By Jason Marsteller
PHOENIX, Arizona, July 25. BASED on the evidence that continues to come to the forefront of the timing of the Jessica Hardy positive drug test, and the decisions made by USA Swimming – the organization may have truly faced a rock-and-a-hard-place type of decision earlier this week.
Let's set the scene.
Advertisement
According to several sources, USA Swimming knew about Hardy's positive drug test on Monday, July 21 - in California. This information came at about the worst time possible for the national governing body, as USA Swimming's own entry deadline for a final team roster came that day, when reading the selection procedures posted by USA Swimming here.
On page 11, in the explanation of the procedure that is likely to leave Kara Lynn Joyce and Rebecca Soni competing in the 50 free and 100 breast, respectively, at the 2008 Beijing Games, the following sentence provides the deadline date for the team:
If, for any reason, an additional Team position or an additional event position shall become vacant after July 21, 2008, (entry deadline), no additional members shall be added to the Team.
However, the drop-dead deadline from FINA to receive entry forms from National Olympic Committees, available on its website here, was July 23 - in Switzerland.
Now, at first blush, someone might say that USA Swimming had plenty of time to pull the trigger and replace Hardy with Tara Kirk in the 100 breast, Lara Jackson in the 50 free, and Amanda Weir in the 400 freestyle relay. Knowing something on July 21, regardless of a self-imposed deadline, should allow someone to make a last-ditch effort before the true final deadline of July 23 in the final stages of the process, wouldn't you think?
There are so many levels involved in this conversation, that I don't believe it can be simplified that much. While in the end, I believe that USA Swimming may have done itself a disservice with the timing of Trials, leading to this inevitable difficulty if a positive test did occur, the U.S. had not had someone test positive in this time frame for two decades. It would take someone with an extremely long memory in the sport to also be in the planning stages to bring up that red flag during scheduling talks.
Let's look two scenarios that could have taken, or still could take place, for conversation purposes along with the dangerous territory USA Swimming would leave themselves in. Each scenario leads to a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't understanding of the decision-making process.
Hardy is expelled from the team on July 22 in time to add Kirk, Jackson and Weir before the deadline on July 23
While much commentary is leaning towards this being an optimal outcome, this situation probably opens up USA Swimming to the most liability in court. What happens if Hardy's appeal works and she is no longer able to be on the team because she was never listed on the final roster? That's a huge lawsuit waiting to happen.
Let's say for conversation sake, Hardy's appeal doesn't work – but a Kicker Vencill situation happens later down the road where it comes to light that Hardy tested positive due to some bad supplement batch. USA Swimming then has to contend with not sticking behind a swimmer to help them through a particularly difficult situation where the person is not completely at fault.
Hardy is not expelled from the team in time, leaving Kirk, Jackson and Weir on the sidelines.
This case, which is the likely outcome with the available information we have at this point in time, leaves USA Swimming open to a lawsuit from Kirk, Jackson and Weir because of an assumption that USA Swimming had time between July 21 and July 23 to make a move.
In this scenario, it would have been extremely helpful for the entire process to be taking place a week or two before deadline – not two days. The timing of Trials really hurt USA Swimming here.
All of this conversation doesn't even take into consideration the time difference between Palo Alto, Calif., and Lausanne, Switzerland, that makes a report of a positive test on July 21 in the States be even that much closer to the final FINA deadline of July 23. Also, the internal deadline of July 21 most likely was in place to make sure that all the Is were dotted and Ts were crossed after USA Swimming submitted a final roster to the USOC so that the USOC could then turn it over to FINA after doing its own processing.
This is definitely why the leadership at USA Swimming is paid the big bucks, if you will. While hindsight being 20/20 proves that Trials should always be held enough in advance of final deadlines to give a buffer zone for worst case scenarios, it is fairly difficult to believe that anyone within USA Swimming felt the need to plan for a potential positive test. Hopefully a lesson has been learned and plenty of time will be allotted after Trials to counter these issues in 2012.
For now, we sit and wait to see how these issues play out as Hardy's appeal process continues. We'll also wait to see whether Kirk's appeal will have time to work, if Hardy's is not granted.
Reaction Time Comments
July 25, 2008 It's too late now and the team needs to move on from this sloppily handled, unfortunate mess.
I'm tired of reading about it and I'm sure others might be too.
