russia is why countries cannot be trusted to do this on their own.
heck, some would argue USA is another reason. we don't just enforce positive tests, we will listen to all sorts of arguments about the tests being poor, the sample being tainted, or why it might be in their system.
oh my god this is painful. and you actually just made my point for me. if someone drives, is pulled over and blows 0.08, then they may meet end up getting a criteria DUI, but assuming they truly thought they were sober (lets say they waited a few hours after their last drink), then the moral culpability is way, way less. the punishment is at least partially justified in this case, arguably; moral condemnation is MUCH harder to justify. This is similar to the case with Shelby. thanks for making the point yourself
EXCEPT Shelby didn’t accidentally ingest Nandrolone. Her appearance changed. She looked more masculine. Her performances became extraordinary by her previous standards, more masculine. Her hairline was receding. Her jawline was different. She knows she intentionally ingested Nandrolone. She admitted she lied to blame the burrito because she had no other option but to admit to intentional doping, which she would never do. She is a liar and you are a liar. You go around defending her. Why? You know things only she would know. So you are Shelby.
Cases are the same. Person at the bar thought they would blow .06 and be good. Shelby thought her dose was low enough to come back negative. The difference is drinking is legal. Doping isnt
Yes, Knighton got away with it. For now, CAS decision is still pending. His food actually did contain the drug, although in a too small amount. So his story had one problem (but also clear evidence of the contamination), that the first panel forgave. We'll see I guess.
Houlihan didn't get away with it, because there was a cascade of 4 - 5 improbabilities, each of which would have been enough to ban her, and all of which would have had to simultaneously occur. Her food - a month later - tested negative, and uncastrated boar is extremely rare in the food chain, and she had too much of the drug in her, and it was artificial but would have been natural if from a boar etc. So a very very clear decision in her case. The OP just ignored all facts.
We know so much about that because of the re-occurring threads like this one, where posters keep citing these findings from the CAS report that her "fans" love to ignore/belittle - which btw is still online if you are interested. And letsrun asked Prof Tucker for a review, who confirmed all of the above: the PED was not in the burrito.
re the rules not ending the problem, i go with the cliche, criminal laws don't stop murder or robbery but we still have them because we consider them a moral wrong we punish when we catch you.
i also think you're wandering towards a cycling-esque argument where you blame the rules for the appearance of ickiness. i don't buy it. it is icky that i, for example, once saw in person the final stage in paris one year that lance won. it's now, like, what did i watch? what of that was real?
but that's a bit too much circular thinking or solipsism. let's say there were no rules. let's say a newspaper publishes an article on rampant roid abuse. let's say it has it on good authority an athlete ordered the drugs. invoices and such. let's say it mentions life consequences later on for older former athletes -- like we are now starting to do for CTE.
i think you're forgetting that there was doping before there were tests. i think you're ignoring that when people heard stuff was happening, it was upsetting and extracted this same "what did i just watch then" response you're saying is specific to testing. eg the neverending discussions about did the eastern bloc mid-distance women cheat in the 1970s-1980s when women with legs like weightlifters or men set world records at 400 and 800.
are you really saying morality and the ick factor goes away if you normalize it?
i think it just subjectivizes things. some will say who cares. some will care. and among those who care there will be these eternal debates about was x doping. with no objective means to decide them. "but her legs are huge and that lead in that era is just abnormal."
thing being, by that standard, levrone beats the living heck out of 400H in a way that is startling.
you're also finessing the athlete consequences issue. it is acting like a parent. but it's bad for your health to do this stuff for any length of time. and if we have to be less paternal, that if a sport ignores associated health, then stuff like football and CTE becomes a problem, and the sport may lose some viewers and participation. i eventually came back, but after watching tour de france back in the last century, i stopped for a long time. part of the deal with the viewer is they don't feel cheated later on. i think the testing is only one aspect of feeling cheated.
to simplify/clarify the argument, the doping tests were set up to catch people doing things we were already upset with but couldn't locate/objectively enforce. you would hear stories. newspapers and magazines would publish anecdotes. but a story here and there is by its nature limited and anecdotal, and driven by who wants to push stories and which direction.
