Foschi Is Given Two-Year Ban

Jessica Foschi, a Long Island teenager who hopes to make the 1996 Olympic team, was banned Tuesday for two years by U.S. Swimming for testing positive for an anabolic steroid that she said she never knowingly took.

The federation’s 15 board of directors, who deliberated for seven hours, also wrote an interpretation of FINA’s medical rules that could put U.S. Swimming out of step with the rest of the world. FINA, which has headquarters in Switzerland, is the international governing body for the sport.

The controversial decision was announced at 4 a.m. (EST) in a darkened Orlando hotel after 21 hours of testimony and deliberations Monday and Tuesday.

In an ambiguous decision, the board concluded that Foschi had no knowledge of how the drug was ingested but said the evidence she and her parents presented during two days of testimony did not “rebut the presumption of doping.”

Bob Foschi said that he will pursue the case because his daughter wants to swim.

“She’s practicing at the pool right now,” he said Tuesday evening from his home in Old Brookville, N.Y.

Foschi, 15, is one of the best U.S. distance swimmers and is considered a longshot to make the U.S. Olympic team in the 400-meter and 800-meter freestyle events.

She could become the focus of the U.S. trials, March 6-12 in Indianapolis, if the Foschis obtain a restraining order allowing her to compete.

The Foschis will appeal to the U.S. Olympic Committee’s executive director, Dick Schultz, who could decide to forward a letter to the American Arbitration Assn. asking it to consider the case.

The Foschis also filed suit in New York Supreme Court on Long Island, asking the court to preclude U.S. Swimming from taking any action until the case reaches a conclusion and ordering the USOC to allow Foschi’s urine sample from the UCLA laboratory to be independently retested.

“I had high hopes because I thought there certainly was reasonable doubt,” said Bob Foschi, adding that he and his wife, Margaret, did not wake their daughter to tell her of the decision.

Foschi said that his daughter thought the decision would be favorable, as it was when the federation’s National Board of Review gave her a two-year probation instead of the standard two-year ban last fall.

That decision prompted U.S. Swimming’s leadership to appeal to the board of directors asking for tougher sanctions. U.S. Swimming officials believed FINA would have rejected the decision to put Foschi on probation and banned her for two years.

Don Gambril, a member of the board of directors, said the body believed the Foschis were truthful but said he understood the rules to mean an athlete must be banned no matter how the drug got into the system.

Although a strong majority favored the ban, some members were disheartened by the action. Shaun Jordan, a 1988 and ’92 Olympian who is earning an MBA at the University of Texas, criticized his fellow members for being out of touch.

“There’s a lot of people on there who have very little athletic experience if any,” said Jordan, an outspoken critic of doping. “They don’t know what it’s like to take a urine sample. They don’t understand the consequences of making an Olympic team. So they clearly don’t understand the consequences of being removed from one.”

Foschi tested positive at last summer’s U.S. nationals in Pasadena. The ban will be retroactive to Aug. 4, the day of her test. She was allowed to compete in two events since, including last week’s U.S. spring nationals in Orlando. The times and places in those events will be stricken from the records.

Ray Essick, U.S. Swimming’s executive director, said the decision will clarify the governing body’s rules and send a message that athletes have the right to a fair process beyond a simple hearing.

However, the board’s interpretation of FINA’s rules in regard to sanctions differs from what U.S. Swimming’s leadership argued throughout the hearing. That could result in more confusion as to how the body will handle future drug cases.

“U.S. Swimming can interpret the rules any way they want,” said Alan Richardson, chairman of the FINA Medical Commission. “It has no bearing on FINA.

“But I think they did the right thing here [with the interpretation].”