Let's talk about the games. Submitted by: WEK5000
July 25, 2008 Why not add the two additional swimmers and leave Hardy on as well? There were/still are spots open. Submitted by: prhjd
July 25, 2008 Tired of reading about? Well that is easy, stop reading about it. You're welcome, signed-Mr. Obvious.
In terms of what USA Swimming should have done-they should have added Kirk and Jackson to the roster immediately. They could have informed them that they would not be swimming if Hardy's appeal was successful. But that way, if Hardy is not allowed to compete, the people who deserved the slots would have been able to swim.
There was no reason not to. Swimming has plenty of slots since so many swimmers made the team in multiple events.
Instead, it appears that USA Swimming was just desparately hoping that it would not blow up in their faces and just go away.
That hope was misplaced. It has blown up in their faces, and they do not look good, the try to deflect blame article above notwithstanding. Submitted by: fever
July 25, 2008 Very unfair for the swimmers left behind.
Why does swimming need to run this way when gymnastics is actually sending alternates to China (without Olympic credentials)in the event that a team member needs to be replaced up until the day before the event draw.
Similarly, US Figure Skating sent Emily Hughes as a substitute when Michelle Kwan was injured in Torino.
Why is swimming so locked? Since there were still slots available on the team, why not add the other two athletes as a contingency -- that would have let everything play out and not cost innocent athletes their shot. Submitted by: Ziggle
July 25, 2008 It's pretty simple. Swimming was hoping the whole thing would blow over with no one the wiser. It was the scandal they were trying to avoid. They were willing to sacrifice a few people for the "greater good."
I'm curious if anyone knows, when was the last time an appeal got someone out of a ban? I was under the impression that a ban could only be shortened. Barring any crazy third party theories of course.
Submitted by: Retired
July 25, 2008 "it is fairly difficult to believe that anyone within USA Swimming felt the need to plan for a potential positive test."
The biggest story in US Pro Sports for the past few years has been performance enhancing drugs. There has even been speculation, however baseless, about specific swimmers. The people within USA Swimming have probably been waking up in the middle of the night drenched in sweat because of this possibility.
That still leaves the question of why they didn't leave more time. Could the letters N, B, and C have something to do with it? Submitted by: House
July 25, 2008 US Swimming is on the hook if they knew of a positive test prior to the deadline to add additional swimmers.
US Swimming can presume that the testing was done according to proper procedures. Anything in the "didn't know it was in the supplement" category is no excuse to allow a swimmer to remain on the team. They know this, as this argument has failed numerous times in various sports.
The assertion that US Swimming would need a long memory is bunk. Every one of the coaches and those at the head of US Swimming were there for the Angel Martino incident. This is 2008, and drugs are more prevalent now. There should have been a plan in place for this possibility.
My heart aches for Kirk, Jackson, and Weir, and I don't know any of them. If the swimmer took the drug intentionally, put her on the rack. If it was inadvertant, she is still responsible, but US Swimming dropped the ball either way. They should have pressed for the results sooner, or acted in a more timely manner to replace her.
Swimmers can make money in this sport now based on the fact that they were an Olympian. Failure to put someone on the team is a lost business opportunity, and a loss of future earnings. If I were advising US Swimming, I would take my chances against a positive test (A and B). I would not want to face the liability from those that should have been on the team.
Submitted by: justin biggs
July 25, 2008 My guess is the A sample came back Monday, but the B sample not until Wednesday. Meaning they had no proof which would allow them to remove hardy until after the deadline.
In any case the NGB retains rights to make exceptions where they feel warranted. Kirk and Jackson cant sue because this was obvious an exception. Sucks, but that's the way the ball bounces. Submitted by: JeffyFit
July 26, 2008 USA Swimming should give to its athlets the best instrumnets, all the support and above all the proper assurance they need while they're preparing for the Games.
In the rest of the world swimmers are doing great things: Steffen clocked 53"05 in 100 freestyle a few days ago in Magdeburg, Germany and now is only 0"17 away from Trckett's record and what happens in the US? A girl who might compete in 50 mt and another one who might be in the relay, they still don't know if they'll go to Bejing...
