Swimming Blogs - Chris DeSantis


« older | newer »

Thinking of Tara, Lara

Chris DeSantis | Profile
July 24, 2008

Yesterday the news dropped into the American swimming community like a megaton bomb: Jessica Hardy had tested positive for a banned substance and been removed from the Olympic squad. In following the discussion over the past twenty four hours, a lot of it has focused on what she tested positive for, discussions whether she is guilty, and the possibility of replacement swimmers. It is the last topic I wish to address, one which I think is the most egregious part of this.

When Jessica Hardy competed at our Olympic trials aided by a banned substance, she prevented two swimmers from making the Olympic team, Tara Kirk and Lara Jackson. For Kirk, one of the premier 100 breaststrokers in the world who had been training well beyond her college graduation for this opportunity, the loss by a mere 1/100th may have been a career-ender. Her coach, Lea Maurer, addressed the possibility in an interview that never made it to the site. At the time it struck me as incredibly sad that a single race in Omaha could be the end of the a swimmers career. Tara had swum a poor 100 breaststroke for her, a second off her best, and been left on the team. True, she still had the 200 breaststroke remaining, but she swam well off her best in that event and appeared to be mentally through for the meet.

I can't imagine how Tara is dealing with the news today. To know that her crushing loss came at the hands of someone that has now been found guilty of cheating makes it all the worse. Perhaps the person who can come closest to knowing how she feels is Lara Jackson, the third place finisher again by mere hundredths in the 50 free. Lara may not have been considered a favorite to make the team like Kirk, but she was certainly a contender and had swum much faster than her final time in the heats. In Beijing she would also be in the mix for medals.

Alas it seems like there are some draconian rules in place to prevent this from happening. We are being told that it is past the deadline to add any swimmers to the Olympic roster. There appears to be no recourse outside of adding the late addition Kara Lynn Joyce in the 50 and the 200 qualifier Rebecca Soni in the 100 breaststroke. Two fine representatives to be sure but not the rightful replacements.

Swimming has had its fair share of drug scandals, each with its career-crushing victim. Rick DeMont's gold medal stolen by lack of documentation in 1972, Michelle Smith's too good to be true 1996 games, and the infamous GDR and Chinese squads. Today Jessica Hardy added another chapter to that book. For Jackson and Kirk, I'm sure its a chapter they'd rather not be a part of.



Post a Comment

Enter Your Name

or Login Here
Please enter this code to post comment. Login to skip Captcha.
captcha img
#36
David Toffaletti   August 9, 2008 at 3:13pm
To the officials of an event as large as the Olympics a positive test is and should be considered a "guilty until proven innocent" situation for reasons I think we can all understand. But to the rest of the world, I think her vocal and official appeals for innocence should not go unnoticed. There very well could have been a foul up which an expeditious investigation could uncover. Other than an official investigation, I think it would be very hard for Jessica Hardy to disprove what the A and B samples produced. Naturally, that could take a while and there was no way it could have been done by Olympic opening ceremonies time, but for closure on the subject I think it is important (especially to find out why it took so long for results to come back). I was never disagreeing that advocating for Tara was a rightful thing. I was arguing that immediately calling Hardy a cheat was irresponsible.
reply  
#35
Ponce DL   August 2, 2008 at 12:30am
What about the negatives? Are they not considered at all with the positives? Something seems messed up and backwards.

I think the other swimmers should have been placed on the team as at least alternates. Something, anything.
All three were not treated properly regardless of what really may have taken place.
reply  
#34
Chris DeSantis   August 1, 2008 at 11:49pm
David,

This is not akin to exit polling. Although you may be judging this event as a innocent until proven guilty circumstance, in fact a positive test on A and B samples is a guilty until proven innocent situation. She has an appeal but she is considered guilty until she can possibly disprove the results in that appeal. Since she has been separated from the rest of the Olympic squad, I hardly find advocating for the swimmers that should rightfully replace her hasty. Thanks for the response!
reply  
#33
Gerry Lazo   July 26, 2008 at 11:27pm
This was improperly handled. From the start. Why? The trials were creating a cluster*%&$ just because of when they were held. Why?

