The Railroading of Shelby Houlihan

davies report wrote:

SeattleSilver wrote:

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

Why?

SH is not resident or employed in the UK, so UK law is irrelevant. And there is no US employment law that would prohibit signing away the rights we are addressing here.

I also wonder whether SH is actually employed by Nike or BTC rather than an independent contractor. I have no specific knowledge regarding those organizations, but generally sponsorship deals in the US are not employment agreements.

Shelby Houlihan isn’t an employee of World Athletics, USATF, or even Nike.

She’s an independent contractor who’s been barred from competitions. There’s been no suggestion that she’s even lost out on any compensation outside of appearance or performance benefits.

Your focus on employment law arguments just aren’t the most relevant legal or procedural questions here.

SeattleSilver wrote:

davies report wrote:

Why?

SH is not resident or employed in the UK, so UK law is irrelevant. And there is no US employment law that would prohibit signing away the rights we are addressing here.

I also wonder whether SH is actually employed by Nike or BTC rather than an independent contractor. I have no specific knowledge regarding those organizations, but generally sponsorship deals in the US are not employment agreements.

Quick clarification: This isn’t technically true. American law and British law are somewhat similar in this regard.

In the U.S., your employer can make you sign a document that nominally deprives you of rights, but that is often unenforceable or subject to appeal in court. See: non-competition agreements, which are widespread in America but unenforceable in reality. American courts have ruled that your current employer cannot permanently deprive you of your rights to earn a living or enter into employment with a competitor (so long as you’re not giving up any proprietary information).

In any event, Shelby Houlihan is not involved in an employment dispute so it’s not relevant here.

States vary with respect to noncompetes. For example, they largely are unenforceable in California, but are often enforceable for employees making $100,000/year or more in Washington.

And arbitration/mediation provisions are common and generally enforceable.

lol, here's a rage-inducing fact I just read: We may never see the full CAS report.

Once it's complete, CAS can't release it unless both Houlihan and World Athletics agree to publish it.

This casts the BTC press conference in a very different light for me. If the report really does show conclusive evidence that Houlihan doped intentionally -- or, at a minimum, a detailed rebuttal of Houlihan's claims -- I'd imagine they'll simply refuse to release it and we'll never learn more than we heard in that press conference (i.e. not much that can be verified).

QUESTION FOR LETSRUN: Will you ask Houlihan and/or her representatives whether they'll commit to releasing the CAS report?

(If they want to redact any confidential health information, that's fine, but fans should be able to read the report if we're meant to believe in BTC's side of the story.)

More info here:

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/have-you-heard-of-nandrolone/

burritogate wrote:

Shelby Houlihan isn’t an employee of World Athletics, USATF, or even Nike.

She’s an independent contractor who’s been barred from competitions. There’s been no suggestion that she’s even lost out on any compensation outside of appearance or performance benefits.

Your focus on employment law arguments just aren’t the most relevant legal or procedural questions here.

In the uk you join a club the club affiliates to Uk athletics which then to WA etc.

In my mind your contract is with your club .

I have not focused on employment law only to say that sports rules can’t sign rights away which would include employment law.The issue being signing rights away.

Welcome to America, baby. We're generally not into things like "employee rights" or "contractual employment."

Ironically, there is currently an active push to organize track and field athletes and advocate for such benefits, but Shelby Houlihan does not appear to be involved.

https://athleticsassociation.org/

The Bowerman Track Club's athletes aren't employees of the club or of Nike. They're independent contractors, sponsored by Nike, and a condition of their contract is that Nike can dictate their coaching relationships.

This is pretty messed up, it's true! They should just be employees. Ironically, BTC is one of the best training groups in the United States because they at least offer their members health insurance and other benefits (massage, facility access, etc.) as an incentive to join the club.

CAShasthegoods wrote:

Welcome to America, baby. We're generally not into things like "employee rights" or "contractual employment."

Ironically, there is currently an active push to organize track and field athletes and advocate for such benefits, but Shelby Houlihan does not appear to be involved.

https://athleticsassociation.org/

The Bowerman Track Club's athletes aren't employees of the club or of Nike. They're independent contractors, sponsored by Nike, and a condition of their contract is that Nike can dictate their coaching relationships.