Stop discussing and add the athlets to the roster. Submitted by: Giacomo Varlese
July 26, 2008 She's either innocent or as good of an actress as she is a swimmer. http://youtube.com/watch?v=wDD_haHBfR4
I'm putting my money on innocent. And really hoping that someone is looking into third party sabotage. Submitted by: Ako
July 26, 2008 That defense doesn't work here. The A and the B samples spoke all they need to . The only issue is if the review folks decide to ignore it. Submitted by:
July 26, 2008 JeffyFit doesn't get it. They did not have to remove Hardy from the roster to add Kirk and Jackson. They could add them and keep her on and retain the ability to decide who swims after the appeals process works itself out. Submitted by: fever
July 26, 2008 I disagree that it was that mishandled. USA Swimming IS an organization that does need to be fair to all ppl, and avoid possible legal battles down the road. Each and every athlete testing poz is entitled to a hearing at the CAS. If Hardy goes that far, and is then vindicated how then, WEK5000, do you propose to handle her situation then if she has been thrown off a team after that team were to have its suspension of her reversed by CAS??? Then you have Kirk on the team, while Hardy stays at home??? Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 Fever:
I think the ethical dilemma here is that the arbitration process is not over. It is also not likely to be over until after the Games.
Should Hardy be proven innocent by whatever means (as in, someone the samples were contaminated) after the Games and we had allowed other swimmers to swim in her stead without the binding decision from CAS, USA-S would be legally liable for allowing athletes not qualifying for the Games onto the roster to swim for Jessica.
By not adding new swimmers, USA-S protects itself legally without having to even consider the pending CAS ruling.
This is a distraction that the remaining athletes do not need. Everyone should be more concerned about how the existing team can earn the most medal stand appearances.
Submitted by: SwimMD
July 26, 2008 You know what, MD? Your last sentence was right on the target. I wonder what has been said by the coaches to the athletes to keep them focused on their goals after surviving the Trials? After all, even though everyone has an opinion, at the end of the day, we all need to stand behind the swimmers and give our full support. Submitted by: paddles
July 26, 2008 SwimMD:
No, USA Swimming does not protect itself legally, here. Instead they open themselves to liability for the swimmers who should have been on the team should Jessica Hardy fail in her appeals. There is an expedited appeal process in situations like this and in all likelihood it will be resolved before the games.
In addition, USA-S can put in place whatever process they choose to put swimmers on the team as long as those swimmers meet the A standard, as Kirk and Jackson have done.
In fact, USA-S has already stated that swimmers already on the team would be swimming in Hardy's place if she loses her appeal (which would seem extremely likely). How is that any different than putting the two affected swimmers on the team and letting them swim if Hardy fails to be reinstated? Submitted by: fever
July 26, 2008 Heck if I know............
Whether it was or was not intentional, JH created this mess. No other swimmer who qualified for the team found themselves in this situation.
There are no winners here, only angry athletes and USS administrators who are staying mum.
Submitted by: WEK5000
July 26, 2008 I would venture to say 99% of the athletes are not concerning themselves.
I know it sounds cruel.. but they can not get involved, physically or emotionally.
I think most realize this and have already forgotten the drama of the situation.
.02 Submitted by: Dist Freak
July 26, 2008 To SwimMD: I actually think they ARE protecting themselves legally in at least one way (and I am not sure how one could deny this is indeed protecting themselves) simply by allowing an appeals process to be played out in court (CAS, etc) rather than DENYING the athlete in question.
If I remember correctly, back in '94 at the Winter Games, the US Figure Skating Assoc (USFAS) didn't remove Tanya Harding from that team, even AFTER that organization was informed by the FBI (BEFORE those Lillehammer Games) that Tanya had at least an indirect connection to the attack on Kerrigan. So Michele Kwan, at 13 yrs, actually went to those Games as an alternate should the USFSA legally have been able to remove Tanya AND avoid legal action by the Harding party. David Wallenchinsky's book, I believe (I could have the exact details out of order) indicates that the USFSA decided to merely strip Tanya of her nationals title for that year and ban her for life, because they WOULD have indeed had to at least FACE some legal, costly battles in court, if they denied her all possible appeals due to her in that situation. This is clearly a tricky situation. But, I am only a lay person when it comes to law, and unfortunately don't know personally a lawyer specializing in athletics.
OY. Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 Fever: I can't imagine how USA Swimming would not place legal priority of Ms Hardy during her appeals process, which is her right, over that of the third place swimmer. The way I am seeing this is that they had no choice but to allow Hardy to go through the appeals process every other athlete in her situation has the legal right to take part in, regardless of results in the CAS.
