She seems like a genuinely wonderful person. I've followed her for years. Even if you think it's unlikely a burrito was the cause of the positive test, why are you so sure that Shelby intentionally cheated? People here often claim that this is the case and that she's a legit psychopath who refuses to admit what she's done wrong. But if she were a psychopath, why does she have so many friends and people around her who say she's an incredible person? And if she wanted an advantage, why would she choose to dope but not wear super shoes? Looking for genuine convo here - I just don't understand how anyone can smear Shelby online. I'm a huge fan of hers.
I think you are actually mistating what most people here believe. Its a spectrum. Most people believe she cheated, but not necessarily intentionally. Very few believe the burrito story because it makes no sense scientifically.
But she could have cheated unintentionally. Unintentional cheating still results in a ban. What is an example of unintentional cheating? For example taking a dodgy supplement that doesn't say explicitly that it contains any banned substance in the ingredients but actually does. Supplements are not food. You are absolutely responsible for even unintentional ingestion of banned substances through suplements.
Cheating is an intentional act, so she couldn't have cheated unintentionally. She could have been careless - which is itself an infraction under the code. But she wasn't careless; there was no evidence to support even that conclusion. She was deemed to have intentionally doped because it was the only conclusion left on the evidence against her once her defence failed.
I didn’t start this thread. Griles did. The other thread with the elegant solution to her unfair punishment wasn’t based on a premise of innocence or guilt. In fact, I even commented in that thread that it wasn’t about that. Even if she is guilty, which she probably is, the punishment is unfair compared to the standard.
And no, I don’t deserve personal attacks, no matter how much you dislike my ideas. I have no qualms with you saying my idea is stupid. The issue is you saying/suggesting that I am stupid. There’s a big difference between criticizing an idea vs attacking a person. You really need to learn that difference. I’ve seen you attack many people on this board, and it’s not acceptable. Do better.
If your arguments are stupid they lead to an easy inference.
But you just keep pushing the same thing, post after post, in every thread about Houlihan - which all follow from your username protesting her "innocence" - and virtually no one except the board's resident doping-denier sides with you. The CAS decision is only unfair if she was clearly innocent; she wasn't and so she was found guilty. You've dug yourself in and no one can persuade you out of your position. Yet you persuade no one of yours. You should call it a day.
I’ve made 2 main points here and in the other thread:
1) the intent of the standard 4-year penalty is to prevent dopers from competing in the next Olympics.
2) People convicted of doping should get consistent punishments when the infractions are similar.
I proved the first point with incontrovertible historical evidence. If you’re still not willing to concede that point, it’s only because you refuse to admit when you’re wrong.
The second point is a matter of opinion. If you have a different opinion, that’s fine.
Along with those points, I’ve made a very reasonable request that you criticize ideas rather than attack people (a basic and common principle for engaging in a civil debate). You seem to be unwilling to accept that request, as you continue to try to justify your personal attacks.
Where we agree is it’s best to call it day, for both of us.
If your arguments are stupid they lead to an easy inference.
But you just keep pushing the same thing, post after post, in every thread about Houlihan - which all follow from your username protesting her "innocence" - and virtually no one except the board's resident doping-denier sides with you. The CAS decision is only unfair if she was clearly innocent; she wasn't and so she was found guilty. You've dug yourself in and no one can persuade you out of your position. Yet you persuade no one of yours. You should call it a day.
I’ve made 2 main points here and in the other thread:
1) the intent of the standard 4-year penalty is to prevent dopers from competing in the next Olympics.
2) People convicted of doping should get consistent punishments when the infractions are similar.
I proved the first point with incontrovertible historical evidence. If you’re still not willing to concede that point, it’s only because you refuse to admit when you’re wrong.
The second point is a matter of opinion. If you have a different opinion, that’s fine.
Along with those points, I’ve made a very reasonable request that you criticize ideas rather than attack people (a basic and common principle for engaging in a civil debate). You seem to be unwilling to accept that request, as you continue to try to justify your personal attacks.
Where we agree is it’s best to call it day, for both of us.
I think you are actually mistating what most people here believe. Its a spectrum. Most people believe she cheated, but not necessarily intentionally. Very few believe the burrito story because it makes no sense scientifically.
