Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:32:49 GMT

It took her 8 months to come up with this? Lame, very lame. Another doper who thinks the rest of us are dopes to believe her. Shall we bet as to which foot you put in your mouth next?

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:06:00 GMT

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."

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

knelson — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:57:13 GMT

I'll be the first to admit I thought she was just another drug cheat. I'm glad she was able to clear her name.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Karen Duggan — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:48:40 GMT

Kirk, Good article. Thanks. It would seem to me that all the money she's spending on lawyers to get her out of this mess, could have been spent to have an independent lab run the ingredients of the supplement she was taking! If you're an Olympic athlete wouldn't you want a second opinion about what you're taking? And from that article I'm really pissed that Tara Kirk didn't get to go. How unfair is that. :badday:

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

psyncw — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:30:17 GMT

This is from the Steroidreport.com: "Intentional doping Why would Jessica Hardy take clenbuterol when drugs with similar performance-enhancing effects were legally available to her and all other swimmers with therapeutic use exemptions for asthma medications? The performance enhancing effects of clenbuterol are not significantly different from those of other beta-2 agonists like albuterol, formoterol, salbutamol, salmeterol and terbutaline that are used by other Olympic swimmers. Swimming phenom Dara Torres uses the two legal beta-2 agonists (LABAs) Proventil (albuterol) and Symbicort (formoterol) and seems to be doing pretty well. Why would Hardy use an illegal drug when the legal PEDs are just as good?"

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Iwannafly — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:29:41 GMT

I think what this should really drive home is that if you take a supplement you are taking a significant risk. That's an awfully low keyed post on this topic from you Mr. Geek! I expected some vitriol!:afraid:

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

knelson — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:26:59 GMT

The Ron Judd piece is well worth reading in its entirety: blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/.../ He raises some very interesting issues. For one thing, as it stands now, Hardy will not be eligible for the 2012 London Games due to a new rule stating that anyone suspended for drugs for at least six months is ineligible to compete in the next Games. Another point is that even if she did ingest the drugs accidentally, she would still be getting the performance benefit from these drugs and this isn't fair to the clean athletes. I've got to agree with geek. When it comes to these athletes taking any kind of supplement caveat emptor should apply.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Karen Duggan — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:22:13 GMT

I gather that clenbuterol is a steroid from the article. But can some one edumacate (spelling intentional) me on what benefit this particular steroid has and how it works? Just wondering how she would have swum better with this in her body? And should I start using it? (Of course I'm kidding, just in a weird pre-nationals silly mood)

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

aquageek — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:18:24 GMT

I think what this should really drive home is that if you take a supplement you are taking a significant risk.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

psyncw — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:17:22 GMT

Thanks for the excerpt. I hadn't read that. If she was taking the same batch of supplements throughout the trials, it would make sense that some of her other urine samples would be positive as well.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

psyncw — Mon, 04 May 2009 08:03:16 GMT

www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../21057.asp Looks like Jessica will be able to swim this summer. I'm happy for her! Too bad she had to miss the olympics.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:41:09 GMT

Can't one accept responsibility for their actions without suing? If Advocare is providing tainted supplements how should they be brought to justice? Should they get a free pass. Are there any avenues that can be taken which would be acceptable to you? I think Hardy is full of it though. I doubt much will come of this lawsuit and it makes Hardy look worse. But I'll reserve that final judgement until the case is resolved.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

orca1946 — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 12:34:37 GMT

:applaud:

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

mattson — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:13:58 GMT

She didn't go to the Olympics, and didn't throw in any last minute court appeals.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:09:53 GMT

Both lawsuits say Hardy agreed in a contract signed Jan. 29, 2008, to endorse AdvoCare products. The company then provided her certain products, including “Arginine Extreme” and "Nighttime Recovery.” From the WADA's Athlete Guide, which recommends extreme caution in the use of supplements: 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, knowingly or unknowingly, used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault. Sounds like she has a really good case. As long as we ignore personal responsibility.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:59:49 GMT

It took her 8 months to come up with this? Lame, very lame. Another doper who thinks the rest of us are dopes to believe her. Look who's talking...it took you over 12 hours to find this post and start preaching!!

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

aquageek — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:53:26 GMT

It took her 8 months to come up with this? Lame, very lame. Another doper who thinks the rest of us are dopes to believe her.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:45:37 GMT

Can't a sad story have more than one victim, and even a character who is part victim and part villain? Can't one condemn Hardy and yet also think a "supplement" manufacturer would be wrong--and a cheater, in a sense--to lie about what its product contains? I just think it would be refreshing for a doper to admit wrongdoing, take personal responsibiltiy, and accept their punishment without lawyering up. But hey, lawyers have to eat, too.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:42:15 GMT

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:23:33 GMT

And Lara Jackson. ...and Amanda Weir.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:15:22 GMT

The only victim here is Tara Kirk. And Lara Jackson.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:46:19 GMT

The only victim here is Tara Kirk.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:31:44 GMT

The strict liability clause doesn't come into legal play for this case since she is not trying to have the suspension revoked and be reinstated. But if she's thinking that somehow suing the manufacturer for damages is an opportunity to restore her reputation she is sorely mistaken. Cheaters never "knowingly" take anything do they? My point is that, in terms of damages, she is the one responsible for her suspension. I do not see her as a victim.

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

Former Member — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 06:07:05 GMT

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, knowingly or unknowingly, used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault. Sounds like she has a really good case. As long as we ignore personal responsibility. The strict liability clause doesn't come into legal play for this case since she is not trying to have the suspension revoked and be reinstated. But if she's thinking that somehow suing the manufacturer for damages is an opportunity to restore her reputation she is sorely mistaken. Cheaters never "knowingly" take anything do they?

RE: Jessica Hardy lawsuit...

aquageek — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:47:34 GMT

Can't a sad story have more than one victim, and even a character who is part victim and part villain? Can't one condemn Hardy and yet also think a "supplement" manufacturer would be wrong--and a cheater, in a sense--to lie about what its product contains? Can't one accept responsibility for their actions without suing?