I say, go back to having Trials in the spring, like they did in '92. I would imagine that should this situation have occurred back in March, the appeals process would have gone through its course before the date that the official roster needs to be submitted.
Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 Fever,
You are wrong about the legality of the situation. But you will see as further details come to light. It's actually a little horrific and you will see why Kirk and Jackson were not named to the team on the 21st when USA-S received the test results.
As you say, "USA-S can put in place whatever process they choose to put swimmers on the team as long as those swimmers meet the A standard." They have, and they are following their procedure with Hardy not OFFICIALLY removed from the team until the end of the arbitration hearing. They, BY THEIR OWN CRITERIA, were not required to add alternates. Would it have been prudent? Probably, but they are not legally liable having set forth guidelines and followed them. Hardy, on the other hand, could sue if they effectively replace her before she's officially ruled to be off the team by CAS.
And don't be naive enough to think that CAS will resolve this before the Games. A hearing date has not even been set yet and we are only 15 days removed from the first day. Bureaucracy is never expeditious.
...and I wouldn't say "no" other swimmer... Submitted by: SwimMD
July 26, 2008 Park-
u hit it right on the head.
one faction at USAS Convetions/HOD Meeting want the trials earlier (like around April) so they can taper the swimmers for the games.
Another faction wants it the way it is. If you have ever been to a HOD Meeting, then you know its not uncommon for parties to disagree what is "best" for the athletes.
Submitted by: Dist Freak
July 26, 2008 Again, I must point out that USA-S could have put both Kirk and Jackson on the team without affecting IN ANY WAY Ms. Hardy's appeal process or participation in the Games if her appeal was granted. They could simply have been informed that they were alternates and would swim or not swim pending the decision of the guilt of Ms. Hardy. Submitted by: fever
July 26, 2008 Park,
The only problem with an early trials is that they want the best team AT THE OLYMPICS not the best team in March. There is time for swimmers to fall into and out of shape in the four month intercession. It's a really tough line to walk and this is a pretty flagrant example of why. Submitted by: SwimMD
July 26, 2008 SwimMD:
I just want to point out that many of the current Olympic roster competed at the NCAAs in March and did well at trials as well. Just a thought. Submitted by: swimm
July 26, 2008 FEVER, let me make this simple for you.
USA swimming states in their qualification procedure:
"If, for any reason, an additional Team position or an additional event position shall become vacant after July 21, 2008, (entry deadline), no additional members shall be added to the Team. "
Therefore, they are not legally liable in any way for not naming alternates for Hardy. They
COULD have, but they did not and they do not have to at this point. Secondly, and this is what you seem to be missing every time, Hardy is still on the team until CAS officially bans her, if they do.
Therefore, the USA-S team has no technical need for alternates (until after CAS ruling), and thus would not name alternates.
Submitted by: SwimMD
July 26, 2008 SwimMD:
I have to tell you, you have me on the edge of my seat with your comments about the horrific truth and how this is a lot worse than we think.
I understand if you can't share your info (or don't have specific details and are just passing on what you DO know) but may I ask, with the information that you have, is your gut instinct that Jessica is at fault in this situation or do you think she will eventually be cleared as you stated in one of your early posts on the first story? Submitted by: Ako
July 26, 2008 Yo Fever: Explain HOW the US team could have put both Kirk and Jackson on the team? Is there some special rule allowing for alternates that is in USA swimmings Trials Rule Book? I am just curious, b/c I had never heard of such a possibility. Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 To be more specific, I of course mean alternates in non-relay events. Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008
Swimm:
From my count 4 men and 8 women out of a roster of 44 swimmers were even competing at NCs (~ 25%). Out of those 12, only 4 that I know of (Walters, Burckle, Magnuson and Smit) won individual events this year (~8%). You'd have an easier time finding swimmers who swam well at NCAAs and did not swim comparably at Trials.
Ako:
I don't know many details, just that there ARE details. And what I do know, I am not at liberty to say (for sure).
I am an advocate for the USA team and their best possible performances at the Olympics in two weeks. My gut reaction is that we will not hear a CAS ruling on Jessica until too late. I do know that until that ruling, no appeal to change the roster will even be heard. I can't really comment on what that ruling would be since it's up to her lawyers to present their case.