$N$B$C$
Obviously US Swimming got the trials date shoved down their throat. I doubt that they think too much about the great exposure now since it pushed them against the wall and forced them into making hasty decisions.
Fear, panic, and then denial. They mucked it up. Now they have to figure out how to clean up this mess and prevent future debacles.
reply  
#32
David Toffaletti   July 26, 2008 at 9:54pm
I find this article disgustingly hasty and irresponsible. A day after the news drops you are already definitively declaring Hardy as a cheat?? What kind of "journalism" is that? A drug test is by no means a definite and conclusive indicator of foul play. Yes, it sets off all kinds of red alarms for good reason, but there have been mishandlings/screw-ups in the past. I'm standing on the fence for this one, waiting to hear what is REALLY going on before I make my judgements, not shooting off my mouth at the first report of doping. That's kind of like calling who wins a presidential race during exit-polling...
reply  
#31
Anonymous Coward   July 26, 2008 at 5:24am
It just gets better and better. The deadline for entries was not the 21st july but the 23rd july. Does Amanda weir have a case gere too?
reply  
#30
Aimee   July 26, 2008 at 5:08am
I dont understand why the US had their trials late. We had ours in Late April (Britain) Im sure Australia had theirs before, France (may) Italy used the Euro championships and thier own nationals a few weeks later (April). Anyway Lara and Tara have lost out but Kara is the lucky one
reply  
#29
GB   July 26, 2008 at 5:05am
Sorry the way i wrote that was wrong. When i met her i never would have put her down as a cheat. However it is now obvious she is a cheat.
reply  
#28
Alex H   July 25, 2008 at 7:03pm
Well i think the reasoning behind having the trials so close is to get swimmer who are on form. Allot can happen in 3-4 months. Not so much in 1.
reply  
#27
Chong   July 25, 2008 at 4:02pm
Chris, well written, "Two fine representatives to be sure but not the rightful replacements." This is a sad episode for USA Swimming.
reply  
#26
Luis Munez Rivera   July 25, 2008 at 3:32pm
incredible! A LOT of people that the swimmers trust are screwing up...BIG TIME
reply  
#25
Kyle Morrison   July 25, 2008 at 2:01pm
paul

you simply wouldnt bring in the 3rd overall swimmer if a team member got hurt... do what they are probably gonna do here (unless what tara kirk said is gonna happen) and put in a capable sub already on the team... OR encourage the number 3 qualifiers to keep on training until the roster has to be submitted... or just dont replace them...
australia had 3 or 4 months (im not exactly sure) between trials and the olympics this year, the USA had 1 month... this has to change... i dont see why we have to wait so long, this would resolve issues a lot easier
think about this, if the USA had trials in early april and the drug tests were back in late april, then that would STILL allow a 2 month window for the number 3 swimmer (if a replacement is needed and they go with the 3rd qualifier) to build back up and taper after being named to the team as a replacement...
reply  
#24
Paul Wolf   July 25, 2008 at 1:30pm
Kyle,

I agree with you but the facts are that there was only a 3 week window between the end of Trials and submitting the roster. This needs to change to a minimum of late-May for 2012. And even then that leaves a very short period of time for a taper. But it also leaves a large gap between the training of the team members and those who didn't qualify. What happens if in early July, a swimmer gets injured? Sure, you can bring in the #3 qualifier but what if that #3 hasn't been training since Trials? It's a huge can of worms. Leave enough time between Trials and Olympics for a taper and you risk losing someone and not having a capable sub. If you don't leave enough time (which apparently happened here), you have capable subs but you can't add them to the roster. Personally, I think finalizing the roster 2 weeks before is too much time. What's wrong with a week before?
reply  
#23
Anonymous Coward   July 25, 2008 at 1:07pm
in my opinion, i think the US will be better off having soni do the 100 breast at the Olympics instead of having kirk do it(even though thats not possible anymore) I feel like Soni will swim faster anyway. To be honest, I'm getting sick of hearing about poor tara and poor lara....I think the bigger issue is the reputation of US swimming after this incident. We were going in the right direction...now what?
reply  
#22
Kyle Morrison   July 25, 2008 at 12:41pm
no, the july 21st deadline is NOT the problem with this, its the date that trials were set at... think about it, im pretty sure that we were the last country to hold trials, and if we held them about a month or two earlier, like EVERY OTHER COUNTRY did, not only would we have the test results back in time, but we would ALSO have time to FULLY build back up and taper again, which would mean improved performance at the olympics...
reply  
#21
Chris DeSantis   July 25, 2008 at 11:57am
#20
Monkey   July 25, 2008 at 9:07am
USA Swim needs to rethink things, the issue of replacing a swimmer and length of time in getting test results seems to be very poorly planned considering this is the Olympics they are dealing with.
reply  
#19
Paul Wolf   July 25, 2008 at 8:27am
Erik,

I find the agruement that 'had no idea there was a difference in ingredients' as an valid reason a poor one. Athletes competing at the national and international level have a clear responsibility to ensure that they are not ingesting substances that are on the banned list. The list is clear and available to all athletes. If an athlete is not 100% sure of what is in a supplement/drug/etc, then they should not take it. Yes, that seems overly simplistic but that is one of the consequences of wanting to compete at that level.
reply  
#18
Paul Wolf   July 25, 2008 at 8:20am
GB, you might want to consider hiring your services out to WADA if you possess the ability to identify cheating by sight. I am quite sure they could use you, if you do possess that ability.