This is pretty messed up, it's true! They should just be employees. Ironically, BTC is one of the best training groups in the United States because they at least offer their members health insurance and other benefits (massage, facility access, etc.) as an incentive to join the club.

Very interesting .

And we have all sorts of jig economy possibilities.

Can an employee have to give whereabouts of their spare time and be forced to allow drug testers into their homes.

Some years ago the French were not allowed to dig test in holiday time .

Soccer and its PFA ( Union) won’t now as it is a breach of employment law.

No employer can text an employee at his home in the middle of the night.

No employer can demand viewed urination.

These employees may be pilots, run nuclear plants etc etc but still they can’t.

My point is that at some point there is a very big chance that wada will come falling down as it clashes with real and normal laws.

Very possible that WADA policies run into employment law issues, but that almost certainly won’t be in the United States.

In fact, the U.S. legal system is moving in the opposite direction, making it easier to criminally charge dopers.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-idUSKBN28F03K

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.

Administrative law is a body of law in a common law system - which the US is - like that of contract law or torts. But it doesn't do what davies report thinks it does. Nothing does. He has no idea what he is talking about.

Those "real and normal" laws are related to employment and collective bargaining. Neither is currently relevant for track athletes in the US. Moreover, there are many athletes who are sponsored but not part of a club, and others that are neither sponsored or part of a club.

You also need to consider that if Nike, Adidas, NB and others were required to be the employer of every athlete they sponsored, they would sponsor fewer athletes, because being an employer entails costs and responsibilities above sponsorship support as currently provided.

And consider the case of an athlete who has sponsorship deals with Nike, Gatorade, Mastercard, and Taco Bell. How do you determine which of the sponsors is the employer?

"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"(quote).

You really need some kind of therapy. Those "who did not cheat" are those who have not failed a drug test. If you fail a drug test - and it is confirmed by the 'B'sample - you cheated. Intent is irrelevant to the fact that the athlete has failed the test.

To use another analogy: it is irrefutable that you are as stupid as a bunch of planks; why you are stupid - your intent - is irrelevant to that unarguable fact.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"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"(quote).

You really need some kind of therapy. Those "who did not cheat" are those who have not failed a drug test. If you fail a drug test - and it is confirmed by the 'B'sample - you cheated. Intent is irrelevant to the fact that the athlete has failed the test.

To use another analogy: it is irrefutable that you are as stupid as a bunch of planks; why you are stupid - your intent - is irrelevant to that unarguable fact.

Cheating should not be irrelevant to a failed drug test.

davies report wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"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"(quote).

You really need some kind of therapy. Those "who did not cheat" are those who have not failed a drug test. If you fail a drug test - and it is confirmed by the 'B'sample - you cheated. Intent is irrelevant to the fact that the athlete has failed the test.

To use another analogy: it is irrefutable that you are as stupid as a bunch of planks; why you are stupid - your intent - is irrelevant to that unarguable fact.

Cheating should not be irrelevant to a failed drug test.

Cheating isn't irrelevant. It is presumed when the athlete has a substance in his or her body in excess of the stated amount. However, the presumption is what we in the law business sometimes refer to as a 'rebuttable presumption'. That is, the athlete with the positive test is presumed to be cheating unless the athlete rebuts the presumption by showing that they didn't cheat. SH and her team were given that opportunity, and the panel decided that they hadn't met the standard to overcome the presumption.

Since we don't know the details of the case presented by SH's team or the panel's reasons for rejecting them, we really don't know whether or not the ruling was objectively fair. However, based on the arguments SH and her team have made public, I'm not surprised that they lost. A string of 'maybes' shouldn't be enough to overcome the presumption that she agreed to when she decided that she wanted to run in events governed by bodies subject to WADA's jurisdiction.

Let me get this straight, the SH detractors want us to believe she took a microdose of oral nandrolone one time on December 14th, and did not take any during the previous several months or several weeks afterward. A single oral dose, which would have offered no benefit. If this is not what you are claiming, please explain why.

