Is Cutler crazy to file suit? Depends. Who is he looking to go after? Demilla? The testing organization for lack of protocal? Ihave seen some pretty shabby testing myself. The IFBB? Weider? Who? Maybe Cutler feels he has nothing to lose. Maybe he is tired of ruining his body for the sport and wants to prove a point and move on to bigger and better things. Think about the money Cutler could win in a rather simple law suit (or most likely settle out of court for). You are looking at $60,000 in contest earnings alone. What price could be put on his mental anguish and embarrasement? What price for this unfair drug testing that has ruined his name in the sport and cost him future income? (In general you can assume two to three years to regain income in wrongful termination cases so I would assume he could ask this as well for lost wages.) My guess would be a minimum $200,000 law suit. Not bad if he was ready to quit anyway. Some questions to ponder that could easily win a civil court case:

First and formost this information was leaked to the public before official announcement was made to Cutler of his re-test results. (Or so it seems. This information may have been leaked by Jay himself and not the IFBB however.) That can be seen as deformation of character, and loss of income as a result. Was it an inappropriate test site? Some could argue a restroom backstage is not appropriate for proper collection. So where were they tested? Was it an actual doctors office? Anywhere but, and you could argue inappropriate testing procedure and unreliable results. Was there improper collection and storage on site? Were the same devises available for storage as at a professional lab therefore diminishing a chance for speciman damage or tampering? Or were these specimans just left out in the open without an overly organized supervisor? Again argue that the test is unreliable and unfair. Was there monitored testing of all individuals? Did the SAME impartial tester SEE each guy produce his OWN urine? If not it was not a quality controlled testing environment, and therefore not fair or impartial testing.

It would be incredibly easy for these guys to use a vial of urine from a friend stuck in their posing suit to produce a urine sample. Laugh if you want I have even seen little guys on a local level do this to pass a urine test. And if you ever had to pee for a probation drug test you know the same. No one would even know the difference unless they watched the guy pee in the cup straight on in front of them. A VERY good case for unfair testing procedure.

Another issue could be timing. Was Cutler tested at a different time? This would allow an unfair egde to those that could administer AFTER the testing and still make a difference. So an arguement here (if the this is the case) would be an unfair testing schedule and therefore biased testing procedure. If you want to speak conspiracy theory, think about this. How do we know Cutler was not pre-assured (by one of the powers that be) that there would be no problem with his test no matter what? That maybe Jay saved this communication? That it was a total set up, and Jay can prove it? It will be interesting to see if an actual case is filed, and if it is put under gag order if settled out of court.

It's no secret that the IFBB has been doing everything possible to get our beloved sport into the Olympics. In fact if you go to the IFBB web site you can read about drug testing procedures and the protocols to follow if you wish to dispute a test.

For instance the IFBB states that all drug tests will be performed by an IOC accredited laboratory. It goes on to state that in case of a positive test a certificate of analysis will be sent to the athlete explaining the option of how to dispute the test. The bottom line is the athlete has to pay all the costs involved and also the athlete has the right to be present when they open there B sample for testing (They the IFBB says they collect and A&B sample).

Now here is the interesting part. The testing was not done by an IOC accredited laboratory. How do I know? Because the only one in the country in at UCLA and ran by Professor Don Catlin. Let me explain to you why this is such an important fact. The United States Olympic Committeee back on October 1, 2001 decided to no longer have independent programs administer drug tests do to the numerous false positives and improper collection protocols. The United States Anti-Doping Agency is the only testing agency for Olympic Sports in the United States.

The USADA laboratory is the one used at UCLA. That means that the IFBB which states on it's IFBB Directive 2001-004 written on January 15, 2001 states in it's third paragraph, "upon receipt of a certificate of analysis from an IOC accredited laboratory.." Now remember they did not send this sample to an IOC accredited laboratory, but the directive for 2001-004 states that there procedureis to do send it out to only IOC accredited labs. In that same directive under item number 6 it states: "A certificate of analysis from an IOC-accredited laboratory will be considered Prima Facie Evidence (taken at face value)..."

Once again Jay is being victimized his livelyhood and reputation ruined for a test in which the IFBB did not send to an accredited IOC lab. Item number 9 & 10 are my favorites, remember this is the IFBB stating it's procedures. "The athlete, and or a representative chosen by the athlete, is entitled to be present during the opening of the "B" sample..." The analysis of the B sample MUST be undertaken by the same IOC-accredited laboratory that analyzed the A sample"

Guess what! Not only did the IFBB not have it tested at the correct lab; they do not have Jay Cutler's B Sample either! Now just in case anyone from the IFBB is reading this and they wish to try and hide behind IFBB Chapter VI, Article 3 in regards to just A sample tests I would advise the following.

1) Jays first test was not performed at an IOC test 2) Jay still retains the right to a protest for which you have lost his B sample AND # 3: This policy was adopted because the the IAAF and the IOC first announced that they would in fact begin to do so. So of course we blindly followed suit, well guess what happened guys??

Prince Alexandre de Merode, Chairman of the Medical Commission of the IOC told a new conference that this new revision procedure could "go against fundamental human rights. The IAAF is free to do what it wants, but we have a different view.." Speaking at the third day of a four day IOC board meeting he went on to say, "We'll see how things go with the IAAF but the advice of our juridical (legal( commission was that it touched on the question of human rights". So it is obvious even the IOC has shyed away from this type of problem. The only difference was they discovered it before a problem arose.

Let's face it, this is nothing but a fraud. If we truly are to be in the Olympics which I hope we will be, we cannot be cutting corners and having drug tests performed at labs with a 20% faulty positive rating. Further if we say that we are following IOC guidelines and using there labs then we should be.