testing was, we hear the stories, we think this is bad, and let's handle this in a universal way and not just when someone drops a dime on x. everyone has to take them, and so it's not, everyone loves x so no one rats on him, or conversely like with armstrong, that y is so powerful he bullies the whistleblowers, or tries to expose them first. or the nationalistic stuff that could take place, FBI or CIA snooping on other teams but not their own. or conversely east germany hiding what they were doing.
or also from a science/courts type standpoint, anyone can tell a rumor, is it true or not. you have people all the time on LR saying the top people in various races are juicing. you can work to improve testing but it's our best attempt at sorting rumor from fact.
Cases are the same. Person at the bar thought they would blow .06 and be good. Shelby thought her dose was low enough to come back negative. The difference is drinking is legal. Doping isnt
Precisely. Person at the bar claimed they didn't have a drink, so somehow it must have been accidentally in their sprite at lunch. But, they had lunch at McDonald's, without sprite, and of course there is no booze anywhere at McDonald's. So, banned. No more driving for a while. But their mom keeps saying it wasn't intentional, and their kid would never dope / drink and drive.
EXCEPT Shelby didn’t accidentally ingest Nandrolone. Her appearance changed. She looked more masculine. Her performances became extraordinary by her previous standards, more masculine. Her hairline was receding. Her jawline was different. She knows she intentionally ingested Nandrolone. She admitted she lied to blame the burrito because she had no other option but to admit to intentional doping, which she would never do. She is a liar and you are a liar. You go around defending her. Why? You know things only she would know. So you are Shelby.
Cases are the same. Person at the bar thought they would blow .06 and be good. Shelby thought her dose was low enough to come back negative. The difference is drinking is legal. Doping isnt
The analogy with the DUI is dissimilar for a couple reasons.
While drinking alcohol is legal (for adults), driving with blood alcohol above a certain threshold is never legal, regardless of source or intent, rendering those arguments completely irrelevant.
In contrast, while (exogenous) nandrolone is a banned substance, WADA's TD on nandrolone provides a number of known exceptions where the presence of nandrolone, even at levels significantly exceeding the threshold, can be considered "endogenous", (i.e. WADA legal), depending on the source, resulting in a negative result, or an atypical finding (ATF), rather than a positive result (AAF).
Note that "intent" (or fault or negligence or personal knowledge) is never considered when determining rule violations (ADRVs). "Intent" is only considered in the subsequent "consequences" phase, to determine if the length the sanction can be reduced.
'The anti-doping framework's strict liability standard holds athletes accountable for any prohibited substance found in their system, regardless of how it got there'
No it does not there are several examples where someone has for example proved a supplement was contaminated and received a substantially reduced sentence. Shelby was unable to provide any evidence to support her claim hence got 4 years
Often this rule is misused as an athlete can prove a minor contamination in a supplement without having to prove that would actually cause a positive once it went through a persons body
Its not like she got 4 years in prison or had to give back all her winnings - Shelby and all others convicted got off lightly and that's why athletes keep doping
That analogy doesn’t track at all. A DUI is illegal because impairment itself is dangerous, regardless of how the alcohol got into someone’s system. If you’re over the legal limit, your reaction time, judgment, and motor skills are compromised, making you a direct threat to others on the road. That’s why DUI laws don’t consider intent—because the actual harm (or risk of harm) is the same whether someone drank knowingly or accidentally. But anti-doping strict liability isn’t about public safety or objective harm; it’s an administrative rule meant to simplify enforcement. The issue with Houlihan’s case is that strict liability is being used to make moral judgments about intent, which is something completely different from what DUI laws are meant to do. Another key difference is the consequences. Getting a DUI is serious, but the penalties—fines, license suspension, even jail time—are structured in a way that allows people to serve their punishment and move on. In contrast, a strict liability doping violation can completely destroy an athlete’s career and reputation, even if the circumstances strongly suggest they didn’t cheat. Once an athlete is labeled a “doper,” that stigma never fully goes away, even if later evidence supports their innocence. That’s a level of moral and professional harm that isn’t comparable to DUI laws, which are designed to match the level of risk posed by the offense. Strict liability makes sense in DUI cases because the risk is always there, no matter the intent. But in doping, strict liability was never supposed to mean “automatic cheater.” It was just a way to make enforcement easier. Houlihan’s case proves why we need to separate strict liability violations from intent-based judgments, because assuming guilt without proof does way more damage than withholding judgment in an ambiguous case. So no, this isn’t about “getting rid of DUIs”—that’s a completely flawed comparison. It’s about making sure strict liability in anti-doping doesn’t wrongly turn into character assassination, which is exactly what happened to Houlihan.
