I believe Shelby was sabotaged by someone who wanted her to get busted. I've been around enough American elite female runners to know that they are some of the most insanely jealous people in the world. Many of them believe that if they get beat then the person who beat them must be doping. They love to walk around high and mighty like they are the only clean ones.
These American groups also see doping as about the same moral evil as being a racist. I don't believe anyone in these groups would actually dope because you lose everything including your friends. Sabotaging a competitor is a much easier route to take especially when you believe they are already cheating.
The relevant rule (2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method) is quoted on page 25-26 of the CAS decision. Specifically: “it is not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method” (weird capitalization in original). Rekrunner’s claims about intent are not relevant, legally speaking.
With respect to "intent", the relevant rule is not 2.1 or 2.2, but 10.2, when determining the consequence of the rule violations in 2.1 and 2.2.
My claim is not a legal one, but a factual one. The CAS makes it crystal clear that intent was presumed, then deemed, without any supporting facts or evidence.
With respect to "intent", the relevant rule is not 2.1 or 2.2, but 10.2, when determining the consequence of the rule violations in 2.1 and 2.2.
My claim is not a legal one, but a factual one. The CAS makes it crystal clear that intent was presumed, then deemed, without any supporting facts or evidence.
Yes. That’s the legal standard set by the WADA code. On page 28 they establish the burden of proof: “The Panel notes that this standard requires the Athlete to convince the Panel that the occurrence of the circumstances on which the Athlete relies is more probable than their non-occurrence”.
With respect to "intent", the relevant rule is not 2.1 or 2.2, but 10.2, when determining the consequence of the rule violations in 2.1 and 2.2.
My claim is not a legal one, but a factual one. The CAS makes it crystal clear that intent was presumed, then deemed, without any supporting facts or evidence.
Yes. That’s the legal standard set by the WADA code. On page 28 they establish the burden of proof: “The Panel notes that this standard requires the Athlete to convince the Panel that the occurrence of the circumstances on which the Athlete relies is more probable than their non-occurrence”.
The rules as they exist were followed here.
What you are forgetting is that rekrunner is simply operating on a higher plateau of IQ and EQ to all of us. It understands the minutiae of these complex legal scripts and documents on a different level to we do, applying them precisely and accurately to any situation it comes across. "Relevance", "Consequence", "Evidence" - all the ances, ences and inces you could ever come up with, you just don't get it like the rekrunner does.
Can you imagine how much money this person makes in their everyday life? The demand for their transcendent expertise must be unfathomable. We really should be privileged they come to this messageboard and spend their immeasurably valuable time enlightening us all. Never argue or disagree. How dare you.
Yes. That’s the legal standard set by the WADA code. On page 28 they establish the burden of proof: “The Panel notes that this standard requires the Athlete to convince the Panel that the occurrence of the circumstances on which the Athlete relies is more probable than their non-occurrence”.
The rules as they exist were followed here.
I don't say the rules weren't followed. The problems are baked into the rules as they exist. Under the current rules, the intentional doper is indistinguishable from the athlete who does not know the source, and is unable to establish the most likely source, in a limited timeframe, with specific and concrete elements. The rules simply presume, then conclude, that both athletes are guilty of intentional doping, ignoring any unidentified collateral damage.
There is a lot of effort reiterating (or rewriting) the "legal standard" that was carefully crafted by WADA lawyers. I am concerning myself with the everyday standard of supporting conclusions with facts and evidence, without all these self-serving rules meant to reduce the cost and burden of prosecuting athletes. What are the tangible, specific, concrete facts and evidence used to support a finding of "doping", and what are the tangible, specific, concrete facts and evidence used to support a finding of "intentional doping"?
1) She had nandrolone in her body (over 5 ng/ml in her urine).
2) Her burrito excuse is nonsense.
3) She had no other excuse.
4) Nandrolone does not randomly appear in coffee, orange juice, or fruitcake etc.
Based on the above evidence, CAS "presumed" intent - it is false to claim there was no evidence.
To me too, that is sufficient evidence to conclude that she put the nandrolone intentionally and knowingly into her body. I have yet to hear a plausible alternative.
None of this helps identify the presumed athlete conduct that the athlete knew was a rule violation, or knew was risky and ignored the risk.
What you are forgetting is that rekrunner is simply operating on a higher plateau of IQ and EQ to all of us. It understands the minutiae of these complex legal scripts and documents on a different level to we do, applying them precisely and accurately to any situation it comes across. "Relevance", "Consequence", "Evidence" - all the ances, ences and inces you could ever come up with, you just don't get it like the rekrunner does.
Can you imagine how much money this person makes in their everyday life? The demand for their transcendent expertise must be unfathomable. We really should be privileged they come to this messageboard and spend their immeasurably valuable time enlightening us all. Never argue or disagree. How dare you.
I'm just like Sgt. Friday, simply asking for the facts ma'am.
1) She had nandrolone in her body (over 5 ng/ml in her urine).
2) Her burrito excuse is nonsense.
3) She had no other excuse.
4) Nandrolone does not randomly appear in coffee, orange juice, or fruitcake etc.
