I certainly don't think this makes her innocent just because her grossly overpaid lawyer convinced some other lawyers it was accidental. Here's something interesting from an article from a reporter named Ron Judd:
"
But new evidence presented in the arbritration ruling sheds some new light. It discloses, for the first time publicly, that the same UCLA lab that tested Hardy's other samples informed USADA on July 23, two days after reporting the initial positive result, that two Hardy samples from July 1 (when she won the 100 ***) and July 6 (when she finished second in the 50 freestyle), initially reported as negative, "actually revealed the presence of 'suspect clenbuterol transitions.'"
We'll leave it to the scientists to interpret that. But the fact is, it's three samples with three red flags, taken throughout the U.S. Olympic Trials."
I certainly don't think this makes her innocent just because her grossly overpaid lawyer convinced some other lawyers it was accidental. Here's something interesting from an article from a reporter named Ron Judd:
"
But new evidence presented in the arbritration ruling sheds some new light. It discloses, for the first time publicly, that the same UCLA lab that tested Hardy's other samples informed USADA on July 23, two days after reporting the initial positive result, that two Hardy samples from July 1 (when she won the 100 ***) and July 6 (when she finished second in the 50 freestyle), initially reported as negative, "actually revealed the presence of 'suspect clenbuterol transitions.'"
We'll leave it to the scientists to interpret that. But the fact is, it's three samples with three red flags, taken throughout the U.S. Olympic Trials."
