Shelby Houlihan runs 4:03 1500

Vinny wrote:

Rekrunner,

If she didn't dope why is she serving a ban? It's very simple. I understand that you don't think doping is as big a problem as others, but cmon man. She is literally serving a doping ban and you're saying she isn't in the wrong?

Read the rules and it may be clear.

You get banned not for doping but for it being on your system. Not quite the same.

Read the rules provided just.

Vinny wrote:

Rekrunner,

If she didn't dope why is she serving a ban? It's very simple. I understand that you don't think doping is as big a problem as others, but cmon man. She is literally serving a doping ban and you're saying she isn't in the wrong?

Using WADA's definition of doping, she did dope. That is why she is serving a ban. Under the current rules, the detected presence of a banned substance in her sample, above a low threshold, when considered an AAF, violates two rules, regardless of intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use.

But seriously? In the wrong? Let's not pretend that a process designed by WADA to make convictions easier and sanctions longer, by eliminating the burden to justify them, is the right tool to decide between right and wrong. Eliminating the benefit of the doubt does not eliminate the doubt, just the benefit, for accused athletes.

Once again, since everyone is so emotionally attached to Houlihan's ban, let's recall the case of Swiss handball Simon Getzmann. His positive test result came from a legally prescribed WADA-legal painkiller. We know this because he had one tablet left that could be tested, and it contained traces of the banned substance. Suppose he didn't have that last painkiller. What happens under the current WADA process? Just like Houlihan, he would have been forced to board a train on a fast-track and railroaded to a 4-year ban, with so-called fans of the sport of handball demonizing the doper/cheater and mocking his predictable excuse of "contaminated painkiller" - "LOL".

Let's also recall the case of Jarrion Lawson, where a CAS Panel decided that WADA Lab Director Prof. Ayotte -- the same expert used in the Houlihan case -- effectively misled the tribunal, and as a result of this wrong information, the CAS overruled the ban.

Let's also recall the 27 no-fault cases that USADA has prosecuted since rule changes in 2015, all the while complaining about how the rule changes harm athletes.

In order to decide that Houlihan is in the wrong, we need to first accept that the WA/AIU/CAS/WADA are in the right. If the WADA process could have railroaded the innocent athlete Getzmann, and 27 no-fault athletes that USADA saved from boarding the train, and outright failed for Lawson, it is simply the wrong tool to use to judge between right and wrong.

rekrunner wrote:

In order to decide that Houlihan is in the wrong, we need to first accept that the WA/AIU/CAS/WADA are in the right. If the WADA process could have railroaded the innocent athlete Getzmann, and 27 no-fault athletes that USADA saved from boarding the train, and outright failed for Lawson, it is simply the wrong tool to use to judge between right and wrong.

Lest someone accuse me of only defending white American women, have I mentioned the up-to-50 Kenyans also busted for nandrolone, in a country that doesn't routinely castrate their pigs, and doesn't have USDA inspectors?

As the case of Simon Getzmann shows, an innocent athlete needs a significant amount of funding, not to mention a fair amount of good luck, to prove his innocence. Neglecting the obvious language barrier for Kenyans who might only speak their native tongue, in conducting an arbitration proceeding in a foreign language, it is like salmon swimming up a waterfall.

After she tested positive, she got banned for presence (rule 2.1) and use or attempted use (rule 2.2) of nandro - not "just" "for it being on [her] system". WADA Rule 2.1 and 2.2, fresh from the current code:

2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample...2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

casual obsever wrote:

original liar soorer wrote:

Read the rules and it may be clear.You get banned not for doping but for it being on your system. Not quite the same.Read the rules provided just.

After she tested positive, she got banned for presence (rule 2.1) and use or attempted use (rule 2.2) of nandro - not "just" "for it being on [her] system". WADA Rule 2.1 and 2.2, fresh from the current code:

2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample...2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

In her case, it was presence of a prohibited steroid, namely nandrolone. Classic PED doping (like Kiprop), not missing too many tests (Coleman, Manangoi) or tampering (Salazar, McNeal) or prohibited method (Salazar) or possession/traficking (Salazar).

2.2 is still a strict liability offence and is based on presence and where intent is not necessary to be proven.

I would say “was” a classic banned steroid but the testing has made it use not as it was.

You didn’t answer the question, you just brought up a bunch of random points.

If Houlihan did not dope, why is she serving a doping ban?

My view: if you take dope to mean intent then intent is never tested by the rules and thus it is reasonable to say that she did not dope, but I did say “if”.

The ban would be due to presence ; a strict liability offence.

not a duck wrote:

You didn’t answer the question, you just brought up a bunch of random points.

