Wejo needs to apologize to the Clean Sport Collective

The CSC which stands for Clean Sport is openly advocating that people do not donate to an athlete who says they were wrongly convicted or did know knowingly dope. That should not be their role in my opinion.

To have the cleanest sport possible we need to have confidence that all the athlete convicted are guilty. That means they have a right to fund their best defense possible. Shelby has a right to raise funds at any point in her defense, just as Asbel Kiprop, Justin Gatlin or any other athlete does.

It's a basic premise of American jurisprudence that people can try and fund their defense. If Shelby is lying and raising funds under false pretenses as Floyd Landis found out that is a federal crime.

That is not our position at all. Jon Gault has said he doesn' t think she knowingly doped.

I am 100% open to the possibility and so is Jon.

Just because you think her burrito story is nuts, doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to fund her defense, or that she knowingly doped.

lol mr. free speech.

Who are you to say what CSCs role should be. They have there own mission, just as LRC does - I don't think anyone should be telling you guys what your mission should be either.

CSC is simply saying that they don't think it's a good idea to donate to Houlihan's Gofundme. They haven't said it should be closed down or that Houlihan shouldn't be able to raise funds that way. They haven't said Houlihan shouldn't be able to appeal or that she shouldn't be able to raise funds. But free speech means that people also get to say why donating to that defense fund might be a bad idea. You're, of course, free to write an article arguing why it is a good idea.

Again, no one has argued to remove any of Houlihan's rights, which is what you suggested on the pod, and it is also the point that you're refusing to respond to here because you've got it wrong and don't want to admit it. You keep responding to an argument that you want people to make but which, in reality, no one at all is making.

wejo wrote:

The CSC which stands for Clean Sport is openly advocating that people do not donate to an athlete who says they were wrongly convicted or did know knowingly dope. That should not be their role in my opinion. To have the cleanest sport possible we need to have confidence that all the athlete convicted are guilty. That means they have a right to fund their best defense possible. Shelby has a right to raise funds at any point in her defense, just as Asbel Kiprop, Justin Gatlin or any other athlete does.It's a basic premise of American jurisprudence that people can try and fund their defense. If Shelby is lying and raising funds under false pretenses as Floyd Landis found out that is a federal crime.

You're essentially arguing that the prosecution should be actively involved in a defendant's gathering of information. CSC exists to promote clean sport, to suppot clean athletes, and to make it as hard as possible for doper to to succeed in sport.

They have no responsibility to defend convicted dopers or to ensure their conviction is triple-verified. Their role here is not to get Shelby's positive tests verified or annulled; she tested positive, and was suspended. Their role is to support the athletes Shelby beat when she was cheating.

wejo wrote:

totally valid wrote: LRCs position on Shelby since Day 1 has been "but she couldn't possibly...". It's the wrong approach if you actually care about a clean sport. As long as voices of note continue to hand convicted dopers a helping hand by treating their claims of innocence against all matters of fact, there will be always be an impetus to cheat. By defending the fundraiser, LRC is implicitly encouraging athletes to cheat, and to use the court of public opinion when they get caught.

That is not our position at all. Jon Gault has said he doesn' t think she knowingly doped.I am 100% open to the possibility and so is Jon.Just because you think her burrito story is nuts, doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to fund her defense, or that she knowingly doped.

Exactly. In the face of a positive test, and an extremely-detailed report outlining not only the clear fact that she was positive, but also how impossibly unlikely her defense was, the three of you land somewere between "it was an accident" and "she's probably innocent."

It flies in the face of anyone who's ever looked at a judicial case with any semblance of impartiality. you have zero reason to think it wasn't "knowingly", and yet you're "open to it" purely on her word, even after that word was dismantled ruthlessly by the report. And now you're going after the one group of athletes - which has some of the sport's biggest names - who are actively trying to fight against these attitudes.

I'll say it again: the reason dopers keep trying to get away with it is because they know rubes are going to defend them because they like them. It worked for Armstrong, and it's still working. And LRC is doing Houlihan's work for her by maintaining the editorial standard that she's anything but actually guilty of what's been proven. If I were that enabled and knew a major media resource was carrying my water, I'd keep up the facade too.

CSC is not the prosecution. They are more like a group promoting justice.

The concept of clean sport doesn't mean convictions. It means dopers out of the sport. They are different things.

But even if CSC  was the prosecution were they should be behind the defendant's ability to defend themselves. The prosecutions goal should be the truth, not a conviction. We must not forget that. Often the truth results in a conviction but conviction should not be the goal.

Hang on. What?! Find me a lawyer who will argue that saying it's not a good idea to donate to someone's Gofundme is somehow denying their rights to due process. Find me a judge who would even be prepared to listen that argument.

You're essentially saying that Houlihan's Gofundme appeal should be beyond criticism. There isn't a judge in America that will agree with that.