Shameful: Drug cheat Liza Hunter-Galvan wins $10,000 at 2015 Boston Marathon

Maybe it's time for athletic governing bodies to recognize another competitive grouping. Let's call the first group natural and the second group Juiced. If an athlete has ever taken a enhancing drug then they move up into the juiced division. Simple.

For Liza Hunter-Galvan to be recognized as winning is repulsive. When caught doping she tried to lie about it When her B Sample also came back positive she tried to justify it and plead ignorance.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Pressure-pain-drove-runner-to-use-drug-849078.php

She has the advantage of being paced by her husband during nearly every race.

This has to be a joke.

Shame on Boston for inviting her into the masters field.

Agreed!!

My SA:

"In her first local interview since her positive test, Hunter-Galvan revealed she bought the drug in Mexico, where it's available without a prescription, after a fellow elite runner suggested it might help with her hip and hamstring problems.

At that time, "I thought it was like an amino acid, something that could help with healing," she said.

doesn't the WMM have a policy against inviting athletes who have served a 6mo or longer sanction? i know NYC does (and always has) but perhaps boston thinks it doesn't apply to the masters field? either way, shame on boston. if she wants to enter herself, fine, nothing to stop her per the rules but she clearly had an invite bib.....pure bull$#**

I think she deserves the prize. She won it fair and square...or did she?

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/the-local-scene/2015/04/hunter-galvan-expects-to-pocket-10000-for-boston-masters-title/

Do the effects of EPO truly wear off?

Does the drug cheater retain any beneficial effects following the PEDs?

If the cheater continues to use PEDs during suspension then that means they are training at a higher level than clean athletes. Does anyone know if known cheaters are tested more often than non-cheaters and are cheaters tested throughout their suspension?

She continued to deny it until evidence was conclusive and then she had the audacity to assert that she only did it once. She still thinks the rest of the world is stupid enough to believe her lies.

EPO Liza Hunter-Galvan wrote:

Maybe it's time for athletic governing bodies to recognize another competitive grouping. Let's call the first group natural and the second group Juiced. If an athlete has ever taken a enhancing drug then they move up into the juiced division. Simple.

For Liza Hunter-Galvan to be recognized as winning is repulsive. When caught doping she tried to lie about it When her B Sample also came back positive she tried to justify it and plead ignorance.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Pressure-pain-drove-runner-to-use-drug-849078.php

She has the advantage of being paced by her husband during nearly every race.

At least LHG did NOT compete during her ban (not even a Jingle Bells run), unlike American/PR/NW Indianan Rachelle Marchand.....who even took prize $$$$ during her ban.

Who is the real cheat here?

A bigger WTF to anyone who believes anyone is clean. I am sure there are some but can you really be sure anyone is? Just because someone gets caught doesn't mean they catch everyone. Its all a circus. They should just skip the charade and let everyone compete and just assume everyone is doping somehow.

News to the OP: she won $10k, not "wins 10k." Don't confuse us posters who read titles and think it means what it says. Not sure if we can ban people who've served their time from racing or prize money, but it should at least be garnisheed and the prize money won from the doping period restored to the rightful winners.

Simple, drug test her like everyone else. If you're dishing out the cash then you have every reason to require it.

Come on, man, she thought it was an amino acid. Don't you drive to Mexico to buy amino acids.

messi wrote:

At least LHG did NOT compete during her ban (not even a Jingle Bells run), unlike American/PR/NW Indianan Rachelle Marchand.....who even took prize $$$$ during her ban.

Who is the real cheat here?

For one thing, try using some logic. If one person cheats, does that mean there's no room for anyone else to cheat?

For another, and more hilariously: How many people on the planet could state with utmost authority that LHG didn't race even once during her ban, not even a Jungle Bell Run?

That would be YOU, Lisa. (On the off chance it's not, it's your moron of a husband.)

Here is the kicker: She was an invited runner. Look at her bib no. Yes, she served her suspension and can legally compete. But races should not be giving very limited masters invites to people who have served doping suspensions. Find someone else.

Precious Roy wrote:

She was an invited runner. Look at her bib no.

Her bib number doesn't indicate that the BAA actually reached out to her and asked her to be in the Boston Marathon field. "Invited runner" has a broad and in some cases inane meaning in the context of most road races.

Most likely, this person e-mailed someone at the BAA with her credentials and asked if she qualified for a complementary entry into the elite masters' field, which, based on her recent performances alone, she did. It may have been even simpler: In the past, but perhaps not today, you could send in your entry with your qualifying time and proof of that time, and if it was sufficiently fast for your gender and age (say, < 2:28:00 for open men), the BAA would offer you a comp entry without you even having to lobby for one.

KMB wrote:

Her bib number doesn't indicate that the BAA actually reached out to her and asked her to be in the Boston Marathon field. "Invited runner" has a broad and in some cases inane meaning in the context of most road races.

Most likely, this person e-mailed someone at the BAA with her credentials and asked if she qualified for a complementary entry into the elite masters' field, which, based on her recent performances alone, she did. It may have been even simpler: In the past, but perhaps not today, you could send in your entry with your qualifying time and proof of that time, and if it was sufficiently fast for your gender and age (say, < 2:28:00 for open men), the BAA would offer you a comp entry without you even having to lobby for one.

This doesn't excuse the BAA for not doing their research, but she's also a well known doper too. They're in a bit of a pickle now, unless they're anti-doping policy can prevent them from paying her. How will John Hancock feel about writing a $10,000 check to a doper?

So you folks don't believe in giving someone a second chance?

No.