The number of excuses you are trotting out to help her explain her dope results makes my head spin.
Geek, you have an interesting method of debate if one can call it that. You don't respond to any points I make and you attribute to me all sorts of things I never said. Would you care to list one or two excuses I have trotted out for her? Likely not as I haven't made any excuses for her not being in a position to know what happened. What I have done is suggested we wait to see what excuses she comes up with before we decide whether they are nonsense or not.
Paul, in my books "There are indications that ..." coming from a reporter with no attribution is pretty weak and certainly not the same as an accusation from Hardy or her lawyer.
It's hard to imagine how nutritional supplements would get contaminated with Clen, given that Clen isn't distributed for human consumption in the USA. And I doubt that a lawyer would make the accusation that the Clen came from the supplements without hard evidence as it would seem to be asking for a lawsuit from the supplement manufacturer, but Fort would have a more informed opinion on that.
The next question would be how much effort she put into ensuring the supplements were clean which would have bearing mostly on just how foolish/reckless she was.
I'll wait and see what they come up with and then come to a conclusion as to whether it is nonsense or not.
In summary, you have an avenue that you will take to totally excuse away her behavior.
What exactly is nonsense about her two positive urine samples? And, please explain to me why she gets a free pass from you for taking the reckless step of taking supplements in the first place. It's probably more likely she just took clen and you are buying into her PR machine.
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.
Intent is irrelevant, read the rules, quite simple. The continue parsing of her cheating ways is comical and dishonest. You seem quite intent on supporting someone who is disgracing herself, the sport and her country.
She, like other athletes, take supplements for one reason and one reason only--to gain an edge. It is irrelevant whether or not they believe the supplements are untainted. They are made well aware of the risks, so when they get burned and test positive for banned substances, they should be labeled dopers, plain and simple.
This is a situation of strict liability. In other words, whether it was intentional or not, is not the issue. She tested positive--game over.
The burden is on the athlete. You know that you could lose endorsements, an olympic spot, etc. So you have to decide, do I assume the risk and do x,y or z.
Here is an example--dog bite laws. Many states have them-dog bites--no matter why--you the owner must pay the damages. It is a strict liability law. So Fido could be cute as a button, but he bites, you are strictly liable.
Same here for Hardy--she failed the test. Whatever the limit was, she went above it. How it got there--IT IS HER OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE IT DID NOT.
Clen cannot be present in a horse on race day. It is not to be used in the US for humans. Yet, somehow, it was in Hardy's urine.
As far as I am concerned, it was her responsibility to make sure it did not get into her body--her career depended on it. Somehow it got there. She is no longer challenging the results, which means she admits they are accurate.
Kirk is not on the team because of it (and I think she should have been placed on the team the second the positive was discovered as an alternate; and if JH should have prevailed, then fine tell Kirk she sits on the sidelines; other teams do it).
Hardy is strictly liable for anything she puts in her body. End of story.
Lindsay, if she produces a supplement which contains unlabeled clenbuterol, you are willing to let her off the hook, so to speak? She becomes an innocent victim, rather than a doper? Personally, at this point I have no interest in anything she or her attorney have to say.
It's probably more likely she just took clen and you are buying into her PR machine.
Yep.
I see she's already talking about her comeback and the 2012 Olympics. I know Angel Martino did it, but can Hardy survive the stigma?
Intent won't change anything. It made her swim faster and therefore she cannot attend the games. It won't let anyone else go in her place.
However, intent is relevant in the court of public opinion and or any punishment handed down.
Well if she didn't ingest it intentionally then she'll probably make it through OK.
It'll be interesting watch the all the evidence come to light and see if anything suspicious is going on.
Of course. I was ASSUMING, as indicated by my "yep," that she was taking it intentionally, as that is by far the most likely scenario. It is already beyond suspicious.
