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

The main thing is, Houlihan had her appellate proceeding before CAS, and the decision of AIU was upheld. The decision is final and effective. All that mumbo jumbo in the media about "ongoing appeal" is just BS. Her legal team can file an action with the Civil Swiss court for the review of legality of the CAS decision and procedural rules as well as the preceding AIU decision, but it is NOT an appeal. The decision of the civil court, and also possibly appellate court, may take years and chances are slim to none.

It would take a 5min call with any competent Swiss lawyer to explain it to any journalist had they been at least slightly interested in facts.

The American public is very gullible and cannot recognize that this whole story is just a Nike marketing spen. I mean, NOBODY at USATF bothered to check the procedural rules and what an appeal means? You just cannot allow a banned athlete to compete under any circumstances...

Some people in various track and field and drug testing organizations did know about her suspension in January, just not the general public.

World Athletics knew about her suspension and they are the organization that runs most of the meets that pay good prize money, and they wouldn't even have allowed Houlihan to enter a meet, never mind actually run in a meet.

If Houlihan tried to enter a very small meet that had very little or no prize money, then there is a chance that she could have actually run ONE race. Why only ONE race? Because ALL results are reported back to World Athletics who is aware of Houlihan being suspended. She would have been caught immediately and she would have been really screwed at that point.

On top of her 4 year suspension, there would have been additional penalties. And her appeal may even have been thrown out for not following the rules. In other words, there is no way that Houlihan would have been crazy enough to try to race while she was suspended.

The people at USATF have dealt with many athletes who have been suspended for drug use and then appealed, so USATF is very aware of how the process works. But in this case, they decided to ignore the rules and see if they could get away with it.

That's a really stupid thing to try to get away with, because USATF isn't actually in control of the Olympic Trials, the US Olympic Committee is. And the US Olympic Committee contacted USATF on Thursday afternoon and told them that no way was Houlihan going to be running.

At some point it will come out as to why the USATF scratched Houlihan from the meet, and then later decided to put her back in even though they knew they weren't allowed to do that. Some people have speculated that the main sponsor of both USATF and Houlihan, which is Nike, put pressure on USATF to put her back in. If that turns out to be true, I'm not sure why Nike thought they could actually pull that off.

Cycling has recent examples of doping violators being "allowed off the hook" to continue racing:

- Convicted EPO cheat, David Millar was allowed to represent Great Britain in the 2012 Olympic Road Race, directly violating IOC anti-cheat policy.

- British road cyclist Chris Froome was given carte blanche to ride (and win) the 2018 Tour of Italy despite returning an AAF for Salbutamol abuse.

The IOC, tonight (Thursday), said it would follow all antidoping rules and that USATF received long-awaited official notice of her suspension.

Said Siegel, to the AP following receipt of this letter:

“Process is important, particularly when individuals’ careers and lives are at stake,. The letter from the AIU, received tonight, formally notifying us of the consequences of the decision is welcomed and, in line with our processes, we will act accordingly.”

https://apnews.com/article/olympic-games-entertainment-sports-11960613b501c669516b29c7a2394190

The poster(s) who stated that Houlihan should be allowed to compete because she was the best chance for a medal, sum up what is wrong with the country.

Knowingly allowing known cheaters to compete comes close to state sponsored doping.

Probably USA should be banned from the Olympics.

ItsTrue wrote:

At some point it will come out as to why the USATF scratched Houlihan from the meet, and then later decided to put her back in even though they knew they weren't allowed to do that. Some people have speculated that the main sponsor of both USATF and Houlihan, which is Nike, put pressure on USATF to put her back in. If that turns out to be true, I'm not sure why Nike thought they could actually pull that off.

This is some wishful thinking. This is the USATF we are talking about. Clarity is not their strong suit.

Froome wasn't banned. His case was under investigation, and wasn't even suspended. On the other hand, he should have been and his TUE was bogus, as well as the levels of salbutamol in his urine. But that was totally different situation. Houlihan had her due process, even lost the appeal and ban is effective. If she wants to sue CAS and AIU before Swiss courts, that's her decision. It is just NOT an APPEAL and there shouldn't be any asterix next to her case. The decision is final.

Millar was banned and served his ban. I don't remember the specifics of his case, but did he participate in London Olympics during his ban?

Not So Fast to the Line wrote:

Said Siegel, to the AP following receipt of this letter:

“Process is important, particularly when individuals’ careers and lives are at stake,. The letter from the AIU, received tonight, formally notifying us of the consequences of the decision is welcomed and, in line with our processes, we will act accordingly.”

If this is true, I don't think USATF was actually in the wrong. Leaving the athlete in the field until receiving formal notice of the decision seems appropriate.

Why didn't they provide official notice to USATF at the same time they communicated their decision to Shelby?

So - I agree that USATF is totally incompetent (and, it seems, impotent), and it would be funny if it weren't also serious. I also agree that she should not be competing, primarily (but not exclusively) because it could jeopardize the rest of Team USA in the Olympics.

I think when the IOC called USATF's bluff, and they realized the rest of their athletes' ability to compete was on the line, they caved. Up to that point, I think ratings + publicity + dollar signs was first in their minds. And why not? This summer is the Super Bowl of track. This is show business.

I'd add to that fear of Nike's money and fear of Nike's lawyers.