But she could have cheated unintentionally. Unintentional cheating still results in a ban. What is an example of unintentional cheating? For example taking a dodgy supplement that doesn't say explicitly that it contains any banned substance in the ingredients but actually does. Supplements are not food. You are absolutely responsible for even unintentional ingestion of banned substances through suplements.
Cheating is an intentional act, so she couldn't have cheated unintentionally. She could have been careless - which is itself an infraction under the code. But she wasn't careless; there was no evidence to support even that conclusion. She was deemed to have intentionally doped because it was the only conclusion left on the evidence against her once her defence failed.
Call it what you want, but her taking a banned substance through a suplement she was intentionally ingesting as part of her training but did not know contain nandralone is just as consistent with the evidence as intentionally doping.
Yes cheating is intentional. But she didn't cheat. She didn't compete.
You keep showing you don't understand what cheating means. Doping is cheating. That is because doping is undertaken with the intention of gaining an advantage - an unfair advantage. You will have failed to notice that doped athletes aren't banned because they competed; they are banned because they doped.
Cheating is an intentional act, so she couldn't have cheated unintentionally. She could have been careless - which is itself an infraction under the code. But she wasn't careless; there was no evidence to support even that conclusion. She was deemed to have intentionally doped because it was the only conclusion left on the evidence against her once her defence failed.
Call it what you want, but her taking a banned substance through a suplement she was intentionally ingesting as part of her training but did not know contain nandralone is just as consistent with the evidence as intentionally doping.
You are assuming she didn't know she took nandrolone. That wasn't the conclusion CAS came to. Her only excuse was the possibility of a contaminated burrito, not tainted supplements. Her excuse failed so that only left intentional doping.
If your arguments are stupid they lead to an easy inference.
But you just keep pushing the same thing, post after post, in every thread about Houlihan - which all follow from your username protesting her "innocence" - and virtually no one except the board's resident doping-denier sides with you. The CAS decision is only unfair if she was clearly innocent; she wasn't and so she was found guilty. You've dug yourself in and no one can persuade you out of your position. Yet you persuade no one of yours. You should call it a day.
I’ve made 2 main points here and in the other thread:
1) the intent of the standard 4-year penalty is to prevent dopers from competing in the next Olympics.
2) People convicted of doping should get consistent punishments when the infractions are similar.
I proved the first point with incontrovertible historical evidence. If you’re still not willing to concede that point, it’s only because you refuse to admit when you’re wrong.
The second point is a matter of opinion. If you have a different opinion, that’s fine.
Along with those points, I’ve made a very reasonable request that you criticize ideas rather than attack people (a basic and common principle for engaging in a civil debate). You seem to be unwilling to accept that request, as you continue to try to justify your personal attacks.
Where we agree is it’s best to call it day, for both of us.
We don't agree on that, or on anything. You haven't proved anything. You've just kept making the same claims again and again. I doubt also that you will "call it a day".
You are assuming she didn't know she took nandrolone. That wasn't the conclusion CAS came to. Her only excuse was the possibility of a contaminated burrito, not tainted supplements. Her excuse failed so that only left intentional doping.
It was the boar in the beef burrito dude. Supplements were tested, and the ones used up before we could test them would have given a positive test on 11-20.
I’ve made 2 main points here and in the other thread:
1) the intent of the standard 4-year penalty is to prevent dopers from competing in the next Olympics.
2) People convicted of doping should get consistent punishments when the infractions are similar.
I proved the first point with incontrovertible historical evidence. If you’re still not willing to concede that point, it’s only because you refuse to admit when you’re wrong.
The second point is a matter of opinion. If you have a different opinion, that’s fine.
Along with those points, I’ve made a very reasonable request that you criticize ideas rather than attack people (a basic and common principle for engaging in a civil debate). You seem to be unwilling to accept that request, as you continue to try to justify your personal attacks.
Where we agree is it’s best to call it day, for both of us.
We don't agree on that, or on anything. You haven't proved anything. You've just kept making the same claims again and again. I doubt also that you will "call it a day".
I would call it a day if you stop with the nonsense, but you don’t so here I am. The first point wasn’t a claim. It was a proven fact. You’re like a Trump supporter in the way you refuse to accept proven facts.