As for prelim swim times counting towards final determination of team members, I disagree. The Olympic swimming format is not timed finals, it is prelim, semi, finals so trials need to mimick that to try and find not only the fastest swimmers but the ones who can perfom under those same conditions.
reply  
#17
Paul Wolf   July 25, 2008 at 8:15am
This issue is a 2 part failure, in my eyes.

Part 1 was a failure on the part of the swimmer. IF she took a banned substance then she deserves to be removed from the team.
Part 2 was a failure on the part of USA-S and USADA. These folks are supposed to be on top of all aspects and requirements. Why did it take over 2 weeks for the results to become known? Assuming that the sample was taken between 1 July and 6 July, that leaves a time frame of between 15-20 days for the required tests to be run and results verified, with a cut off date of 21 July for submitting the official roster, I would think that a sense of urgency would exist to ensure that ALL tests were conducted and verified just in case there were issues and changes to the roster were needed. This isn't the 50s where information travels slowly, it's the 21st century of cell phones, instant messaging etc.
It's the part 2 failure that I am most upset about. While the potential actions of one swimmer has deeply harmed two other swimmers, the perceived inactions and/or extremely slow response of 2 entire organizations has near ensured that there is no possible redress to those two swimmers. And that is the most tragic point of this entire affair.
reply  
#16
Chris DeSantis   July 25, 2008 at 7:12am
JK thanks, I have corrected the DeMont date. It is my understanding that Hardy has been sent home and is off the team pending appeal. I'm not a legal expert but even if her use of clen is unintentional I think her ban would stand unless they can prove that the testers mishandled the sample somehow.
reply  
#15
..m..   July 25, 2008 at 7:07am
how was she obviously a cheat? just the way she looked?
reply  
#14
GB   July 25, 2008 at 3:33am
Oh heres a suggestion why didnt the US have their trilas in April time like the rest of the world. Then there would have been plenty of time for replacements etc. poor Tara and LARA. I met Jessica Hardy at short course worlds she was loveley but obviously a cheat
reply  
#13
Robert Killeen   July 24, 2008 at 11:16pm
Intent is irrelevant in so far as it has less than zero relevance under the rule. If Clen was in her system above the minimum level, JH will not be allowed to swim. Her negative, positive and negative testing is identical to Floyd Landis. If the testing was administered properly, it is similar to strict liability in civil litigation-the drug is found, the rule is enforced regardless of the explanation. The major losers in my opinion are Lara Jackson and Tara Kirk, who unless the arbitration hearing overturns the A & B positives tests, were denied their rightful place on this Olympic team.
reply  
#12
Marc Schubert   July 24, 2008 at 11:05pm
I get paid $100,000s and I don't have to coordinate getting drug tests back/final testing of A and B samples done before a final team must be submitted and/or having third place finishers potentially invited to the camp. As for prelim swims counting for making the team, that may be the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard-why not just eliminate the trials all together? Let me pick the team like gymnastics......
MS
reply  
#11
Jk   July 24, 2008 at 10:38pm
FYI - I think Rick Demont had his gold medal taken from him for the 1972 Games in Munich, not the '76 Games in Montreal. Thanks for your insights.
reply  
#10
Chris DeSantis   July 24, 2008 at 9:28pm
Erik and Michael,

Very spirited debate. Try to refrain from ad hominem and just make your arguments.
reply  
#9
Erik Doran   July 24, 2008 at 9:00pm
Michael,

If you read what I wrote you would have noted that I wasn't using the nature of the drug to defend her, but using it to point out that its nature leads to questions as to whether she took it on purpose. Just like Andrew Bree tested positive when he was not in the wrong and that was proven in court, a similar situation could have happened with her. I was simply pointing out the nature of the drug supported my argument that we should not be so quick to pass judgment, when we don't know the whole story of what was going on and that there may be another explanation. Sure, that's unlikely, but history has quite clearly shown that this is a definite possibility.
Oh, and luckily I don't need Wikipedia to know about beta2 receptor agonists and sorry for sharing, I know information sucks in forming an argument/opinion.
reply  
#8
AsIsithomeandthink   July 24, 2008 at 8:50pm
Chris--
So, Hardy is officially off the team? What about her appeal?

I've heard so much mixed media and speculation- a few facts would do me good.
reply  
#7
Debate   July 24, 2008 at 8:29pm
Chris,
Your mention of Soni, in particular, as a “fine representative to be sure but not the rightful replacement” is well taken. However, as this incident brings up an issue in our sport that is touchy to say the least and I believe that your statement is flawed.

