With all the arguments over whether "speculation" is appropriate or not, I would like to raise an issue that I have not seen anyone else comment on: (It will please some of you to know that all of the following questions are raised on what everyone will agree are facts.) 1. How is it that an athlete can test positive FOUR TIMES in one season, and not be taken out of competition? Indeed, How can an athlete NOT BE TAKEN OUT of the Olympics? Is this made possible by the USATF rule that an athlete is presumed innocent until they have exhausted all possibilities for appeal? The way that I understand it is that Hunter tested positive for nandro' four times ... the first time in July (I think). He removed himself (supposedly, of course), due to a knee problem. 2. How long would he have been given to compete before he might be "proven" a drug test positive? Could he have kept going until next year? This much leeway (to prove yourself innocent) is wrong. They did not have one test (where he could have said they mixed the samples, or someone spiked them), they had FOUR positive tests. There was ADEQUATE time before the Games (arguably the most important competition of the year for Hunter) to resolve the positive tests and declare him "cleared" or suspended. Instead, the various powers that be stalled and covered and hushed the matter for as long as they could. Until the IAAF had reasons to expose it. For those of you who still labor under illusion that "(Flo-Jo, Donovan Bailey, Javier Soto', Marion Jones, Insert your favorite athlete) HAS GOT TO BE clean ... because they are tested ... we have a testing program that would catch them if they were using." look at this as an example of how impossible that is right now. Yes, the "testing program" caught an athlete who tested positive (several times!) .... but it is three months later and this athlete is still eligible to compete. The tests we have are "good" enough (sensitive enough) to detect the substances .... it is the "process" of determining whether to suspend that is completely out of control. THAT IS WRONG. SIDE NOTE: In professional cycling the riders are tested before every major event and those with a hematocrit above 50% are given a two-week "health suspension" ... the results of which are given to them in a matter of hours. No ifs, ands, or BUTT MUSCLE pulls. You are on the sidelines for two-weeks. To let your "unnaturally high" hematocrit return to "normal" (actually 49%!). The riders all carry mobile blood testing equipment around the globe with them while competing, to ensure their hematocrit stays up around the barely legal 49%. As many on the board have commented about track ... only the stupid ones get popped. We need to develop a direct, above board, out-in-the-open testing process that would be able to remove a lot of the speculation that is fueled by the ridiculous PR exercise that is in place now. P.S. How many EPO positives were there in Sydney? Do you think that the "testing" scared the users into NOT USING for a month or so? Or, are you of the opinion that nobody in track and field (or rowing, swimming, and cycling) ever was using the stuff? The answer is neither of those things. Brian McEwen US citizen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
