Jessica Hardy tested "barely positive" on July 4th, or two-whole-weeks before USA Swimming had to declare their team to the IOC.In project management textbooks words and concepts like "deliverables" and "milestones" are defined and are recommended to be acknowledged or signed off in some way.
I don't know for certain but one would think that USADA and USA Swimming were talking to each other once the initial findings were known yet no "Plan B" was in place to replace an athlete if a second test came back positive. Why? Especially if you had a deadline to declare a team to the IOC within two weeks.
Who is the genius that screwed that up?
Perhaps a two week warning notice for USA Swimming was not enough time which then raises the question that perhaps Olympic Trials were held too late in the year. If that is the case, why would they play "chicken" with such a deadline?
Consequently, due to their seemingly incompetent management or their presumption that all USA Swimming athletes would test negative, there are two athletes sitting at home right now, Tara Kirk and Lara Jackson, who legally, honestly and ethically deserved to be in Beijing in two weeks but it is looking like they won't be.
This is a serious screw-up on the part of USA Swimming and they need to take responsibility. How will they rectify this for these two swimmers?
From the New York Times: "... A person close to Hardy, who requested anonymity because he did not have all the details of the results, said he was told that she tested “barely positive” on July 4. That was the night Hardy placed fourth in the 100-meter freestyle to earn a relay spot.
The positive test, the person said, was sandwiched between negative test results on July 1, after Hardy’s victory in the 100 breaststroke, and on July 6, after she finished second in the 50 freestyle behind Dara Torres. [Link]
10 comments:
this is wrong, the sample was taken on the 4th, that doesn't mean the specimen was examined on that day....
The key quote is "...The positive test, the person said, was sandwiched between negative test results on July 1, after Hardy’s victory in the 100 breaststroke, and on July 6, after she finished second in the 50 freestyle behind..."
The 4th is technically wrong but it was between 7/1/2008 and 7/6/2008.
Ultimately
all it is saying is that the sample was COLLECTED on that day, USA swimming didn't know she'd failed the test until much later, which is the point of my original post.
Clearly USA Swimming has screwed the pooch again. While the results may not have been known immediately, it is known that USADA and USA Swimming had the results well before the deadline to submit the roster. Mark Schubert was having meetings with Jessica Hardy before the deadline. Lara Jackson and Tara Kirk are getting the shaft from USA Swimming.
no worries James, I just read it differently - let's say USADA tested on the 20th. USASjavascript:void(0)
Publish Your Comment screwed up by not having their ducks in a row to ensure enough time to do their team right witht eh correct team members.
If they did test on the 4th, then it really is the same issue. They did not do the team right.
SWIM COACH! Yes they did. They so screwed up, so completely and so thoroughly that those responsible should be fired and/or sued.
If you are an USAS executive, your job is to put together a team that is fast, that is clean, and is set in place before the IOC deadline.
If anyone of us failed in our jobs like they failed in theirs, we would be fired and they should too.
Tony -- This is a little off-topic, but as much as I enjoy your blog I'm getting a little tired of hearing Mel Stewart's voice every time I open it up. Any chance you can make it so that that video doesn't automatically run every time I check in? (Or is that just my computer?)
Maybe I should delete it? Swim Network can't do embedding right. I hate that too.
Hmm, If I make 8 more post it will be bumped off the page. I find some cool stuff tonight and get it bump off.
hang in there
No, it's on my computer too. I keep forgetting to remind Tony about the autostart.
Did you see this article about the response from Kirk? This has to be heartbreaking for her.
Post a Comment