We don't agree on that, or on anything. You haven't proved anything. You've just kept making the same claims again and again. I doubt also that you will "call it a day".
I would call it a day if you stop with the nonsense, but you don’t so here I am. The first point wasn’t a claim. It was a proven fact. You’re like a Trump supporter in the way you refuse to accept proven facts.
Here’s a proven fact: she’s a lowlife, lying, cheating scum.
We don't agree on that, or on anything. You haven't proved anything. You've just kept making the same claims again and again. I doubt also that you will "call it a day".
I would call it a day if you stop with the nonsense, but you don’t so here I am. The first point wasn’t a claim. It was a proven fact. You’re like a Trump supporter in the way you refuse to accept proven facts.
It wasn't a "proven fact". You erroneously claimed it shows the essential purpose of a ban is to have the athlete miss the Olympics. It isn't the purpose of a ban. Its purpose is to exclude an athlete from all competition for the period of a ban. It is fortuitous if that includes the Olympics (or the World Championships). It isn't in the rules. Not all bans will include Olympic competition because of when they are imposed or because the athlete is not that level of competitor.
But, hey - if Houlihan misses one or even two Olympics, who am I to object?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
You are assuming she didn't know she took nandrolone. That wasn't the conclusion CAS came to. Her only excuse was the possibility of a contaminated burrito, not tainted supplements. Her excuse failed so that only left intentional doping.
It was the boar in the beef burrito dude. Supplements were tested, and the ones used up before we could test them would have given a positive test on 11-20.
So, Shelby, you had no evidence to support your claims.
I would call it a day if you stop with the nonsense, but you don’t so here I am. The first point wasn’t a claim. It was a proven fact. You’re like a Trump supporter in the way you refuse to accept proven facts.
It wasn't a "proven fact". You erroneously claimed it shows the essential purpose of a ban is to have the athlete miss the Olympics. It isn't the purpose of a ban. Its purpose is to exclude an athlete from all competition for the period of a ban. It is fortuitous if that includes the Olympics (or the World Championships). It isn't in the rules. Not all bans will include Olympic competition because of when they are imposed or because the athlete is not that level of competitor.
But, hey - if Houlihan misses one or even two Olympics, who am I to object?
Yes, it was a proven fact whether you like it or not. I’ve provided evidence to back up my assertions. You’ve provided . . . nothing but insults. You lose.
It wasn't a "proven fact". You erroneously claimed it shows the essential purpose of a ban is to have the athlete miss the Olympics. It isn't the purpose of a ban. Its purpose is to exclude an athlete from all competition for the period of a ban. It is fortuitous if that includes the Olympics (or the World Championships). It isn't in the rules. Not all bans will include Olympic competition because of when they are imposed or because the athlete is not that level of competitor.
But, hey - if Houlihan misses one or even two Olympics, who am I to object?
Yes, it was a proven fact whether you like it or not. I’ve provided evidence to back up my assertions. You’ve provided . . . nothing but insults. You lose.
If it isn't expressly included in the rules and in a doping decision then it isn't part of the ban. However if you are arguing that it is within the rationale of antidoping to try to ensure that elite athletes wont get to go to the Olympics if they are banned then you have again completely missed the point there. The aim is to ensure an athlete suffers the full effect of their penalty; it doesn't indicate there is a "quota" on the number of international competitions they will miss (because they will also miss world championships in a 4 year ban). They may miss two Olympics. There is nothing in antidoping that says that is "unfair" and isn't the intention of a ban.
But your whole argument about "unfairness" is irrelevant. A decision is only unfair if the athlete was innocent - and there is nothing that enables that conclusion with Houlihan - or the penalty was excessive. She was penalized according to the rules. Her appeal failed. No one except those who want "softer" treatment for dopers argues the rules and the process are unfair.
At this point, neither one of us is saying anything new. It’s no fun to rehash the same points over and over again. I’m willing to end this now if you are.
At this point, neither one of us is saying anything new. It’s no fun to rehash the same points over and over again. I’m willing to end this now if you are.
What does it mean to "end it"? You give up? You won't make any more posts complaining about her case? Of course if you do that then you make no further points I need to respond to. That only leaves your soul-mate rekrunner.