This 2010 study on the "Analysis of anabolic steroids in human hair using LC–MS/MS" is relevant:

https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/6838/Deshmukh%20et%20al%202010.pdf

Reading this paragraph on the Dutch "Boars on the Way" website, which promotes the non-castration of pigs, got me thinking about just how little we understand about the amount of naturally-occurring nandrolone in the food supply:

"The production, sale and consumption of meat from uncastrated pigs naturally depends on the market demand. In Europe, a clear trend can be observed. Since time, the UK and Ireland have not castrated male pigs. In Spain, this applies to about 80% of the pigs. Two years ago Dutch supermarkets have agreed not to sell any meat from castrated pigs anymore. In Germany, France and Belgium more and more market parties switch towards boar meat. The offer, purchase and acceptance of meat from uncastrated pigs shows a clear growth."

https://www.boarsontheway.com/faq

Then, down below, there's a great no-nonsense discussion and description of a test for taint by a pig farmer in western Washington state which reveals how farmers feel about castration and how detectable boar taint is in real life pork production. It is undeniable there exists a strong movement among consumers as well as producers to stop the castration of piglets in Europe and America, and it does not appear WADA has taken this into account. It is inevitable that a whole lot more tainted pork exists in the food supply now than there was in years previously. I cannot find a single study that has tested for the presence of nandrolone or similar substances in common pork foods which contain pork offal, such as hot dogs, bratwurst, bologna, pizza pepperoni, chorizo, etc. Anyone know of a study? We prefer not to think about what's in it, but pork sausage is everywhere, my friends. Anyway, this post (and the comments, which are just as interesting) is not for the squeamish:

http://ebeyfarm.blogspot.com/2010/09/eating-boar.html

moultonk wrote:

Let me get this straight, the SH detractors want us to believe she took a microdose of oral nandrolone one time on December 14th, and did not take any during the previous several months or several weeks afterward. A single oral dose, which would have offered no benefit. If this is not what you are claiming, please explain why.

This 2010 study on the "Analysis of anabolic steroids in human hair using LC–MS/MS" is relevant:

https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/6838/Deshmukh%20et%20al%202010.pdf

I don't think all SH detractors are claiming that. Although is it possible that she had been microdosing for a short period when she didn't expect to be tested, but stopped after the December test.

But whatever the detractors believe she might have done, the point remains that it isn't her detractor's job to show what she did. It is quite possible that what she did didn't even make sense. It is her job to rebut the presumption that she cheated, and based on the public disclosures offered so far, she has failed to convince many, including the CAS panel. She actually hasn't proved that she ate pork (the evidence she allegedly presented suggested otherwise) or that she ate enough pork for it to be solely responsible for the positive test. The cascade of 'maybes' is unconvincing to me, and I wish it were otherwise.

moultonk wrote:

Let me get this straight, the SH detractors want us to believe she took a microdose of oral nandrolone one time on December 14th, and did not take any during the previous several months or several weeks afterward. A single oral dose, which would have offered no benefit. If this is not what you are claiming, please explain why.

This 2010 study on the "Analysis of anabolic steroids in human hair using LC–MS/MS" is relevant:

https://www.doping.nl/media/kb/6838/Deshmukh%20et%20al%202010.pdf

A couple things:

1. The control for this study is *one* admitted user of a steroid other than nandrolone. The test group uncovered three positive nandrolone samples of unspecified origin. What’s the evidence that hair testing catches orally-ingested nandrolone? It’s an extremely small sample.

(This is a sincere question. If that evidence exists, I’d find it a compelling point in Houlihan’s favor. That said, I’ve seen a number of experts suggest that hair testing is only useful for injected nandrolone.)

2. Have you seen the hair testing results? The public hasn’t, so it’s impossible to know how seriously to take it. Presumably the CAS received those results and rejected Houlihan’s claim nonetheless.

All we know right now is that Houlihan claims to have undergone analysis of her hair. When was this test? Who administered the test? Was the test conducted by an independent analyst or was it conducted in Nike’s labs? What was the chain of custody? These are all relevant questions if we’re to believe that the hair testing is exculpatory evidence, but for some reason, Houlihan’s legal team hasn’t actually released the results.

These minute amounts could have come from

many sources and a month after the test any chance of it being a rebuttable assumption if a burden far to far .