If Houlihan did not dope, why is she serving a doping ban?

Re-read the post, at least as far as the first 16 words.

I answered that question in the first three sentences.

Then I answered the second question.

This despite both questions attributing something to me that I did not say.

If the committee didn’t think she cheated and was telling the truth about the burrito, they wouldn’t have banned her for four years.

They gave her the harshest penalty possible, banning her for four years and two Olympic cycles.

You can argue over the connotative and denotative meaning of the verb “to cheat” and inferences regarding the ruling all you like. It doesn’t change the fact that she’s serving a four year doping ban and many races and meets will ban her for life based on that conviction.

She’s either a cheat or the world’s stupidest elite athlete. The committee went with cheater.

After her coach, the world's highest distance running coach, backed by the world’s most advanced sports medicine infrastructure, states he’s never heard of nandrolone raises huge red flags too.

Committee ie CAS went with the rules and never ruled on cheating.

Your understanding of the process is at the lowest level.

Educate yourself and study the rules provided .

I don’t need to read any rules or even the court decision. I knew she was doping just from how she and Jerry tried to persuade the public. Jerry said he had never heard of nandrolone. That is complete bullshet and the biggest red flag to me.

We don’t need to read the rules to know that taking nandrolone is cheating, and that saying eating a burrito caused it is lying.

Shelby should have abided by the rules you keep telling everyone to read.

She had multiple hearings and appeals. All resulting in the same conclusion. She cheated and lied.

Four year ban. Maximum penalty.

They don’t hand out the maximum penalty lightly.

Her coach is a liar too. He’s heard of nandrolone, and by lying and saying he hasn’t raised suspicion.

nardi one wrote:

We don’t need to read the rules to know that taking nandrolone is cheating, and that saying eating a burrito caused it is lying.

Shelby should have abided by the rules you keep telling everyone to read.

She had multiple hearings and appeals. All resulting in the same conclusion. She cheated and lied.

Four year ban. Maximum penalty.

They don’t hand out the maximum penalty lightly.

Her coach is a liar too. He’s heard of nandrolone, and by lying and saying he hasn’t raised suspicion.

Every sentence is wrong and written by one who needs educating.

RIrunnerz wrote:

I don’t need to read any rules or even the court decision. I knew she was doping just from how she and Jerry tried to persuade the public. Jerry said he had never heard of nandrolone. That is complete bullshet and the biggest red flag to me.

Condemned out of your own mouth.

“ I don’t need to read…..”

original liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Perhaps" the moon is also made of green cheese. Your speculation is pure fancy. What is much more probable is that they doped, which we would expect in a country that WADA has identified has a doping problem.

Has it occurred to you that it may have a doping problem because of boar meat.

You do fall for tautological errors don’t you.

I see you do have a sense of humour. Boar meat - green cheese.

original liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What does WADA consider to be "legitimate doping"?

I would have thought about a 100,000 doping products.

Then thinking fails you again. If I take aspirin or drink coffee I am not doping. Same for all the other products not banned. Doping is that which is illicit; taking permitted products/medicines isn't. If it were not so every single athlete bar none is a "doper". How ironic, when you refuse to call Houlihan a doper, despite her ban.

original liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

When is doping honest and fair?

When it is allowed and even encouraged.

Examples?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

When is doping honest and fair?

Doping is honest when there is no fault, no negligence, and no knowing use.

Doping is fair when no competition result was impacted or altered.

You forgot motivation: "in order to gain an advantage".

Accident doping, when there was no fault or negligence in the part of the athlete, is "honest" within your definition but only as an excuse for something that is proscribed. As you also say, ""honesty" does not extend to the athlete knowing what they are doing. So, crucially, doping cannot be open, admitted - or even aware - and "honest" at the same time. The word instead of "honest" should be "unaware", added to the proviso of "without negligence".

"Fairness" does not mean ineffectual. There is never a defence to doping that it may not have worked. As an offence its effects are not calculated. By definition, banned substances have the "potential" to enhance performance (or can harm health or are in breach of principles of sportsmanship). Using a banned substance is never "fair" within the code. We can never know whether it worked for an individual athlete and by how much although it can generally be assumed there will be an advantage.

The athlete's motivation is irrelevant if they have taken something that is banned that has the potential to enhance performance. They have doped. They are responsible for what is found in their body. All they have is the possible excuse that it was accidental and occurred without negligence on their part.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What does WADA consider to be "legitimate doping"?

You moved the goalpost.

A positive test result that is considered an ATF is not considered doping.

So doping is never "legitimate"; it can only be excusable? Thus it is always wrong.