Submitted by: SwimMD
July 26, 2008 Sorry, I forgot Soni and Nymyer as individual event winners (how could i?). My point still stands: majority (75%) did not compete at NCAAs this year, let alone compete well. Submitted by: SwimMD
July 26, 2008 SwimMD-
u r very analytical and obviously an advocate for the athlete (in this case Jessica).
just curious....
What does your gut tell you about whether this was intentional or a mistake....
Just remember... 99.9 of people that get caught.. deny.. deny...deny...
oh and BTW... the neg-pos-neg is defintely a supportive argument for the "masking" theory and the most likely scenario i see right now.
Submitted by: Dist Freak
July 26, 2008 SwimMD:
Actually, it is six that I can think of. The people you named plus Nymeyer and Stovall. But that's not exactly the point. I'm trying to say that I doubt many people who competed in NCAAs and made the Olympic team would say they were at a disadvantage at the trials. The people that went to NCAAs and did not make the team (myself included) would not blame it on that meet. I could be wrong of course, I just think that an earlier trials has many more advantages than disadvantages. (i.e. current situation) Submitted by: swimm
July 26, 2008 Also I think if you took out foreign swimmers from NCAAs you might find more names that competed extremely well at both meets. Really I just think something needs to be done, be it faster drug testing procedures, or moving the meet to an earlier date. Surely you can agree with that much of my argument... Submitted by: swimm
July 26, 2008 Dangit I forgot Soni too... how could I? Submitted by: swimm
July 26, 2008 swimm-
i agree... faster tests or move the trials...
always a much heated debate at USAS Conv.
i have alwys thought it should be a cumlative point system similar to the PGA and its World Rankings that determines our Olympic Team. Submitted by: Dist Freak
July 26, 2008 Dist Freak:
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, it would be extremely difficult to mask clen since any amount (.000001mmol/L) in urine will still give a positive test. Unlike testosterone-like compounds which are tolerable to a certain threshold (all humans, male or female have testosterone in their bodies).
I'm not an advocate for Jessica, per se. But I am an advocate for due process. And while I can understand Tara Kirk's frustration, Jessica hasn't been removed from the team until CAS rules (as is her right to a hearing) and so there's no legal claim to the team for those girls as of yet.
I don't think she intentially cheated. However, I think Jessica was extremely stupid for taking supplements against the advice of USA-S (I feel the same about any athlete who does), and if this caused her positive test, she's still responsible and she'll receive punishment for that (we don't need to add to it). Submitted by: SwimMD
July 26, 2008 true SwimMD... not so much a mask per say more of a system clense... which is more likely.
due process is and always will be a double edged sword. I hope it was not intentional, but like a silent majority, will always have doubts.
Submitted by: Dist Freak
July 26, 2008 Dist. Freak, could you please expand on the cumulative point system? Do you mean as alternates to the team? The same system used years ago (I think 1968 was the last time it was used). Submitted by: paddles
July 26, 2008 SwimMD: I concur with you. Except to say that we have to give ALL parties involved proper due process. I guess in this case, the priority attention is be given to the person who placed first, even with the questionable test results.
I wonder, if the governing body that decides the per-nation rule per event at the Games, went ahead and changed, but then only allowed the two best of that particular day at the Games themselves, the US could possibly benefit from getting a very well rounded team and if they did allow this, then I woulld definitely pray they go for an earlier trial. Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 I don't think she intentionally cheated either, since its not like she has already been world class in breast since her WR in '05. I didn't get good look at her on TV coverage for trials, so wondering about the stories I have read about her being incredibly ripped, almost unnaturally for a woman.....just a thought Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 I never realized until nnow that Clen was anything more than a masking agent.....are you suggesting it can quicken the process that eliminates it from the body?
