PHOENIX, Arizona, July 2. SWIMMING World has learned that the International Swimming Federation (FINA) has backed out of its appeal of Jessica Hardy's doping suspension reduction.
Originally, both FINA and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) appealed the American Arbitration Association's decision to reduce Hardy's suspension to one year from two years due to what the AAA deemed was a positive test derived from a tainted supplement.
At the time of its initial ruling, the AAA stated that it would keep open the possibility of a six-month suspension in case the International Olympic Committee did not waive the implementation of an amendment to its Rule 45 governing the eligibility of athletes to complete in the Olympics. The new amendment, enacted shortly before Hardy's positive test, stated that anyone suspended for more than six months due to a doping violation would automatically be banned from competing at the Olympics following the suspension.
The AAA, however, has taken the six-month suspension reduction off the table and finalized its ruling stating that Hardy only has to serve a one-year suspension that concludes at the end of July.
Upon the AAA's finalization of its decision, FINA dropped its appeal. FINA has plenty of other issues to deal with as the swimsuit controversy continues to boil.
WADA, however, is appealing any deviance from a two-year ban for doping to buttress its "strict liability" standard that athletes are 100 percent responsible for any substance that enters their bodies regardless of intent.
A showdown on the implementation of IOC Rule 45 amendment still looms on the horizon with initial hearing dates expected by the end of this year right around the time of the FINA World Cup, which is likely the first international competition that will feature Hardy's return to the pool.
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.
July 2, 2009 So as of now, she's still out of London contention and her dad's friends at the committee can't move it to six months? Cool.
Submitted by: jeffyFit
July 2, 2009 I don't think it's cool. If she is innocent, and there seems to be substantial evidence to that effect, then it is NOT cool to condemn somebody without cause and see them be punished.
Jessica, keep strong and don't allow your dreams to be quashed by baseless haters.
Remember, everybody gets their just desserts. Submitted by: mario2007
July 3, 2009 One more reason to hate FINA. As if missing one Olympics wasn't punishment enough! Submitted by: Priyant
July 3, 2009 Right on mario. If Hardy's positive test was caused by a contaminated suppliment, as an idependent arbitrtion panel found, other than being unlucky, how is she any different, morally, than the great majority of other top swimmers who, it is well known, take nutrional supplements (legally if they're not contaminated)? It's like two people looking for gold nuggests in a field during a thunderstorm. One finds gold, becomes rich and is praised for the accomplishment. The other gets struck by lightning, is punished and gets criticized for being so stupid as to take such a risk. Hardy lost at least 3 Olympic medals because she was unlucky, not because she intentialy did anything wrong. You go girl. Submitted by: swimray
July 3, 2009 Two words: Strict Liability.
She can cry herself to sleep, say how "wrong" it is, blah blah blah. Bottom line is she only has herself to blame. Submitted by: JeffyFit
July 3, 2009 JeffyFit,
That's really over the top. Not only do you like the fact that she got punished by missing Beijing for making an error that could have happened to anyone, you would like to keep punishing her 4 years into the future. All I have to say is, he who shows no mercy will himself be shown no mercy.
I have two word in return: witch hunt.
...although there is a legal term for this which escapes me.
Submitted by: mario2007
July 3, 2009 People always promote the use of hard and fast rules when it comes to implementation. But no one likes follow through. Why not?
The rule is strict liability. It is advertised ad naseum that you use supplements AT YOUR OWN RISK. I'm with the Gary Hall Jr. train of thought. If you test positive for performance enhancing drugs, you deserve a lifetime ban.
The bottom line is she admits to taking these supplements a long time. How long was she benefiting from them but not getting caught, even if she didn't know she was getting the boost? How many other athletes did she rob in that way? How much prize money did she get and other athletes didn't?
Strict Liability. A ban for any reason should mean a lifetime expulsion. Submitted by: JeffyFit
July 4, 2009 Right on JeffyFit! Submitted by: swimgeek
July 4, 2009 Right on JeffyFit! Submitted by: swimgeek
July 4, 2009 Why don't we treat those who accidental kill someone the same as we do serial killers? Because most of us think the punishment should fit the crime. Hardy WAS subject to strict liability -- she was banned for a year, and missed the Olympics, simply because she tested positive for a banned substance. The rules, however, allow for different suspension periods depending on the circumstances. What sense does it make for someone who takes a contamninated supplement (despite assurances of its purity) to get the same punishment as someone who intentionally injects themselves with a steroid? There's no reason to think Hardy was exposed to the contaminated supplement more than once -- according to the arbitration panel (read the decision), she tested clean 10 or more times during the year that she took the supplement, and she tested clean just days before testing positive. So, it's demonstrably false to conclude that she got an unfair advantage over anyone at any time. The nature of supplement contamination is that it's random and unpredictable, which is exactly the risk that athletes take when using supplements. Hardy took that risk, like many others, and paid the price, like few others. Cut her some slack. Submitted by: swimray
July 4, 2009 Ditto, swimray.
Let the punishment fit the crime. Furthermore, I don't buy that she could have been benefiting from such supplements for too long as there is out of competition testing.
To impose the death penalty on petty crime doesn't make you draconian, it makes you vicious. Stupid at the very least. Submitted by: mario2007
July 4, 2009 Big differents in knowingly taking a banned drug and injecting it and buying something over the counter with people saying its clean. Really, our government should come down hard on all supplement companies that knowingly put banned products into their products. Submitted by: speedboat1990
July 4, 2009 One final thought for JeffyFit and company.
You said that "...I'm with the Gary Hall Jr. train of thought."
Oh, you mean the "we will smash them (the Australians) like guitars" Gary Hall Jr? Right, cause that worked out particularly well for him.
Of course, Alain Bernard didn't get the message either. Arrogance has its own built-in payback, and you know what they say about payback. Submitted by: mario2007
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.
|
Subscribe Now!
|
