The Railroading of Shelby Houlihan

Competing in sport is not a contract with the sports administration bodies. A competitor is obliged to abide by the rules of the sport, and the administrative body is required to properly enforce them. The legal framework, to the extent there is one, is of administrative law, not contract.

None of that is at issue here. The "contract" analogy is coming from a brain-dead individual with illusions of legal knowledge. He has none.

The burden of proof in a doping case is with the antidoping authorities, and is established when it is confirmed that the athlete in question has broken the rules - either a confirmed positive test, a 3rd whereabouts failure, or tampering. Houlihan failed the first criterion, with her confirmed positive test.

"Intent" is a principle that applies to the criminal law, not sports administration, because the consequences of a criminal conviction are more serious than a breach of a sporting code. Whether or not an athlete intended to dope is irrelevant, as the rules governing the sport say the athlete is responsible for how a banned substance came to be in their body. The antidoping bodies are not faced with proving how it got there or what was running through the mind of the athlete.

The only defences available to the athlete are a test that is a false positive, which does not confirm the initial finding, or contamination from a non-doping source - like food - or by the athlete having their samples "spiked" in some way. The athlete has to show that any of these is a credible cause of their failing the drug test. Houlihan couldn't. Most such defences fail. That is typically because the quantity of the drug found in their system does not match any accepted evidence of it occurring in those levels naturally, such as through something eaten. But the fact that this defence is available to an athlete shows that the innocent are not being sacrificed on the altar of "strict liability", as is being claimed here. Those arguing this garbage are indistinguishable from the Covid deniers on the pandemic threads. Too stupid to know how really stupid they are.

[quote]RunRaider wrote:

If the WADA Code “forbids civil actions” then why is Shelby Houlihan currently working on filing a civil action in the form of an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal? Why was she already allowed to file for an injunction? (quote)

This is a function of administrative law, where the decisions of governance bodies can be reviewed as to whether they followed the proper processes. It is not an area of contract law, as some misguidedly think, as Houlihan cannot sue anyone in this process for breaking a deal. She - they - don't have a deal.

But more importantly, there is nothing that shows AIU or CAS did not follow the required processes. It is a mere stalling action, so a clearly convicted doper can defeat the effect of the suspension and compete till it's resolved. Yeah - another kind of "cheating". But there are no grounds for the appeal. She will fail. Again.

You're right -- that is an important distinction between administrative and contractual law. I think of them, collectively, as civil actions, but maybe that's not quite the right way to think about it.

I do imagine there must be some sort of agreement that athletes enter into with regards to entering the World Athletics testing pool, but to your point, that deal likely constrains Houlihan's defense rather than improving it.

If the only legal question were "Can Shelby Houlihan compete for a national title in an officially sanctioned competition that is supposed to be open to all American qualifiers?" then I could see there being an interesting (albeit narrow) legal argument.

But that's not the case here. USATF is selecting an Olympic team and is therefore subject to WADA enforcement.

"Intent should be what is central to determining cheats ; the rules are framed to make it such that non cheats are convicted". (quote)

So the rules have been framed to convict the innocent, not the guilty? And who are the "non-cheats" being convicted - Ramzi, Kiprop, Jeptoo - a list too long to recount - and now Houlihan - in the hall of martyrs? As I said, your stupidity is beyond description.

davies report wrote:

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Read rule 2.1.1 again. When athletes sign up for the sport they agree to abide by the rules. Nobody is forcing them to do the sport. I'm happy that a doping cheater has been caught and look forward to further busts.

I repeat that contract terms must be reasonable and fair.

Rule 2.1.1 is subject to civil and employment law and such is independent of what it says.In English law you can’t sign your statutory rights away.

The problem is that the rules catch those who don’t cheat.

What statutory rights does rule 2.11 take away? And who says that contract terms have to be reasonable or fair? People and businesses sign contracts that favor one side more than the other quite frequently, and they hold up in court just fine.

Of course, you haven't shown rule 2.11 to be unfair or unreasonable.

You have repeatedly suggested that WADA should have to prove intent. I expect you realize that no athlete, whether or not they intended to cheat, will admit to intentionally taking a banned substance. So absent Instagram photos of the athlete taking the substance or suppliers blowing the whistle on the athlete, no doping case would ever be proven. Thus, your suggested approach wipes out doping control.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Intent should be what is central to determining cheats ; the rules are framed to make it such that non cheats are convicted". (quote)

So the rules have been framed to convict the innocent, not the guilty? And who are the "non-cheats" being convicted - Ramzi, Kiprop, Jeptoo - a list too long to recount - and now Houlihan - in the hall of martyrs? As I said, your stupidity is beyond description.