I thought he was referring to a point system similar to Grand Prix series. No? Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 While we can all sit here and say someone who is taking supplements is making a stupid mistake, I wonder, how many of the people who made the team are NOT taking supplements? I'd guess not very many, and I see the pressure to use them to be on an even playing field as being very high. Submitted by: Ako
July 26, 2008 Let me clarify...only let top two per nation into the finals at night at the Games, but allow three to travel and at least swim in prelims Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 Paddles: Can you tell me about this systemyou refer to in '68? Back in the '80's I was ordering back issues of Swimming World, but not sure if I ever got the issue for those trials.....how did they calculate...and was this calculation in replace of an actual trials? Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 Sure. Just as she was only tested after her finals, she could have been tested after the prelims of the 100 free as well. She couldn't know and therefore, and so I think it's unlikely she'd try to "time" her doses so that it's out of her system. Otherwise, why not time them so they'd be out by prelim making finals a non-issue? And while we're on that...she was already on the team for the 100 br. Why even risk an AAF for a relay spot in the 100 free? Nonsensical. She's not the brightest girl, but she's certainly not a moron.
In my opinion it's more likely that a third party was involved than Jessica took something on purpose AT TRIALS when she knew she'd be tested both after her events and possibly randomly. To complicate matters, clenbuterol excreted in urine is only the non-metabolized form. There'd be no way to tell if her sample was tampered with. What they SHOULD do is check her liver tissue. If there is clen there, it signals prolonged use. If not... Submitted by: SwimMD
July 26, 2008 Sorry Ako,
If there were stricter regulations in place, as their should be, it wouldn't be stupid to go against the advice of your own governing body. Until then... Submitted by: SwimMD
July 26, 2008 Question: Since she tested pos only ONCE, are the current rules, that she is off the team in any other events she makes when test comes up neg??? Anyone know?? I know that something happened to a Romanian gymnast in 2000, Andrea Raducan, when she tested pos for some form of ephedrine (?) maybe psuedoephedrine (not sure what exact med was that the tean doc gave her. She won the induvidual all around the day after the pill and lost that medal, but could keep the medals before and/or after this incidence. As in the Team Gold. Submitted by: Park528
July 26, 2008 I was watching her closely on the TV coverage and, while she looked like she's in great shape, she didn't look 'unnaturally ripped' at all. I doubt anybody started saying that until AFTER her test results, and they probably never would have thought it if they didn't hear her test results were what they were. (In other words, it's probably in their heads). Submitted by: Ako
July 26, 2008 All that I remember was that certain individuals scored enough "points" to be named as alternates to the team. What was really weird was that some of these individuals placed no higher than fourth or fifth, but had enough of those placings to score "points" for team placement. Download the 1968 Olympic Trials issue and read through the men's and women's trials and you will see what I mean. This was what I thought Dist. Freak was writing about since this is the only points system I knew of for selecting Olympic teams from when I was a kid. It never made sense to me then OR now. Submitted by: paddles
July 26, 2008 She would be off the team for all events, as well as likely receiving a two-year ban on competition. Submitted by: fever
July 26, 2008 SwimMD, I do get that it's "stupid", in theory, I'm just asking if there is actually anybody on the team that doesn't do the exact same thing? I don't know a single swimmer that doesn't (at least sometimes) take suppliments.
I'm totally with you that it's a WHOLE lot more likely that there is a 3rd party involved than Jessica taking something on purpose at Trials. Like you said, it makes no sense whatsoever.
The question to me is, was the "3rd party" the suppliment company, and the problem a contaminated suppliment that she took at Trials, or did someone dose her on purpose so she'd pop a positive drug test.
I really don't know which I think is more likely... but I really can't believe this topic hasn't been more explored (someone doing this on purpose). Seriously, I can't be the only one who thinks that this is a major possibility. Submitted by: Ako
July 26, 2008 What is it people expect here? A and B samples testing positive mean guilty. Intentional or not, the rule of strict liability means athletes are responsible for what is in their body no matter what. She's going to get banned regardless of whether she took it intentionally or not. Fact is, she did, and she tested positive on A and B samples, and she'll be banned. Submitted by: JeffyFit
July 26, 2008 SwimMD-By "horrific" do you mean.........Cat juggling? OMG! lol
I must say, SwimMD, that you seem to have a bit of a dichotomy in your positions. You talk alot about Jessica's appeal on one hand, and about USA-S protecting themselves from liability by following their own "procedures" on the other.
If you see procedures and self-imposed rules as such a shield, you will have to admit that Jessica has very little appeal. The rules for performance enhancing drugs have nothing to do with culpability. Merely that you have it in your system. So Hardy's only appeal by your standards is that the test was incorrect. You, being a doctor I assume by your monicker, would know that that is unlikely. The tests are pretty incontrovertible as to what was in her system. So, her basis for appeal is almost non-existent.
