Updated May 29 afternoon
LAUSANNE, Switzerland, May 29. WHILE Jessica Hardy may have won the first step in getting her career back on track with a suspension reduction, she still faces some obstacles as FINA and WADA have joined forces to fight the American Arbitration Association's decision to reduce Hardy's suspension.
In a press release distributed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, FINA and WADA, the organization stated that "Both the International Swimming Federation (FINA) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have filed appeals at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against a decision of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) dated 2 and 4 May 2009 in which the US swimmer Jessica Hardy was declared ineligible for a maximum period of one year, provided that the athlete's qualification for the 2012 Olympic Games would not be barred by the IOC's application of Rule 45 of the Olympic Charter (ineligibility for the next Games of a person having been declared ineligible for more than six months)."
The release went on to say that the appeals request that Hardy's suspension be moved back to a period of two years.
Hardy's attorney Howard Jacobs responded with the following statement:
"As neither Jessica Hardy nor myself have received the Statements of Appeal filed by FINA and WADA, we do not yet know on what possible basis the appeal has been filed. While Jessica is obviously disappointed by this development, she takes comfort in the fact that her case was already heard over a period of many days by a very experienced panel of CAS arbitrators in the United States, who considered all of the evidence and came to a just and well reasoned decision. We are confident that when the same facts are presented to a different Panel of CAS arbitrators, they will agree that the first case was decided correctly.
In addition, we note that both WADA and FINA have requested the entire case file from USADA. We hope that after these institutions have had an opportunity to actually review the facts of the case, they will both agree that the decision of the first panel of CAS arbitrators in the United States was both just and well reasoned, and will dismiss the appeals that they have filed.
Jessica Hardy has already endured 10 months of torment and heartache, which included missing the 2008 Olympic Games, as a result of a positive test which was determined by the first panel of CAS arbitrators to have been caused by a contaminated supplement. She looks forward to returning to competition at the end of her suspension."
Just as a reminder, AdvoCare and Hardy still have pending lawsuits regarding the AAA-deemed contaminated supplement issue. From a legal standpoint, this issue has yet to be resolved.
Search For More News About: Jessica Hardy
Reaction Time Comments
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.
May 29, 2009 What do you think the current swimsuit situation would look like if the no-nonsense, "don't give an inch" WADA people were in charge of allowable swimsuits? Submitted by: SilverMedalMel
May 29, 2009 This is fantastic news. The AAA had no place to make a decision on what should be an international call anyway, and it's nice to see WADA realizes what "STRICT LIABILITY" really means. Submitted by: jeffyfit
May 31, 2009 But there was NO intention to dope. That shouuld change things ALOT, and it would seem severely unfair for Jess to be punished for the maximum two years when throughout swim history people have been given reduced sentences under similar circumstances - i.e. Sam Riley also a fellow breast sprinter, and let's not forget one Ous Mellouli. I think it's stupid for the sport to play the 'objective' card, when it's clearly been subjective all this time. Submitted by: Priyant
May 31, 2009 But there was NO intention to dope. That shouuld change things ALOT, and it would seem severely unfair for Jess to be punished for the maximum two years when throughout swim history people have been given reduced sentences under similar circumstances - i.e. Sam Riley also a fellow breast sprinter, and let's not forget one Ous Mellouli. I think it's stupid for the sport to play the 'objective' card, when it's clearly been subjective all this time. Submitted by: Priyant
May 31, 2009 The issue isn't strict liability, it's fairness. Missing the Olympics and a one year suspension uphold the principle of strict liability. The rules provide for reduced suspensions under appropriate considtions and this certainly seems to be one. To suggest that someone who inadvertently takes a tainted supplement should serve the same 2-year suspension as someone who intentionally dopes is absurd. Submitted by: swimray
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.
|
Photo By: Peter H. Bick
Subscribe Now!
|
