i have no credibility? all that i can do is read the idiotic explanation that she posted and conclude that it makes no sense. you, on the other hand, have to accuse me twice of having an agenda (i don't -- i don't know her but think that drug cheats are killing the sport) and have resorted to the convincing tactic of an ad hominen attack on me. moreover, it is clear that you are the one with the agenda because you either have information that is not public or you simply are making things up (eg, the background of her doctor).
let's take a closer look at what flovent is and what it is used for because your pedantic declaration that she should have been on it for an upper respiratory infection is just plain idiotic. it would behoove you to do a little research before making any more ridiculous claims.
first off, it is a steroid, which certainly nicely falls under the PED umbrella. i strongly suggest that you read some of the sites that describe it since you clearly have no idea what it is and is not used for. since you seem to have difficulty with reality, here are a few:
http://asthma.about.com/od/asthmadrugprofiles/p/flovent.htmhttp://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-13522-Flovent+Inhl.aspx?drugid=13522&drugname=Flovent+Inhlhttp://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/fluticinh_ids.htmwhat is interesting is that all of the sites indicate that flovent is used to treat asthma and wheezing and that's it. in fact, it only is used to prevent an asthma attack -- once an attack occurs, it doesn't work. most importantly, there are no other proper medical uses for it (at least ones generally accepted by the medical community)
for a so-called repertory [sic] expert to then decide to treat an an elite athlete, with an upper respiratory infection who will be drug tested, with a drug not normally used to treat upper respiratory infections is, to say the least, very odd. maybe there is some bizantine medical use for flovent in this case but something tells me that a doctor who knows what he/she is doing isn't going to go that route in these circumstances.
i find it particularly interesting that you have proclaimed that antibiotics wouldn't work for her infection. what is that based on? your knowledge of flovent? moreover, if this upper respiratory infection were so bad, then how come it cleared up so quickly despite improper medical treatment?
some other statements in her letter that really made you question what is going on here are:
(1) her claim that her only opportunity to qualify for the oly trials was a july 1, 2007 race in australia during her semester abroad. what happened to all of the other races during the entire year of 2007 plus any other ones up to when the window closed? something tells me that with no definitive ruling on flovent and an illness that she was told could become deadly, she probably should have picked a different race during the year to run.
(2) her claim that she just got over a "prolonged 2-year foot injury during which time [she] was able to run only a few races." wait a minute. 2 years back is 2006, so how was she able to run a 2:4x marathon and plan on making the olympic team if she had such a bad foot injury for 2 years?
(3) the fact that she thinks passing a polygraph test means anything. is she serious???
as i stated earlier, i have no agenda, don't know her and hope she does well going forward while not on banned drugs with no exemptions (according to some on here, she will be on a national championship team next year). i just can read what she publicly posted (she does open herself up to all kinds of scrutiny when she launches a public site with her defense on it) and what people have posted here and it is not too hard to spot things that make you raise an eyebrow. your abrasive rants that a doctor "carefully" examined her and properly prescribed a steroid not normally used to treat upper respiratory infections to an an elite athlete who didn't have it approved and who likely would be drug tested ring particularly hollow to me.