Shelby Houlihan Ban Upheld -- Loses Appeal

Pigy farmer wrote:

I mean.. wrote:

Shelby continues to insist that she was a victim of an unfair/unjust "system." Can someone here tell me what she means by that?

Is it that she is trying to say there should be some sort of provision of a lesser punishment (or even some sort of waiver lol) for a positive test, but that the drug got into the system without the athlete's knowledge or mistakenly?

This is laughable, and if that was what she was trying to propose, she would ALSO be saying that the Russian athletes who were part of systemic doping on the organizational/national level should have been able to compete. I mean. Come on.

There is the provision re your second para.

Read the rules prior to posting.

olyrun 2 wrote:

Houlihan,Schumacher and Flanagan say: "there are flaws in the antidoping system who's unfair practices results in unfair outcomes" and "there are other innocent athletes who have, and will continue to be affected by the system." They say the antidoping system is "broken".

What are the unfair practices and who are these innocent athletes?

I mean.. wrote:

Pigy farmer wrote:

There is the provision re your second para.

Read the rules prior to posting.

Lol. Cute condescending and rude non answer, but we'll just move on. So if there is a provision for this situation happening, and she didn't prove that it did, then how is the system "unjust," or "unfair" and how was she a victim of it? This is rhetorical, and I'm not really responding to you, but the group--just as an fyi. I don't really want to engage you.

I said this earlier, I don't think she was victimized at all, she merely failed to prove her case.

Sabotage wrote:

Unpopular opinion/theory:

I believe that someone sabotaged her food/drink at some point in time. Whatever the case, I don’t think she took what showed up in her system knowingly.

i ain't readin all that wrote:

Sincere question - Is there anything in this 11-page thread that hasn't been said before?

Like is there a "best of" that I can read, with the maybe 2 meaningful and novel ideas I would find if I read all 11 pages?

Wise Old Man wrote:

Pigy farmer wrote:

what what does” prove a crime” mean?

Whether or not a crime was committed is often not dependent on whether or not there was an intent to commit a crime. There are many examples where you can break the law even if you did not intend to do so. It’s just about how the law is written.

MooseMan wrote:

at the point of a positive B-sample and ban the athlete has been proven to be guilty.

bluh wrote:

Wise Old Man wrote:

Whether or not a crime was committed is often not dependent on whether or not there was an intent to commit a crime. There are many examples where you can break the law even if you did not intend to do so. It’s just about how the law is written.

Correct. Intent typically matters more for sentencing, e.g., first degree murder vs manslaughter, or adding on a hate crime charge to a crime, willful vs negligent property damage, etc.

There really isn’t a fundamental difference in the principle of justice between criminal prosecution and PED use, including the innocent until proven guilty part, just differences of procedural implementation. Commenters arguing otherwise appear to not be able to see the difference between an analogy of principle and literal likeness.

pavement88 wrote:

i ain't readin all that wrote:

Sincere question - Is there anything in this 11-page thread that hasn't been said before?

Like is there a "best of" that I can read, with the maybe 2 meaningful and novel ideas I would find if I read all 11 pages?

After the first 4 or 5 pages of any Shelby thread, it devolves into the same 3 morons bickering about the same thing.

i ain't readin all that wrote:

Sincere question - Is there anything in this 11-page thread that hasn't been said before?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

One more thing. I'll chime in eventually expressing my annoyance with rekrunner, Armstronglivs and liar soorer repeating the exact same things that they have already written a thousand times each. They will ban the current liar soorer sock puppet, delete my comments as thread-derailing and liar soorers new handle, rekrunner and Armstronglivs will be free to get back at it for another few dozen pages.

Have you anything to say about anything, apart from "chiming in" to express your annoyance?

Surprise! wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Have you anything to say about anything, apart from "chiming in" to express your annoyance?

No. I think I would mostly say what you have been saying. Just once or twice, not 3000 times.

casual obsever wrote:

There is a block feature, but unfortunately it only works for registered users.

Makes Paper wrote:

MooseMan wrote:

at the point of a positive B-sample and ban the athlete has been proven to be guilty.

Is that right, or is it more that they're "presumed" guilty, and then they have to prove their innocence. Because if so, then the criticism still stands: they're never "proven" guilty; there is just evidence suggestive of guilt (the positive tests), which leads to a presumption.

bluh wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

No. I think I would mostly say what you have been saying. Just once or twice, not 3000 times.

Armstronglivs, based on my past experience on this forum, is a jerk and his posts are the insufferable bane of online forums, filled with extreme conviction on most issues he actually knows little about, weakly piddling out when challenged to actually produce scientific or authoritative references, and overly trigger happy to fire first-strike with gratuitous nasty verbal assaults on the poster instead of responding to the substantive content of their posts. For his posts alone, I wish there was a “block” feature on here so I didn’t have to see them.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Makes Paper wrote:

Is that right, or is it more that they're "presumed" guilty, and then they have to prove their innocence. Because if so, then the criticism still stands: they're never "proven" guilty; there is just evidence suggestive of guilt (the positive tests), which leads to a presumption.

There is no “presumed” guilty. As soon as the test results were confirmed, she was banned and it was as a done deal. Houlihan went for an appeal at CAS, but the test results and the specified ban was never challenged.