Maybe my memory is faulty, but I seem to recall USATF announcing something on this just a couple of weeks ago- something to the effect that the penalty for ephedrine is less than most other doping drugs, so Heard was given a one-meet suspension (applied retroactively to the meet where he was "caught") and a warning. Apparently this is consistent with punishments for ephedrine that all federations adhere to (?). However, by not announcing this until AFTER the Sydney Games, it just gave more ammunition to the Merodes and Pounds of the world to 'blast away' that there are "current positives out there" that the U.S. is covering up. If you put two-and-two together, combine the Heard case with the announcement by Masback that 'nobody with a pending positive was competing in Sydney' (and assume that Craig was telling the truth), then it means that the Heard case was already abjudicated BEFORE the Sydney Games began, because there was no longer anything 'pending' about it. So why wasn't it announced, so as to keep the naysayers at bay? Maybe hindsight is 300% better than foresight.... Or it was perhaps the old 'marketing 101 rule' to delay any negative press releases if the news is on the eve of the big marketing event...which would be one more case of conflict of interest between those responsible to police the sport being the same people who are supposed to market the sport... If I'm getting the Heard case mixed up with another case, by all means somebody set us straight on the facts. RT On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 17:29:50 -0400, you wrote: >This was just posted on the Canadian list. Any truth in it ? > >Apparently, Floyd Heard (USATF 200m silver medal) tested postive for for >ephedrine at a meet earlier in the summer. He, however, competed in >Sydney, despite knowledge of the test. > > J. > > >Peter Stuart >Head Coach South-East Athletics >Head Coach NB Canada Games >NB Coaching Chair >Master Course Conductor >
