SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT!!! - Shelby Houlihan is running in the Olympic Trials! (Yes, Really)

couldn't continue waiting at least 5 minutes wrote:

Is it possible that the attorney/Nike misplayed this?

I don't know all the details but SH was placed on double secret probation back in January but wasn't charged with anything, correct?

The attorney/Nike forced a decision because they wanted SH to be allowed to run in the trials.

When they forced the decision they lost and SH was charged.

Is it possible had they not forced the decision that she still would not be charged (still on double secret probation ) seems like if this were the case they would have a much better chance of forcing the USATF to let her run the trials since she was simply under investigation with no formal charge.

Not a lawyer but in retrospect that might have been the way to go.

Your theory seems to be a bit too much Cloak & Dagger but if any of your theory were true, Houlihan would have had to miss Trials & Olympics due to injury, a faux injury.

Are You Serious wrote:

STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^""""-""""-'--"--^' wrote:

So has the (fake) news reached a verdict yet on whether she's racing? They've changed their story a few times already.

Houlihan is still listed in tomorrow's heat sheets for the first rounds of the 1500 and 5k, but USATF claims that she will eventually be removed from the heat sheets and she will not actually be running.

https://results.usatf.org/

Again, USATF has yet to say anything other the their statement about allowing runners pending appeal run in the trials. The US Olympic Committee (USOC) is the only organization that has come out with a statement saying they will abide by AIU and CAS rules.

couldn't continue waiting at least 5 minutes wrote:

Is it possible that the attorney/Nike misplayed this?

I don't know all the details but SH was placed on double secret probation back in January but wasn't charged with anything, correct?

The attorney/Nike forced a decision because they wanted SH to be allowed to run in the trials.

When they forced the decision they lost and SH was charged.

Is it possible had they not forced the decision that she still would not be charged (still on double secret probation ) seems like if this were the case they would have a much better chance of forcing the USATF to let her run the trials since she was simply under investigation with no formal charge.

Not a lawyer but in retrospect that might have been the way to go.

Totally.

In theory, the initial positive test forces an immediate provisional suspension. From there, they could have asked for an appeal to the AIU’s disciplinary committee. The lawyer claims this would have taken too long to resolve before the Trials, so they went straight to binding arbitration (CAS), where both parties agree up front to abide by the decision, which upheld the four year ban. (If you believe this interpretation of the process, Shelby probably misses the Trials either way.)

Now they don’t like the decision but it’s not clear they have any recourse from here. Even if they could prove CAS “got it wrong,” it’s not at all clear that CAS broke any laws, which will be the standard on any appeal from here.

If they really do have rock solid evidence that backs up the contamination argument, and they went to CAS purely out of impatience, they may have inadvertently maneuvered one missed Olympic Games into a lost career.

A huge outstanding question for me is why AIU never announced the original suspension. They announce these all the time and publish them on their website along with the appeal status for each positive test. For reasons no one has explained, AIU never announced a positive test until the appeal failed. Very strange.

couldn't continue waiting at least 5 minutes wrote:

Is it possible that the attorney/Nike misplayed this?

I don't know all the details but SH was placed on double secret probation back in January but wasn't charged with anything, correct?

The attorney/Nike forced a decision because they wanted SH to be allowed to run in the trials.

When they forced the decision they lost and SH was charged.

Is it possible had they not forced the decision that she still would not be charged (still on double secret probation ) seems like if this were the case they would have a much better chance of forcing the USATF to let her run the trials since she was simply under investigation with no formal charge.

Not a lawyer but in retrospect that might have been the way to go.

No, that is not how it works. She was never on "probation," she was never under "investigation" and she was never "charged." This is not like a criminal court. She failed a drug test and got an automatic 4 year suspension effective immediately. There is NO investigation. It's very simple. You either have illegal drugs in your body or you don't. As soon as you are notified that you have failed a drug test, that's the end of it. You're suspended right away.

Houlihan took a drug test in December and failed it. She wasn't notified until January that she had failed that drug test, and she was suspended IMMEDIATELY for 4 years. That is why she hasn't raced this year.

The reason most people are surprised to learn about the suspension now is because her suspension was lied about by her team since January. They kept saying she was doing a lot of training this year, and she wouldn't race until the Olympic Trials. But that wasn't the real reason. The real reason she wasn't racing was because she had already been suspended and wasn't legally allowed to race.

Since January, her only chance to race was to get her 4 year suspension overturned. She tried to hurry up the appeals process in order to get it done before the Olympic Trials. Her appeal was denied a few days ago.

Had they not rushed the appeals process, it wouldn't have gotten her into the Olympic Trials because she was already serving a 4 year suspension.

Good information.

Thank you. Your first paragraph explains a lot that I was unaware of.

I can agree if they do have rock solid evidence it sure seems like they played it into a lost career instead of a missed Olympics.

They must have thought, she has no other blemishes on her record they will have to drop the suspension... wow.

Bottom line is guilty or not guilty this entire saga is very sad for distance running.

Why was the suspension not announced when it took effect in January?

@ are you serious. I think my point was they almost got her into the trials anyway. Might have worked the other way. again, I'm not an attorney, it was just a thought.

JBaller33 wrote:

Are You Serious wrote:

Houlihan is still listed in tomorrow's heat sheets for the first rounds of the 1500 and 5k, but USATF claims that she will eventually be removed from the heat sheets and she will not actually be running.

https://results.usatf.org/

Again, USATF has yet to say anything other the their statement about allowing runners pending appeal run in the trials. The US Olympic Committee (USOC) is the only organization that has come out with a statement saying they will abide by AIU and CAS rules.