Beliefs and predictions: Hardy is guilty and intentionally guilty. But no matter, her appeal will not conclude in time or such a way as to get her to swim in the Olympics. I predict 18 month ban, reduced from 2 years because of the supplement defense. Kirk and Jackson will not get on the team because it is too late. They will sue USA-S and will receive an undisclosed settlement, because regardless of whether Swimming would win in court, Swimming does not want a protracted court battle between two wronged lady athletes, very sympathetic individuals, and the faceless NGB. Swimming has been trying to build up its image as a clean sport and fighting about the ramifications of drug cheats is not what they want to focus on, so they will pay money. That is my prediction. Submitted by: fever
July 26, 2008 Ako "everybody does it" is a totally wrong excuse. It is that attitude that causes these kids to get into this kind of mess. They think "everyone does it" gives them an excuse to cheat. If everyone cheated then more swimmers would get the positive test results. They all don't cheat. Submitted by:
July 27, 2008 SwimMD; I was thinking the same thing about the liver biopsy to test for prolonged use from what I've read so far. If negative, then the differential would be narrowed down a bit, though still couldn't completely differentiate between short-term use being intentional/unintentional/sabotage. She could voluntarily have one done to bolster a lawsuit I suppose. But could USA Swimming mandate a liver biopsy under current policy? Given that it's considerably more invasive than simple venipuncture for blood test. Thanks. Submitted by: liquidassets
July 27, 2008 JeffyFit: You're saying that if they could prove that someone intentionally did something to sabotage her, that she's still guilty? Can't imagine that!
SwimMd: IF someone wanted to get this drug into someone else's system, do you know what forms they could have done it in? (i.e. would it have had to be in a liquid or could it have been in her food? Or could it have gotten into her system through skin contact?). Does this drug have any flavor? Submitted by: Ako
July 27, 2008 Yes, Ako, there are people on the team who don't take supplements. Submitted by: Retired
July 27, 2008 Person without a SN: I'm not saying "everybody does it" is an excuse to cheat! And I'm not talking about cheating, I'm talking about taking suppliments that she THOUGHT were legal. My point is that we can sit and judge her decision to take the suppliments as being very stupid, but ALMOST everyone on the team makes that same decision. I am NOT saying they all cheat. And like I've stated numerous times, I do NOT believe that Jessica did any of this on purpose. Submitted by: Ako
July 27, 2008 I don't think anyone is ever going to come forward and say, "Yep, I put something in her drink" so that defense probably won't go anywhere. And from what I have read about how drug tests are done, the athletes seal their own samples which arent broken until at the lab. So any defense she can use will base around not knowing, and strict liability will still nail her. Submitted by: JeffyFit
July 27, 2008 My job is not to come down on either side. I am, by choice and profession, a neutral observer. I have more fun bringing nuances to light than I do screaming "Cheater!!!"
There will definitely be no "settlement" to the other athletes and it seems that your support for Tara Kirk, specifically, is not letting you see the legitimate legal side of USA-S's decision. Just because Tara Kirk is wronged, as you put it, doesn't mean she has a claim. Notice how I am not even saying this is "right" or "wrong." IT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.
And it's silly of you to make a judgment call on Hardy's intentions without a) the facts of the case and b) having ever met her. Don't think what you've read in the news is sufficient information to decide. Either way, it's not for you to decide. Once you accept that, it's easy to be impartial.
Liquidassets: A
bout the liver biopsy: No, I don't think USA-S could mandate a biopsy. In fact, they're to remain relatively uninvolved while until final arbitration (which is why they aren't hearing appeals to the roster) in this situation since it's not their issue now. The doping agencies and CAS are independent agencies for good reason. If Hardy's camp is smart, they'd look into a kidney and liver sample. Chances are if both are negative for clen, she's got a strong case for no previous exposure since there would be some accumulation in one or both organs even after light use.
