follow strict rules, which may lead to a supplement containing an undeclared substance that is prohibited under anti-doping regulations. A significant number of positive tests have been attributed to the misuse of supplements, and taking a poorly labeled dietary supplement is not an adequate defense in a doping hearing.
Paul Smith---a CLEAR voice of reason, truth and understanding in a rather absurd fantasy world full of conspiracy theories---
Dead on target there Paul!
It's been a long time since I ventured onto the forums area, but I have enjoyed reading comments and here are a couple of more thoughts. First, I love the title of this thread with the word "withdrawals" in there. Is this a clerical error or a comment on coming down off the banned substance? Second, I am surprised this hasn't come up in the comments, but does any one besides me (maybe I'm the only one old enough on the thread to remember) recall the name Rick DeMont and what he went through? Check this out from 2001:
espn.go.com/.../1057642.html
Not only is the system set up fine and ANY top level athlete in the world over the last 20 years knows VERY well what the rules are, but people tend to forget that "failing" a drug test means you have to have "X" amount of that substance in your system.
This is important to think about, many athletes have had levels below the "LINE" that is set (relatively high in many cases) and PASS. To FAIL you have to have an EXCESS amount of said substance in your body...twice.
I love the dreamers who want to live in a fantasy world full of conspiracy theories....its good reading. But the truth is cheating has been increasing as have the number drugs available to cheat with...testing is playing catch up and has a tolerance level that a well "coached" athlete can test substances like Clen, HGH, EPO, Testosterone, etc. and know exactly how far they can go before they reach the threshold to hit the positive reading.
And if they fail I would like to see a lifetime ban.
This is so true... I'm sure Hardy isn't the only one... she's just the one who got caught... what a sad day for swimming. I'm sure we'll have more days like this in the future.
It's been a long time since I ventured onto the forums area, but I have enjoyed reading comments and here are a couple of more thoughts. First, I love the title of this thread with the word "withdrawals" in there. Is this a clerical error or a comment on coming down off the banned substance? Second, I am surprised this hasn't come up in the comments, but does any one besides me (maybe I'm the only one old enough on the thread to remember) recall the name Rick DeMont and what he went through? Check this out from 2001:
espn.go.com/.../1057642.html
Richard...great to have you join in the fun...how are things with the Guppies??!!
Good point about Rick...and it was brought up on at least one other thread.
By the way Lindsay, your correct in that some substances are banned entirely while others which are naturally occurring have "thresholds" that trigger a failure....however with gene dopping and stem cell infusions for $24k on the horizon none of this matters anyway.