Lawyers can be very scary with their threats, as can the people who fund your organization when they get angry at you.

why the delay? wrote:

Not So Fast to the Line wrote:

Said Siegel, to the AP following receipt of this letter:

“Process is important, particularly when individuals’ careers and lives are at stake,. The letter from the AIU, received tonight, formally notifying us of the consequences of the decision is welcomed and, in line with our processes, we will act accordingly.”

If this is true, I don't think USATF was actually in the wrong. Leaving the athlete in the field until receiving formal notice of the decision seems appropriate.

Why didn't they provide official notice to USATF at the same time they communicated their decision to Shelby?

I promise you, Siegel and USATF were absolutely in the wrong. They know the rules, they were trying to throw their weight around because USATF can get away with a lot more if they want. In this case, they lost.

agip wrote:

nearest hippie wrote:

So - I agree that USATF is totally incompetent (and, it seems, impotent), and it would be funny if it weren't also serious. I also agree that she should not be competing, primarily (but not exclusively) because it could jeopardize the rest of Team USA in the Olympics.

I think when the IOC called USATF's bluff, and they realized the rest of their athletes' ability to compete was on the line, they caved. Up to that point, I think ratings + publicity + dollar signs was first in their minds. And why not? This summer is the Super Bowl of track. This is show business.

I'd add to that fear of Nike's money and fear of Nike's lawyers.

Lawyers can be very scary with their threats, as can the people who fund your organization when they get angry at you.

Nike Nike Nike

Sure, but let's think about this a little more.

It's likely that the podium is filled with Nike regardless of SH being there or not, correct?

Nike will be everywhere period.

Also, USATF may need more media attention, but Nike lives in a world of basketball, football, soccer, baseball, and every other sport besides t&f too. ....SH is an infinitesimal blip on the radar to Nikes bottom line.

No, I'm shifting my ire more towards USATF and Speigel now. This was gross mismanagement endangering US athletes and the reputation of the US, period.

Obviously, for their part, SH, Schumacher, Flannigan and others who were willing to burn the whole house down, just to push for one single athlete at the sake of all others, should be forever labeled as doping enablers and should be shunned or dismissed from any future positions in t&f or professional running.

Until proven otherwise, current BTC athletes should not be automatically considered guilty by association. ....But they should leave BTC following the Olympics in order to maintain that assumption of innocence.

why the delay? wrote:

Not So Fast to the Line wrote:

Said Siegel, to the AP following receipt of this letter:

“Process is important, particularly when individuals’ careers and lives are at stake,. The letter from the AIU, received tonight, formally notifying us of the consequences of the decision is welcomed and, in line with our processes, we will act accordingly.”

If this is true, I don't think USATF was actually in the wrong. Leaving the athlete in the field until receiving formal notice of the decision seems appropriate.

Why didn't they provide official notice to USATF at the same time they communicated their decision to Shelby?

AIU and CAS both issued "formal notice" of Shelby's ban on Tuesday. USATF was absolutely, unmistakably in the wrong when it said on Thursday (yesterday) that Shelburrito would still be able to compete because her "appeal process" was "active." Incidentally, this was also likely an untrue statement; unless Shelburrito's lawyer had already filed an action in the Swiss Federal Tribunal, there would have been nothing "active" about her "appeal process."

USATF knows it must heed AIU/World Athletics and CAS decisions. I still cannot believe what they tried to get away with yesterday.

you know the expression...a coach doesn't yell at the ref for THIS call...the coach yells at the ref for the NEXT call that the coach wants to go his way.

In other words, Nike pressuring USATF is just one way to push USATF around to get what Nike wants next time. Nike may be showing its might this time to get what it wants down the road.

Which is also how the mob works, breaking down legit businesses.

Forrest Child wrote:

Froome wasn't banned. His case was under investigation, and wasn't even suspended. On the other hand, he should have been and his TUE was bogus, as well as the levels of salbutamol in his urine. But that was totally different situation. Houlihan had her due process, even lost the appeal and ban is effective. If she wants to sue CAS and AIU before Swiss courts, that's her decision. It is just NOT an APPEAL and there shouldn't be any asterix next to her case. The decision is final.

Millar was banned and served his ban. I don't remember the specifics of his case, but did he participate in London Olympics during his ban?

The British Olympic Committee had a no-tolerance policy on dope cheats, that should have seen Millar banned from participation in the Games. Ever since British Cycling opened its doors to Corporate involvement (and control) notably from Sky, institutional doping apologism and anti-doping backpedalling has been the order of the day. Unfortunately, money has led to the ingress of corruption that greases the hallways of the UCI itself.

OlympicHopeless wrote:

Cycling has recent examples of doping violators being "allowed off the hook" to continue racing:

- Convicted EPO cheat, David Millar was allowed to represent Great Britain in the 2012 Olympic Road Race, directly violating IOC anti-cheat policy.

- British road cyclist Chris Froome was given carte blanche to ride (and win) the 2018 Tour of Italy despite returning an AAF for Salbutamol abuse.

Millar was banned, and the BOA had a "lifetime ban" rule in place. But CAS said those lifetime bans were illegal so overturned the ban. There is no such thing as an IOC anti-cheat policy (sadly).

Froome was not sanctioned as his AAF never turned into a ADRV because of the explanation he was able to put forward. An AAF doesn't equate to a ban or a sanction.

I think you need to understand doping rules a bit better (or maybe just read wikipedia!)

Just to clarify, the CAS overturned the BOA lifetime ban, not the original ban (which was much earlier).