As intent has nothing to do with convicting then it is impossible not to convict those who did not cheat.

Read the case law and you will find dozens.

I never said that the rules were framed to convict the innocent not the guilty, but strict liability causes that.

unbelief wrote:

I think daviesreport is SH’s lawyer

If he is, she should be demanding her money back. He has no idea what he's talking about in any of his "come to Jesus" ramblings about how the doping control authorities should work (or do work) in track and field.

Look at the cases and you will easily see most cases were intent can be established to comfortable satisfaction.

Read the wada code where it says you do not have the same rights as in criminal or civil cases.

The whole of strict liability and inability to challenge the lab work is unreasonable.

The Liverpool / French defender sued for 11 million because the Doping Control fouled up and were in breach.

Further ; check what administration law may mean or involve . Nowt to do with the actions of sports clubs and no real idea what it may do at all in the Uk.

Hobby1jogger wrote:

The best action taken by Houlihsn and her lawyer. Would be to identify the name of the truck so samples of their products can be tested. As nf clarify the source of their meat selection.

Yeah, I wonder why they didn't think of that

train to nowhere wrote:

Hobby1jogger wrote:

The best action taken by Houlihsn and her lawyer. Would be to identify the name of the truck so samples of their products can be tested. As nf clarify the source of their meat selection.

Yeah, I wonder why they didn't think of that

A random sample many many months ago and you think you are going to get significant info now.Really!

By the way; check the work and reports of the Veterinary Residues Committee before you connect your brain to your typing.

davies report wrote:

Further ; check what administration law may mean or involve . Nowt to do with the actions of sports clubs and no real idea what it may do at all in the Uk.

Do you mean administrative law? There is no "administration" law in the US.

And you failed to answer my question. You alleged that SH's statutory rights were violated. What statute is violated by rule 2.11? In the US parties may contract to give up rights. For example, it is very common for parties to contracts to agree to give up the right to go to court and settle disputes via arbitration, mediation, or some other panel with the power to decide.

Some testing was done. It's not clear what controls, methods, and sample sizes were involved. All I've seen is that a handful of burritos were purchased after the fact and classified as "greasy" or not. Nothing compelling in that. Those who need to know the identify of the Food Truck. It's not necessary for everyone else to know the name of the Food Truck. It won't lead to new findings - and publicly naming the Food Truck could cause damage to reputation or earnings, opening a door to a lawsuit claiming damages.

Hobby1jogger wrote:

The best action taken by Houlihsn and her lawyer. Would be to identify the name of the truck so samples of their products can be tested. As nf clarify the source of their meat selection.

Sign Me Up wrote:

Railroading Houlihan? When and where?

I see what you did there........very nice.

SeattleSilver wrote:

davies report wrote:

Further ; check what administration law may mean or involve . Nowt to do with the actions of sports clubs and no real idea what it may do at all in the Uk.

Do you mean administrative law? There is no "administration" law in the US.

And you failed to answer my question. You alleged that SH's statutory rights were violated. What statute is violated by rule 2.11? In the US parties may contract to give up rights. For example, it is very common for parties to contracts to agree to give up the right to go to court and settle disputes via arbitration, mediation, or some other panel with the power to decide.

It was not me who raised Admin Law. I agree it is of not merit in this discussion.

Stat rights that Doping Rules should be fair and not in breach of employment law ; health and safety ; human rights etc

In uk can’t sign your rights away.

davies report wrote:

SeattleSilver wrote:

[quote]davies report wrote:

.....

And you failed to answer my question. You alleged that SH's statutory rights were violated. What statute is violated by rule 2.11? In the US parties may contract to give up rights. For example, it is very common for parties to contracts to agree to give up the right to go to court and settle disputes via arbitration, mediation, or some other panel with the power to decide.

It was not me who raised Admin Law. I agree it is of not merit in this discussion.

Stat rights that Doping Rules should be fair and not in breach of employment law ; health and safety ; human rights etc

In uk can’t sign your rights away.

I don't think employment law is relevant here, and most certainly UK employment law is irrelevant.

davies report wrote:

train to nowhere wrote:

Yeah, I wonder why they didn't think of that

A random sample many many months ago and you think you are going to get significant info now.Really!

By the way; check the work and reports of the Veterinary Residues Committee before you connect your brain to your typing.

I guess you can't recognize sarcasm.

Nope 😢

SeattleSilver wrote:

davies report wrote:

It was not me who raised Admin Law. I agree it is of not merit in this discussion.

Stat rights that Doping Rules should be fair and not in breach of employment law ; health and safety ; human rights etc

In uk can’t sign your rights away.

I don't think employment law is relevant here, and most certainly UK employment law is irrelevant.

Why?