Fever needs to remember that law is reason free of emotion. And whatever your tie is to Tara Kirk and/or Lara Jackson, they are not even a consideration for USA-S until the CAS ruling is completed. Life isn't fair, but these are the rules that we've created for ourselves in sport. Submitted by: SwimMD
July 27, 2008 Ako, she couldn't think supplements were guaranteed legal! Even if there's nothing explicitly illegal in them, there's always a risk involved. Taking supplements is a dubious way to keep up with "everyone else." I swam my whole career without ever once risking it...although, I never made an Olympic team so maybe I'm the stupid one. Submitted by: SwimMD
July 27, 2008 SwimMD, what did you mean when you posted "the situation is going to get a LOT worse"? I am assuming that if you were not willing to explain, you wouldn't have posted that comment..... Submitted by: anon
July 27, 2008 And ruin all the fun surprises? Not my style. Submitted by: SwimMD
July 27, 2008 Anyone know if there have been any other positive tests from anyone else over the past 12 months? From memory, you are only allowed to have 4 tests during any 12 month floating period. I am assuming that since Jaben was swimming for Israel, he's their problem, not the U.S's. Remember, any and all tests that come back (NCAA, Grand Prix's and such) count against the 4 count, even people that are "no-names" which wouldn't necessarily get reported in the media would be counted. That was something that was talked about in 03-04 with the Kicker story because the US was very close with Vencil, the breastroke girl from Pan-Ams (overturned luckily) and some college guy from a Grand Prix final. Just wondering. Submitted by: rcoach
July 27, 2008 Wow. Just found out. SwimMD is right, you all are going to be shocked when it comes out. Submitted by: fever
July 27, 2008 Fever,
It's going to come out anyway, so what is it that we have to be shocked about?
I would have to say that the only thing that would shock me would be the swim team not competing at all.
Submitted by: Timeless117
July 27, 2008 Fever and SwimMD... Wow, you guys are killing me with all of the suspense. Any ETA of when we'll know all of this shocking information? My mind is spinning with theories that are crazier than I could ever imagine the truth being. Submitted by: Ako
July 27, 2008 Yep... killing everybody I think. Submitted by: swimm
July 27, 2008 Part of the reason we worked so hard on breaking the Jessica Hardy story was to protect the rest of the team from being methodically speculated against. You all know that in this sport, once anyone even hints that you might not be 100 percent legit, you have that linked to you forever. No matter how innocent you are.
So, until and unless we hear something legit about this newest rumor, I'm closing comment on this discussion. If it is just a rumor, it is not fair to the people involved unless something concrete comes of it.
If you have anything specific to tell me, please contact me at jasonm@swimmingworldmagazine.com. Submitted by: Jason Marsteller
July 28, 2008 USA Swimming is forbidden by law (Amateur Sports Act of 1978) from commenting on this issue. The athlete and/ or his/ her representatives have no such restrictions. As a veteran of the Angel Myers situation, I can tell you this is probably going to get drawn out with lawyers, charge and countercharges and at some pont a "crack" investigative journalist will get involved.
If you remember USS tried to quietly get Jill Sterkel and Janel Jorgensen back in the water on the QT after the '88 Trials. It was felt that waiting for a final outcome of the Myers situation would have put Jill and Janel in a horribly unfair position. The QT lasted about 36 hours before somebody spilled the beans. To have put Kirk and Jackson on the team before this story broke would have been the same as announcing it to the world. Submitted by: pastprime
July 28, 2008 I've spoken to a USA Swimming official, who has confirmed that no other A sample has tested positive and the rest of the team is clean.
This should clear up any of the rumors going around about possible surprises from the standpoint of drug use. Whether the rumored surprises are from something else, I do not know.
I am reopening this thread for comment, but will not approve anything rumoring about the current team regarding drugs or doping. Submitted by: Jason Marsteller
July 28, 2008 Thank you Jason. All this deep-throat malarkey from anonymous posters is so freaking tacky. Have a little pride people. Submitted by: Michelle
July 28, 2008 Muahahahaha! As I told Jason, I had no "secret" information, was just pulling SwimMd's chain.
In all seriousness, though, I still believe that USA Swimming did not put enough thought into what should be done for "all" the swimmers, instead of for their image. Submitted by: fever
July 28, 2008 Out of curiosity, were any swimmers who did NOT make the team randomly (or not so randomly) drug tested?
This has nothing to do with supposed rumors, I'm just curious if they do that. Submitted by: Ako
July 28, 2008 The short answer, Ako, is yes. Submitted by: Retired
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
|
Free Download:
|
Adobe Reader
Real
Player
Windows
Media Player
Silverlight
Media Player
Flash
Media Player
Power
Point Viewer
Word
Viewer
Zip Extractor