Based on the above evidence, CAS "presumed" intent - it is false to claim there was no evidence.
To me too, that is sufficient evidence to conclude that she put the nandrolone intentionally and knowingly into her body. I have yet to hear a plausible alternative.
None of this helps identify the presumed athlete conduct that the athlete knew was a rule violation, or knew was risky and ignored the risk.
4 x 0 = 0.
Utter nonsense. But at least you don't argue against "intent" anymore.
I'm just like Sgt. Friday, simply asking for the facts ma'am.
LOL no you don't. At all. You argue against all the facts, then turn around and pretend they don't exist. And repeat. And repeat.
On the other hand, you pretend that the banned doper was railroaded - completely baseless of course, without any facts whatsoever. And invent nonsense, such as that the experts were deceitful and corrupt. Also without any facts whatsoever. Just based on your imagination. Not even the banned doper, or her lawyer, went there. But then there is you, the anonymous letsrun nobody trolling along happily. Carry on.
1) She had nandrolone in her body (over 5 ng/ml in her urine).
2) Her burrito excuse is nonsense.
3) She had no other excuse.
4) Nandrolone does not randomly appear in coffee, orange juice, or fruitcake etc.
Based on the above evidence, CAS "presumed" intent - it is false to claim there was no evidence.
To me too, that is sufficient evidence to conclude that she put the nandrolone intentionally and knowingly into her body. I have yet to hear a plausible alternative.
None of this helps identify the presumed athlete conduct that the athlete knew was a rule violation, or knew was risky and ignored the risk.
4 x 0 = 0.
As far as whether she knew there was a rule violation, “ignorance of the law is not a defense” has been a legal principle since the Code of Hammurabi.
That is why WADA implemented a standard by which athletes are liable for what is in their bodies unless they can establish otherwise.
The day will come when the corruption at WADA will finally be revealed. May take 15 years, but that day will come.
I would like to find one person who knows Shelby Houlihan personally who believes she cheated. With other dopers, there are MANY people who would not hesitate to tell you the person cheated. You see this through and through in our sport.
So, why has no one who knows Shelby personally given testimony to why she cheated? Because they all know she didn’t.
Perhaps because they are all in on it?
If you have any idea of how science works, you would know her explanation is completely implausible.
Well if a pro runner is taking banned ped’s what other than cheating would be her intentions?
If the source of the banned substance is unknown to the athlete, than it is unlikely that her intent was to cheat.
True - but completely irrelevant.
The onus was on her to prove contamination. She didn't, so is guiltily and we rightly banned, the length of the ban showing CAS considered her explanation as utterly unbelievable. and absurd
If Team Shelby thinks she was sabotaged, why did they invent the stupid burrito excuse instead?
Or are you just making things up?
Shelby was required to come up with a reason or she would be banned. That was the only reasoning they could think of. She has said multiple times that she wasn't sure at all if the burrito caused it but that was the thing that made the most sense to her. The alternative was just accepting the ban.
She was banned for intentional doping because she couldn't prove it was unintentional. Hope this helps.
Precisely. This is not evidence or proof of intent. The CAS told us intent was presumed, then deemed, based on no evidence of intent.
Although I am in the camp of belief that Shelby did intentionally dope…
It’s rather hard to prove that anyone intentionally doped. There would have to be investigation that WADA or USADA aren’t legally able to engage in effectively. Things like damning message or purchase receipts would need to be willingly supplied by the suspect in question, and if you are trying to argue innocence through contamination, you could just simply make those receipts not exist to an organization that can’t execute a physical/digital search warrant. On the other hand, no one has much substantial evidence to prove innocence either.
Test positive and you are banned is the most effective way to stop people from doping. Having the substance in your blood/urine/hair is extremely substantial evidence in its own right, and from my understanding, WADA tests for a relatively high presence of a substance, as our bodies naturally produce most of the markers, not the hardly detectable trace amount you’d find in a contaminated offal burrito.
Even though it’s possible, the statistical and situational odds that all of this wasnt just Shelby’s last ditch excuse are SO LOW. I don’t remember the exact numbers but they were bordering between ‘winning the lottery’ and ‘statistical impossibility’ territory, add a motive being that Shelby is a female professional middle distance runner who would be GREATLY benefited by nandrolone use, if she were able to get away with it… and the odds look really really bad. With a combination of established motive, physical evidence, and the insanely low probability of her version of events playing out, I think we are a ways past “beyond a reasonable doubt” here.
I believe Shelby was sabotaged by someone who wanted her to get busted. I've been around enough American elite female runners to know that they are some of the most insanely jealous people in the world. Many of them believe that if they get beat then the person who beat them must be doping. They love to walk around high and mighty like they are the only clean ones.
These American groups also see doping as about the same moral evil as being a racist. I don't believe anyone in these groups would actually dope because you lose everything including your friends. Sabotaging a competitor is a much easier route to take especially when you believe they are already cheating.
How would a pro female athlete go about doing this sabotage?
You are aware of how the sample collection and testing process works right?
Depends on the dope... injection, orally, subcutaneously, through inhalation, add it to their food like a bottle of hot sauce (HA!, just kidding. I crack myself up ;)