EXCEPT Shelby didn’t accidentally ingest Nandrolone. Her appearance changed. She looked more masculine. Her performances became extraordinary by her previous standards, more masculine. Her hairline was receding. Her jawline was different. She knows she intentionally ingested Nandrolone. She admitted she lied to blame the burrito because she had no other option but to admit to intentional doping, which she would never do. She is a liar and you are a liar. You go around defending her. Why? You know things only she would know. So you are Shelby.
Cases are the same. Person at the bar thought they would blow .06 and be good. Shelby thought her dose was low enough to come back negative. The difference is drinking is legal. Doping isnt
That analogy doesn’t track at all. A DUI is illegal because impairment itself is dangerous, regardless of how the alcohol got into someone’s system. If you’re over the legal limit, your reaction time, judgment, and motor skills are compromised, making you a direct threat to others on the road. That’s why DUI laws don’t consider intent—because the actual harm (or risk of harm) is the same whether someone drank knowingly or accidentally. But anti-doping strict liability isn’t about public safety or objective harm; it’s an administrative rule meant to simplify enforcement. The issue with Houlihan’s case is that strict liability is being used to make moral judgments about intent, which is something completely different from what DUI laws are meant to do. Another key difference is the consequences. Getting a DUI is serious, but the penalties—fines, license suspension, even jail time—are structured in a way that allows people to serve their punishment and move on. In contrast, a strict liability doping violation can completely destroy an athlete’s career and reputation, even if the circumstances strongly suggest they didn’t cheat. Once an athlete is labeled a “doper,” that stigma never fully goes away, even if later evidence supports their innocence. That’s a level of moral and professional harm that isn’t comparable to DUI laws, which are designed to match the level of risk posed by the offense. Strict liability makes sense in DUI cases because the risk is always there, no matter the intent. But in doping, strict liability was never supposed to mean “automatic cheater.” It was just a way to make enforcement easier. Houlihan’s case proves why we need to separate strict liability violations from intent-based judgments, because assuming guilt without proof does way more damage than withholding judgment in an ambiguous case. So no, this isn’t about “getting rid of DUIs”—that’s a completely flawed comparison. It’s about making sure strict liability in anti-doping doesn’t wrongly turn into character assassination, which is exactly what happened to Houlihan.
It’s about making sure strict liability in anti-doping doesn’t wrongly turn into character assassination, which is exactly what happened to Houlihan.
I disagree. Her case is way too obvious - burrito is ridiculous for so many reasons, which is why she's now switching to blaming supplement which however she herself ruled out back in 2021.
Cliffs Notes for those who cannot read the whole thing:
Shelby is white.
Because Shelby is white, we cannot assume she intentionally ingested Nandrolone.
Strict liability is a necessary evil here, but do not assume nefarious motive if the athlete is white.
An excellent and accurate summary of a lame attempt to excuse her doping.
Insufferable bilge.
That this is the best those who disagree can come up with radically strengthens the cases in favor of Shelby, if only by contrast. Thank you to those who present and reiterate such feeble minded arguments.
This post was edited 25 seconds after it was posted.