In prelims of the women’s 100 breast, the top qualifier was Hardy at 1:06.85, followed by Soni at 1:06.90, third was Jendrick at 1:07.06, and Kirk was forth at 1:07.86.
Semis paned out like this: Soni 1:06.87, Jendrick 1:07.17, Kirk 1:07.19, Hardy (5th) 1:08.18.
Finals – Hardy 1:06.87, Jendrick 1:07.50, Kirk 1:07.51, Soni 1:07.80.
Why I am pointing out something that everyone already knows? Out of all three sessions the top two times were Hardy at 1:06.85 (prelims) and Soni at 1:06.87 (semis). I believe in, and promote, fast swimming and I believe that we should send the best Olympic Team we can. It is because of this that I believe that the top two fastest times should count no matter what the session. However, I do realize that it is the thrill of Olympic trial finals that is one of the great climaxes in our sport and perhaps (this year more than ever) has drawn swimming closer to the doorstep of challenging the most popular of all sports.
I bring this point up, not only because it is a debated topic among swimmers and coaches, but because it directly relates to your comment stated above. This along with the rule of not adding members to the team after July 21st should be equally debated. And, if not, why should one rule be considered to be changed and not both? Both seem very idiotic and should be changed. If they were changed, Rebecca Soni would be swimming the 100 breast at the Olympics, not Tara Kirk. This is why Soni is the “rightful replacement” – she left trials with the second fastest time of the meet.
And by no means am I making this a personal attack. I agree with your statements and this July 21st deadline is nonsense. Your contributions the swimming community have been saintly, to say the least, and continue to work your magic on Floswimming.
reply  
#6
Michael Kinross   July 24, 2008 at 7:13pm
Erik,

It doesn't matter what she took, she still was attempting to take a substance to help her performance that is banned. So it doesn't matter if according to you it wouldn't help her, she still took something. Keep your Wikipedia information or wherever it was copied from to yourself and face the real problem: this incident is going to portray our sport in a negative light, something that it doesn't need. We can not have our integrity questioned if we want to make swimming into something other then an every 4 year sport. There are already questions about Dara Torres (though none have been proven true), and she is one of the top stories of the Olympics.
I don't mean to be rude, but nothing can change the results, she is off, and as Chris has already said, two top notch, clean, American swimmers have had their shots at Olympic medals taken away by a cheater.
reply  
#5
Erik Doran   July 24, 2008 at 6:54pm
Chris,

Yeah but Clenbuterol is typically used by athletes to increase the free fat mass to fat mass ratio, something that wouldn't really be good for a swimmer, in that one typically doesn't want to be under 6% body fat in this sport and she has always appeared fit to me. Its half life is also much longer than Ephedrine and Albuterol (drugs used for the same reasons as Clenbuterol). Also, Clenbuterol reduces exercise cardiovascular performance and enlarges the heart, so I don't really see why she would risk everything to take a drug that may not be all that beneficial. And a positive test is not always conclusive, i.e. Andrew Bree of Ireland taking an OTC in Europe that he knew was fine to take in the US, but had no idea there was a difference in ingredients. So while I do see where you are coming from and would normally agree with you, I just don't think its time to make such harsh statements, until we know all the circumstances and her side.
reply  
#4
Tara Kirk Fan   July 24, 2008 at 6:52pm
I am utterly shocked that this has happened in US swimming.
My heart goes out to Tara and Lara. I am anxious to hear USA swimming's response to this and their explanation on missing the alternate entry date.
reply  
#3
Chris DeSantis   July 24, 2008 at 6:10pm
Erik,

A positive test is very conclusive in our sport. Clenbuterol has a short enough half life that it can be undetectable 36 hours after use. That makes it pretty easy to have a negative-positive-negative.
reply  
#2
Anonymous Coward   July 24, 2008 at 6:07pm
it is absolutely absurd that these test results were not available until July 23rd, when the deadline to add new swimmers to the roster had already passed on the 21st

how can anyone justify clean athletes being robbed of their chance to compete because of a 3-week time period to get these test results from trials?
reply  
#1
Erik Doran   July 24, 2008 at 6:05pm
I think its too early to say that she knowingly cheated and way to early to go so far as to condemn her for the third place finishings of Tara and Lara. The fact that she had one positive test sandwiched in between two negative tests just days apart is really peculiar. Furthermore, that the drug detected is clenbuterol is odd in that its used in inhalers for asthmatics and sometimes by bodybuilders seeking to lose weight, not something that would necessarily help in swimming. I think these points leave uncertainties that need to be answered before we start judging and condemning.
reply  

No Tags Yet.


3.5/5 (13 votes cast)

Archive
 


Official Bloggers
Baseheart, Joshua
Brammer, Chris
Brunson, Chris
Coach, Mrs.
From Flotrack, Mark
Grace, Jeff
Grose, Darren
Gustafson, Mike
Guthrie, David
Hawke, Brett
McCrary, Christopher
Roberts, Jon
Staley, Trent
Townsend, Darian