We merged two threads on the same subject into 1 and kept the title of the 1st one posted. The 2nd thread title was, “Whether you believe me or not, I’m coming back,” Shelby says. “I’ve served the time.”
WADA has made some threshold changes. But that is just the tip of the iceberg as far as needed changes, IMO.
1. WADA has no *functional* ethical standards. In the Houlihan case there were numerous violations of common ethical standards, but WADA did nothing. In 2016, The Guardian published an article entitled, “Can Anti-Doping Bodies Maintain Their Scientific Integrity? The Answer Is Troubling.” I’ll post the link here, but links seem to end up at the bottom of my posts. The lack of ethics pointed out in this article has not changed. Without a major change and a real Ethics Working Group (with 100% of participants outside of WADA and sports science), nothing will make it fair for the athlete.
2. WADA science is a mixture of tiny studies that are mis-represented at hearings, speculation, hidden research results that the athlete & representatives are not privy to and WADA scientists doing the best they can with little funding. They need a Research Working Group (with 100% of participants outside of WADA and sports science and with expertise in research design and interpretation). This Group should have oversight on research design and how it is interpreted for use in Technical Documents and for use at hearings. In fact, someone with these qualifications should be at every CAS hearing as a scientific “translator” for the arbiters.
3. The A Samples results should be given to the athlete within 10 days. None of this 30-60 day delay making it virtually impossible to track down and test items. Any delay changes the a doping positive to non-positive result.
4. The athlete should have 30 days to respond to a positive test. Most athletes are not biochemists and need more time than a laboratory.
5. All bodies involved in anti-doping and abiding by WADA rules should preface each anti-doping violation decision that is disputed by the athlete with statement such as: “While we have decided to sanction this athlete based on WADA and [AIU] rules, nothing in this decision should be interpreted as proving the athlete was intentionally doping. WADA, [AIU] are not infallible. There can be mistakes and misinterpretations made involving scientific research. If the athlete agrees to waive their privacy rights, we will publish online the transcript of the hearing as well related documentation.”
6. How in the hell are most athletes able to afford the $50k-$100k+ to mount a defense?! Something needs to be done about this for athletes who aren’t swimming in cash.
There are numerous other issues: don’t store samples in a private home freezer, how to deal with a proven uncooperative vendor/company.
Didn’t Shelby rush the whole defense and process to try and get into the Olympics? I haven’t heard athletes blame a lack of time to prepare a defense outside of her, and it seems that’s because she expedited the process.
No, she still had the 7 days to respond to the positive test with the cause (sometimes an appeal will get 10 days). *After that*, she was trying to get AIU to respond to a request to hold a hearing prior to the Olympic Trials. She said the AIU didn’t respond and felt forced to appeal to the CAS to get a hearing in a timely manner.
Thanks for this thoughtful post, very interesting. Only thing I disagree with is the statement in point 5, because I think we just have to accept that athletes that intentionally dope are going to protest their results too and sometimes we just won’t be able to know for sure if someone is a doper or got screwed. We can improve the system but it’ll never be perfect. That’s one of the reasons I’m against lifetime bans (and against the death penalty in the criminal context), we have to allow for the possibility of mistakes.
No, she still had the 7 days to respond to the positive test with the cause (sometimes an appeal will get 10 days). *After that*, she was trying to get AIU to respond to a request to hold a hearing prior to the Olympic Trials. She said the AIU didn’t respond and felt forced to appeal to the CAS to get a hearing in a timely manner.
mmmmm.....failing a race day disaster, I think it would be pretty safe to assume she would've finished in the top 3 at both trials. She was virtually unbeatable right up until the ban.
It's clear that somebody doesn't want a public exoneration of Shelby. The motive is not clear. I'll respect differing opinions but not opposition to facts, reason, and putting out misinformation.
No, she still had the 7 days to respond to the positive test with the cause (sometimes an appeal will get 10 days). *After that*, she was trying to get AIU to respond to a request to hold a hearing prior to the Olympic Trials. She said the AIU didn’t respond and felt forced to appeal to the CAS to get a hearing in a timely manner.
... but but but but it was in the burrito! Rekrunner aka Twiggle said so!!
I said what the CAS said: "it was possible" and that "no one established the source" to any standard beyond presumption.
That's what you said in your 2500 troll posts about the burrito? Hahahahaha
And FYI, CAS said it would have to be a combination of improbable and highly improbable scenarios, plus that the carbon isotope ratio was not consistent with the burrito story. "it was possible" - what a typical rekrunner'esque summary.
Sadly, the AIU is understaffed. Or, they are catching too many dopers. Evidently Shelby's case was on the faster side.
As for responding within 7 days. Another smokescreen. That is only for a preliminary response, and Shelby herself kept adding to it well part the suggested 30 days. Finally CAS itself wrote that the accused can still change their story during the CAS hearing!
And best of all, Shelby had decided on the burrito joke literally on Day 1 by her own admission. She also had her lawyer with his cool 14 : 0 "contamination case " success rate ready on Day 1.
It's clear that somebody doesn't want a public exoneration of Shelby. The motive is not clear. I'll respect differing opinions but not opposition to facts, reason, and putting out misinformation.
Huh? Nobody is even trying to do anything to exonerate her. I wonder why lol.
Unless you count herself giving interviews, and anonymous letsrun trolls launching smokescreens. The coach does nothing, the lawyer does nothing, Nike does nothing, and ironically Shelby herself just distanced herself publicly from the burrito excuse - the only excuse she actually used.
And our local trolls will keep trying to argue that the drugs were in the burrito lol. Mark my words.
... but but but but it was in the burrito! Rekrunner aka Twiggle said so!!
I said what the CAS said: "it was possible" and that "no one established the source" to any standard beyond presumption.
The source didn't need establishing; it wasn't and isnt a requirement of the rules. The banned substance was in her body. She is presumed responsible for what is found in her body. It was up to her to show she didn't put it there. She couldn't. She therefore doped.
This post was edited 37 seconds after it was posted.
Many details do not add up. Professor Ayotte was not a reliable expert, and the test came from her lab. There's a possibility that Shelby didn't actually test positive.
Many details do not add up. Professor Ayotte was not a reliable expert, and the test came from her lab. There's a possibility that Shelby didn't actually test positive.
There isnt. If there was she would have contested the finding - which was confirmed. So she accepted the positive test but tried to argue an innocent cause.
There is a bigger questionable doper that also attended ASU.
A female that never broke 16:15 for 5k or 35 minutes for 10k goes on to run 2:22 marathon and makes 2 Olympic teams and wins Boston. We are supposed to believe that this is a result of Hansons supreme knowledge of the marathon.