That analogy doesn’t track at all. A DUI is illegal because impairment itself is dangerous, regardless of how the alcohol got into someone’s system. If you’re over the legal limit, your reaction time, judgment, and motor skills are compromised, making you a direct threat to others on the road. That’s why DUI laws don’t consider intent—because the actual harm (or risk of harm) is the same whether someone drank knowingly or accidentally. But anti-doping strict liability isn’t about public safety or objective harm; it’s an administrative rule meant to simplify enforcement. The issue with Houlihan’s case is that strict liability is being used to make moral judgments about intent, which is something completely different from what DUI laws are meant to do. Another key difference is the consequences. Getting a DUI is serious, but the penalties—fines, license suspension, even jail time—are structured in a way that allows people to serve their punishment and move on. In contrast, a strict liability doping violation can completely destroy an athlete’s career and reputation, even if the circumstances strongly suggest they didn’t cheat. Once an athlete is labeled a “doper,” that stigma never fully goes away, even if later evidence supports their innocence. That’s a level of moral and professional harm that isn’t comparable to DUI laws, which are designed to match the level of risk posed by the offense. Strict liability makes sense in DUI cases because the risk is always there, no matter the intent. But in doping, strict liability was never supposed to mean “automatic cheater.” It was just a way to make enforcement easier. Houlihan’s case proves why we need to separate strict liability violations from intent-based judgments, because assuming guilt without proof does way more damage than withholding judgment in an ambiguous case. So no, this isn’t about “getting rid of DUIs”—that’s a completely flawed comparison. It’s about making sure strict liability in anti-doping doesn’t wrongly turn into character assassination, which is exactly what happened to Houlihan.
The reason people are making moral judgments is because science says Shelby is lying.
She didn’t have trace amounts.
Science says the amounts if her system had to be don’t intentionally.
That analogy doesn’t track at all. A DUI is illegal because impairment itself is dangerous, regardless of how the alcohol got into someone’s system. If you’re over the legal limit, your reaction time, judgment, and motor skills are compromised, making you a direct threat to others on the road. That’s why DUI laws don’t consider intent—because the actual harm (or risk of harm) is the same whether someone drank knowingly or accidentally. But anti-doping strict liability isn’t about public safety or objective harm; it’s an administrative rule meant to simplify enforcement. The issue with Houlihan’s case is that strict liability is being used to make moral judgments about intent, which is something completely different from what DUI laws are meant to do. Another key difference is the consequences. Getting a DUI is serious, but the penalties—fines, license suspension, even jail time—are structured in a way that allows people to serve their punishment and move on. In contrast, a strict liability doping violation can completely destroy an athlete’s career and reputation, even if the circumstances strongly suggest they didn’t cheat. Once an athlete is labeled a “doper,” that stigma never fully goes away, even if later evidence supports their innocence. That’s a level of moral and professional harm that isn’t comparable to DUI laws, which are designed to match the level of risk posed by the offense. Strict liability makes sense in DUI cases because the risk is always there, no matter the intent. But in doping, strict liability was never supposed to mean “automatic cheater.” It was just a way to make enforcement easier. Houlihan’s case proves why we need to separate strict liability violations from intent-based judgments, because assuming guilt without proof does way more damage than withholding judgment in an ambiguous case. So no, this isn’t about “getting rid of DUIs”—that’s a completely flawed comparison. It’s about making sure strict liability in anti-doping doesn’t wrongly turn into character assassination, which is exactly what happened to Houlihan.
The reason people are making moral judgments is because science says Shelby is lying.
She didn’t have trace amounts.
Science says the amounts if her system had to be don’t intentionally.
Most of the people on here are split between emotional intelligence and factual intelligence. You look at the facts, you see the evidence, you make the logical conclusion. Or you take her word over a load of evidence and tests!
If a child takes a piece of chocolate from a plate and has chocolate on his mouth, the parent would or wouldn't discern the child took it? Perhaps it is some drippage from a tasty burrito.
I want to believe that no one in this world has doped, but the truth hurts and the truth is, not all Americans are innocent of doping. I want to believe Shelby but I don't, because there is evidence and she only has a theory.
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.