This thread isn’t about innocence or guilt. Try to stay on topic. If you cared about fairness, you would support my elegant solution.
Wrong. Because she is guilty your "elegant solution" is irrelevant. Fairness requires the penalty she was given.
Fairness requires consistency in punishments. If two people commit the same crime and they are both first-time offenders, it’s not fair to give one of them a much harsher sentence.
Wrong. Because she is guilty your "elegant solution" is irrelevant. Fairness requires the penalty she was given.
Fairness requires consistency in punishments. If two people commit the same crime and they are both first-time offenders, it’s not fair to give one of them a much harsher sentence.
No two cases will be exactly the same. She got what the rules provided. It's a shame however that the ban wasn't permanent. The sport doesn't need dopers.
No, they aren't. That is your view. You won't find it stated in any antidoping decision.
Yes, missing one Olympic year is the spirit of the standard four-year ban. That’s a fact which I already proved to you in another thread. Go back and read that post to educate yourself. Your ignorance is unbecoming.
If it was a necessary feature of a decision it would be expressly included. It wasn't. And it isn't. The "spirit" of the ban is irrelevant. It is rules that apply. You don't understand how the process works.
This post was edited 30 seconds after it was posted.
Yes, missing one Olympic year is the spirit of the standard four-year ban. That’s a fact which I already proved to you in another thread. Go back and read that post to educate yourself. Your ignorance is unbecoming.
If it was a necessary feature of a decision it would be expressly included. It wasn't. And it isn't. The "spirit" of the ban is irrelevant. It is rules that apply. You don't understand how the process works.
As I showed you, it was there in an early draft of the proposed rule change. Due to legal concerns, it was then replaced with the four-year penalty intended to serve the same purpose.
The push to increase WADA’s standard ban from 2 years to 4 years came after many people got upset that LaShawn Merritt was able to compete in the 2011 world championships and 2012 Olympics after being suspended in 2009. The International Olympic Committee tried to bar Merritt from competing in the 2012 Olympics based on their Rule 45 that was established to keep suspended athletes from competing in the next Olympics, but their decision was overturned by CAS because it was deemed to be a second punishment. Hence the push to strengthen the standard punishment.
An early draft of WADA’s rule change shared in June 2012 had a provision that was similar to IOC rule 45. As reported at the time by BBC: “Article 10.15 of the latest draft of the new Wada code now makes clear the provision for banning athletes from the next Olympic Games. It states: "Where an athlete or other person has been sanctioned for an anti-doping rule violation other than under Articles 10.3.3 (Filing Failures and Missed Tests), 10.3.4 (Prohibited Association), 10.4 (Specified Substances), or 10.5.2 (No Significant Fault or Negligence), and Article 10.5.3 (Substantial Assistance) is not applicable, then, as an additional sanction, the athlete or other person shall be ineligible to participate in the next Summer Olympic Games and the next Winter Olympic Games taking place after the end of the period of ineligibility otherwise imposed."
A later version of the draft for the rule change shared in November 2012 removed the Olympic clause and instead stipulated a 4-year ban, due to concerns about legal challenges. As reported by Inside the Games:
“The move to double the length of bans for dopers was made in the latest draft World Anti-Doping Code while the controversial "Osaka Rule", which bans athletes convicted of serious doping offences from competing in the next Olympic Games, has been dropped.
Rule 45 - or the Osaka Rule - was removed amid fears that such a rule could be challenged legally after the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) successfully argued on behalf of Beijing 2008 400 metres champion LaShawn Merritt at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) that it was unfair because it was a second punishment for the same offence.”
BY TOM DEGUN NOVEMBER 19 - WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY (WADA) PRESIDENT JOHN FAHEY IS CONFIDENT THAT THE PLAN TO INCREASE THE LENGTH OF BANS FOR SERIOUS...
As reported by Sports Illustrated: WADA President John Fahey said Monday there is "an overwhelming amount of support for the sanction to be strengthened" for use of steroids, human growth hormone and other serious doping substances and methods.“
"Four years will invariably take out someone competing in the next Olympics," Fahey said.
The 4-year ban was seen by the IOC as a satisfactory way of meeting their goal to keep suspended athletes out of the next Olympics, and doing it in a way that would withstand legal challenges. As reported by Al Jazeera:
“IOC President Jacques Rogge supports proposals to double the length of doping bans to four years as a way of keeping drug cheats out of the Olympics.
He said the change would be in line with the International Olympic Committee’s previous failed attempt to bar any athlete slapped with a ban of more than six months from competing in the subsequent Olympics.
The so-called “Osaka Rule” was thrown out last year by the Court of Arbitration for Sport on grounds that the sanction represented a second penalty for the same offence and did not comply with the WADA code.
