hahaha, Stud. Just to make you happy ...
Why didn't she have them test samples earlier? Why wait until "immediately prior to and during" the Olympic trials? That makes her look guiltier to me ... If she was worried the products were contaminated or was neurotic about not testing positive and being 100% certain about what was going into her body, why not test them before ever ingesting them at all?
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 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?
Sure, as long as she didn't intentionally take clenbuterol apart from any alleged contaminated supplement to gain an illegal advantage.
Gull, eat and buy B70s.
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?
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?
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.
