Road Cycling - Eadie or Kersten for Aussie Olympic team?

For those that haven't been following the story Sean Eadie was dropped from the team after allegations were made against him allegedly importing banned human growth hormones in 1998 and 1999. In his place Ben Kersten was picked. Eadie's case was thrown out at the Court of Arbitration suposedly due to lack of evidence but he is still not "officially" back on the team yet. Kersten is threatening legal action now if he is dropped. Australian Olympic cycling officials say there is only room for one of them on the team. Who should get to go to Athens, Sean Eadie or Ben Kersten?

A poll on the Sydney Morning Herald website shows that 40% of people reckon Eadie should go. I agree, it's about the quickest person not who has the best lawyers.

http://smh.com.au/polls/sport/form.html

Eadie and Kersten at the Games
Who should compete?

Eadie - 40%

Kersten - 29%

The fastest one in a race off - 25%

Don't know - 4%


Total Votes: 784

I do not believe Sean Eadie when he says he has only imported Vitamins and the exporter has slipped in a banned substance for trials! Kersten should go. What if Sean win gold?

from smh
"Eadie said the packages at the centre of his case - that were intercepted by Customs - had cost in the vicinity of $500 to $600.

"It was quite a sizeable order (of nutritional supplements) and who is to say that maybe the company put in some extras as a bonus or here try these," Eadie said.

I think Eadie should go to Athens.

Although he doesn't come across as convincing (at all), you can't nail someone for having a package mailed to them -- it's too flimsy.

There's talk of a "ride-off" between the two

I think Eadie should go to Athens.

Although he doesn't come across as convincing (at all), you can't nail someone for having a package mailed to them -- it's too flimsy.

G'day,

agree with '531'. To remove someone from an Olympic squad on the basis of 'circumstantial' evidence only is harsh. I don't necessarily believe Eadie either, but until it's PROVEN otherwise, he's not guilty (& not guilty doesn't mean innocent, it just means insufficent evidence to PROVE guilt)According to this mornings paper he's already lost a sponsorship worth $150K per year....pretty harsh in itself. I wouldn't be taking much notice of mark French either. He's an admitted drug cheat who has been coming out with all sorts of self serving statements slagging anyone he can,

cheers,

Hitchy

I saw an interview with a rep from the company that sells the suppliments that Eadie apparently ordered from, and they don't even make or stock HGH. Naturally that's beside the point - Innocent until proven guilty, If you have no proof, then STFU ( you hearing me there, French? ).

It's sad that the courts have to get involved, but when there's big bucks and reputations on the line, people have to have the right to legally defend themselves. I just wish that the muck-raking could somehow be avoided.

It's getting to the point where cycling institutions think they can ban someone on allegations and heresay, and I think that's plain wrong. Eadie has earned the right to go to Athens, so he should be reinstated.

Another one here for Eadie.

I think we should remember that Eadie has never tested positive before for such substances...I'm going to vote for him...