WADA’s proposed four-year bans should serve the same purpose as the IOC rule. “This is something that is completely in line with the Osaka Rule, because the Osaka Rule was to stop the athletes to participate in the next games if their penalty was higher than six months,” Rogge said.
“Now with this high penalty of four years, automatically you don’t participate in the next games.”
these Shelby hypotheticals are stupid but in case no one has brought it up, it is absolutely not the AIU's responsibility to accommodate dopers. Oh, you got banned during a pandemic that occurs once a century? too bad. shouldn't have doped. Oh you get banned during an inevitable WWIII that postpones the olympics anyways? Lucky break. Whatever.
She created the problem by taking a banned substance. If she didn't do that she wouldn't have missed anything, Covid or not.
Runners who get caught taking banned substances are only supposed to miss one Olympic year. This is a unique situation.
This is a really stupid thread with a really stupid premise but it's also kind of fun and I'm kind of drawn to it. But here's how this works. An athlete caught taking a banned substance is supposed to miss any competitions that happen during their suspension. What those competitions are and when they happen is not a consideration.
If a major league baseball player from a team that's likely going into the playoffs is caught using something banned in early August is given that standard 81 game suspension that MLB gives to such players ,this guy could miss about 60 regular season games, depending on what time of the month his suspension begins, and any post season games his team plays. Your idea of letting Houlihan compete in the Olympic Trials and Games and then go back to being suspended for 2025 would be like MLB allowing that suspended player to play in the post season and then finish his suspension in the following regular season.
That's not it works but it is kind of fun watching you play this out because you think it should work like this. To your idea that suspended athletes are only supposed to miss one Olympics so it's wrong for hers to cover two Olympics, remember this. She had the option of admitting that she had taken nandrolone and reducing her suspension to three years. Had she done that she would be eligible for Paris. There's a thread here now that I've not looked at asking why she didn't just admit guilt and have only a three year suspension. For whatever reason she chose not to. So I'll stand by what I said in my previous post. It's a problem of her own making.
The problem with Shelby’s suspension is that it covers two Olympic years even though the spirit of the standard four-year doping penalty is to cover just one Olympic year.
The elegant solution to this problem is to let Shelby compete this year so she has the opportunity to qualify for the Olympics, then have her serve the fourth year of her suspension next year. This is the fair thing to do.
Who’s with me? Let’s use this thread as a petition to let Shelby compete this year.
No, they aren't. That is your view. You won't find it stated in any antidoping decision.
Yes, missing one Olympic year is the spirit of the standard four-year ban. That’s a fact which I already proved to you in another thread. Go back and read that post to educate yourself. Your ignorance is unbecoming.
If anything, all you 'proved' was that the spirit of severe violations is that the athlete miss at LEAST one Olympics. Nothing you have said even remotely evidences a concern that dopers not miss more than one Olympics.
Personally: dopers should be out for life. That is TRULY in the spirit of fairness. And btw has Shelby given the prize money she won for her USA titles to the actual winners and placers?
This is a really stupid thread with a really stupid premise but it's also kind of fun and I'm kind of drawn to it. But here's how this works. An athlete caught taking a banned substance is supposed to miss any competitions that happen during their suspension. What those competitions are and when they happen is not a consideration.
If a major league baseball player from a team that's likely going into the playoffs is caught using something banned in early August is given that standard 81 game suspension that MLB gives to such players ,this guy could miss about 60 regular season games, depending on what time of the month his suspension begins, and any post season games his team plays. Your idea of letting Houlihan compete in the Olympic Trials and Games and then go back to being suspended for 2025 would be like MLB allowing that suspended player to play in the post season and then finish his suspension in the following regular season.
That's not it works but it is kind of fun watching you play this out because you think it should work like this. To your idea that suspended athletes are only supposed to miss one Olympics so it's wrong for hers to cover two Olympics, remember this. She had the option of admitting that she had taken nandrolone and reducing her suspension to three years. Had she done that she would be eligible for Paris. There's a thread here now that I've not looked at asking why she didn't just admit guilt and have only a three year suspension. For whatever reason she chose not to. So I'll stand by what I said in my previous post. It's a problem of her own making.
Thank you for considering my proposal. Your baseball analogy doesn’t fit. That’s an ordinary situation. Shelby’s situation is unique.
A question for those who are against my proposal: Why? What’s wrong with my proposal? I’m not saying her suspension should be reduced. I’m just saying to have her finish it next year so she has the chance to qualify for the second Olympics after her suspension began, just like other people who get the standard four-year ban.
The solution to the Shelby Houlihan situation is for her to serve her 4 year suspension. She cheated, there is no doubt about that. There was nandrolone in her system. There is no plausible explanation for that banned drug being in her body. My elegant solution would be to ban her for life.
Did you not read my proposal? I never said she shouldn’t serve 4 years. I proposed to have her finish her 4th year in 2025. Why is that idea so objectionable?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