The US Olympic Committee (USOC) is in charge of the Olympic Trials, NOT USATF. So for the purposes of this particular meet, the USOC is the boss of USATF.

The USOC released a statement this afternoon on their own behalf and also on the behalf of USATF that Houlihan will NOT be competing in the Olympic Trials.

couldn't continue waiting at least 5 minutes wrote:

@ are you serious. I think my point was they almost got her into the trials anyway. Might have worked the other way. again, I'm not an attorney, it was just a thought.

In track and field, as soon as you test over the allowable limit for an illegal drug, you are immediately suspended. There is no "provisional" suspension. It's a REAL suspension. You are considered Guilty. If you appeal, you can try to prove you are innocent.

That's right - you are guilty until proven innocent. That's how it works. Why? Because Athletes are 100% responsible for what goes in their bodies.

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Why was the suspension not announced when it took effect in January?

I was wondering the same thing and good explanation from "are you serious". I can understand why BTC wanted to keep it under cover but apparently USTAF didn't even know.

The more that comes out the worse it looks for BTC. And it's telling that with 6 months to come up with evidence to overturn the ban in the appeal process all they had was the flimsy burrito story,

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Why was the suspension not announced when it took effect in January?

Have we gotten a good answer to this question yet? Why wasn't it public knowledge in January that Shelby had failed a drug test and was provisionally suspended? We know that BTC was doing their best to cover it up, but what about the AIU?

kjvfd wrote:

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Why was the suspension not announced when it took effect in January?

Have we gotten a good answer to this question yet? Why wasn't it public knowledge in January that Shelby had failed a drug test and was provisionally suspended? We know that BTC was doing their best to cover it up, but what about the AIU?

She wasn't provisionally suspended, she was just suspended. But I would think it would be policy for a suspension to be made public is some way.

Are You Serious wrote:

JBaller33 wrote:

Again, USATF has yet to say anything other the their statement about allowing runners pending appeal run in the trials. The US Olympic Committee (USOC) is the only organization that has come out with a statement saying they will abide by AIU and CAS rules.

The US Olympic Committee (USOC) is in charge of the Olympic Trials, NOT USATF. So for the purposes of this particular meet, the USOC is the boss of USATF.

The USOC released a statement this afternoon on their own behalf and also on the behalf of USATF that Houlihan will NOT be competing in the Olympic Trials.

Got it

kjvfd wrote:

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Why was the suspension not announced when it took effect in January?

Have we gotten a good answer to this question yet? Why wasn't it public knowledge in January that Shelby had failed a drug test and was provisionally suspended? We know that BTC was doing their best to cover it up, but what about the AIU?

We don’t know. I imagine that could come out of the CAS decision, but not definitely.

Someone with experience dealing with the AIU may know a better answer, but my theory is that the AIU gives athletes a heads up before announcing provisional suspensions*. Shelby Houlihan then gives this information to BTC, who gives it to Nike, who gets a lawyer involved that tells AIU that they can’t announce a suspension or else they’ll sue (for defamation? who knows).

Nike, and its sports marketing department in particular, is extremely litigious. AIU says what the heck, who cares if we announce it now or after the process plays out? So they let it play out.

* Someone suggested above that there is no such thing as a provisional suspension. This isn’t technically true; it’s an AIU term for a sanction that’s announced and takes effect before an athlete has appealed. See:

I stand corrected.

kjvfd wrote:

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Why was the suspension not announced when it took effect in January?

Have we gotten a good answer to this question yet? Why wasn't it public knowledge in January that Shelby had failed a drug test and was provisionally suspended? We know that BTC was doing their best to cover it up, but what about the AIU?

I mean is this really such a difficult question to answer? I don't know the ins and outs of the WADA/AIU end to end policy but I'm going to make an educated guess that similar to other types of trials used to ascertain guilt or innocence the defendant (in this case S.H) is afforded the right to an appeal. I'm going to make that educated guess because I have seen it with almost every high profile doping case so I don't know why it would be different here.

In that case why would Shelby Houlihan, her lawyers, BTC, USATF, Nike - anyone involved with her want to give out this information before the appeal is completed? They don't have any obligation to tell anyone - I doubt if they have any legal obligation now. What if the appeal to the CAS was successful? What if it wasn't such a comically open and shut case (so much so they slapped her with a first offense 4 year ban)?

Every athlete has the right to an appeal no matter how guilty they are. If it turns out they aren't guilty why would you have even put it out there that they were even implicated if ultimately it turns out they weren't?

In theory Houlihan could have just left the country to take up a life herding sheep in NZ and not said a word about being banned 4 years if she wanted to. Why everyone thinks they were owed a f-ing initial verdict back in January is honestly pretty comical to me.

Max Siegel has to lose his job for this. It's gross incompetence and he can no longer be trusted to look after the welfare of US athletes.

Big kudos to the athletes that signed the open letter to USATF, real courage on show, courage that apparently doesn't exist at Nike

Drug suspensions are always publicly announced at some point. She couldn't have just disappeared to another country for 4 years and have no one find out about it.

nice people can still be cheaters wrote:

As far as Kate supporting Shelby, I mean, it could be that Kate is also a doper. But the answer on that could also just be that it's harder to believe that someone you like could cheat.

Disconnecting the terms "cheater" and "bad person" in my head has allowed me to be a lot less naive about cheating in professional sports. It is entirely possible that Shelby is both (1) a cheater who hid her cheating from some or all of her friends and (2) also a really nice person who is a good friend.

+1