Mary Decker Slaney competed in the Atlanta Games, 1996 having tested positive at the Olympic Trials. Because her case was being adjudicated, the whole thing was kept quiet and she toed the line in Atlanta depriving clean fourth place finisher LIbbie Hickman of a rightful spot.
Nobody knew she had tested positive until later that fall.
Salazar was Slaney's coach at the time.
Are You Serious wrote:
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
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.
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.
Sure - it would have been released on a list along with a bunch of other names and of course someone would have noticed it.
But the point remains is that the athlete, their coach, their sponsor, nobody has an obligation to announce they have failed a test - you understand that right? There is nothing that says "if you fail a test you must hold a press conference and or announce on social media what you did"
So why did Houlihan - well this is also pretty obvious. She is the highest profile female American distance runner and it's okay to explain why you don't race for 6 months - a little more difficult why you don't run at the trials and and then potentially another 3 and a half years.
But bottom line please understand that no athlete when they test positive has an obligation to announce to anyone that they did so all of this "why didn't we find out about this in January"? - well because it was none of our business that's why.
voltage wrote:
In this case SH was banned from competing in January. If no one knows about her suspension what is to prevent her from entering races and winning money? And what if the appeal process was not complete before the trials and USTAF didn't know about her provisional suspension? What would stop her from running? Sure she would be breaking the rules but the damage would be done.
Once again is this a serious post?
What would stop her from running? She's suspended! What do you think exactly just happened? What is to prevent her from entering races and winning money? The reality she's suspended? All that is important is that she knows she is suspended and the USATF knows she's suspended - not you or I.
Okay so what if that appeal had been successful? What if she really did just have a trace amount and the CAS had ruled it could plausibly have been contaminated food and squashed the suspension? Wouldn't it just be far more simple and fair to Houlihan not to have even had her implicated in doping if in fact it was a mistake/extenuating circumstances that were plausible?
When Susan Hazzard said yesterday "Given there is an active appeal process, USATF will allow any athletes to continue competing until the process is completed," she was making $hit up. You understand that right? That's why the AIU had to then send a note saying "yeah so this isn't the case if you let and endorse her running you will be in violation of the charter you signed with us and your federation could face sanctions".
This is so incredibly simple I can't quite understand why this is so difficult to grasp.
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
Are You Serious wrote:
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.
Sure - it would have been released on a list along with a bunch of other names and of course someone would have noticed it.
But the point remains is that the athlete, their coach, their sponsor, nobody has an obligation to announce they have failed a test - you understand that right? There is nothing that says "if you fail a test you must hold a press conference and or announce on social media what you did"
So why did Houlihan - well this is also pretty obvious. She is the highest profile female American distance runner and it's okay to explain why you don't race for 6 months - a little more difficult why you don't run at the trials and and then potentially another 3 and a half years.
But bottom line please understand that no athlete when they test positive has an obligation to announce to anyone that they did so all of this "why didn't we find out about this in January"? - well because it was none of our business that's why.
Exactly what I said. Her name should've been on a public list somewhere. Lots of people on this site as well as other journalists read those lists, but yet it wasn't publicly known until now. As I said, we all understand SH, BTC, and Nike covering this up as long as possible, but why didn't the AIU publish the ban until this week? This is the question. She was provisionally suspended on January 14th?
"On January 14th, 2021, I received an email from the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), informing me a drug testing sample that I provided on December 15th, 2020 has returned as an Adverse Analytical Finding for an anabolic steroid called Nandrolone and that I am therefore subject to an immediate Provisional Suspension."
So she's out? The latest start list 6/18 @ 10:45am doesn't show her name in either the 1500 or 5000.
Sorry if I should know this but I stopped reading about this days ago.
It’s like the BTC Fairy Tale is done. All those happy go lucky videos of privilege are now going to be dark and moody post-Trials.
10-foot pole
Rastus wrote:
So she's out? The latest start list 6/18 @ 10:45am doesn't show her name in either the 1500 or 5000.
Sorry if I should know this but I stopped reading about this days ago.
Yes, she’s out. I think the AIU shot USATF down.
Yesterday, I saw The Onion post on Facebook about Shelby H. Sad state of track that people know Shelby more now than when she beat American Records.
kjvfd wrote:
Exactly what I said. Her name should've been on a public list somewhere. Lots of people on this site as well as other journalists read those lists, but yet it wasn't publicly known until now. As I said, we all understand SH, BTC, and Nike covering this up as long as possible, but why didn't the AIU publish the ban until this week? This is the question. She was provisionally suspended on January 14th?
+1
Several of us have pointed this out. Obviously we've seen Nike's power in action, successfully hiding a drug cheat's positive test for months, including a gag order for the AIU. Quite impressive, actually.
Fortunately CAS didn't give in to their demands...
Posted this earlier, but the Shelby-loving Mods aren't big fans of the First Amendment.
Whose name was removed from the petition to yank Houlihan from the trials?
Surely she wasn't provisionally suspended in January. She was *actually* suspended. You can't *appeal* to CAS unless you've been sanctioned.
Isn't it normal practice for an actual suspension / ban to be publicly announced?
casual obsever wrote:
kjvfd wrote:
Exactly what I said. Her name should've been on a public list somewhere. Lots of people on this site as well as other journalists read those lists, but yet it wasn't publicly known until now. As I said, we all understand SH, BTC, and Nike covering this up as long as possible, but why didn't the AIU publish the ban until this week? This is the question. She was provisionally suspended on January 14th?
+1
Several of us have pointed this out. Obviously we've seen Nike's power in action, successfully hiding a drug cheat's positive test for months, including a gag order for the AIU. Quite impressive, actually.
Fortunately CAS didn't give in to their demands...
Okay quick question - do you know exactly what the fine print is regarding name suppression while under appeal? Because I don't. What that means is for all I know, there may be a provision in play where name suppression is allowed until after an appeal. If that isn't automatic then maybe you can apply for name suppression until after appeal (the exact same thing that can happen in criminal trials.
So this is all a non issue until you or anyone can provide the hard evidence that says " when an athlete tests positive it MUST be immediately announced by the national/global federation, even prior to an appeal.
Ball is in your court - if you provide this then we can start talking about "Nike conspiracies" or "USATF conspiracies" - none of which even matter to the ultimate outcome of this that she cheated, was caught, appealed, lost and is now suspended for 4 years.
larkimm wrote:
Surely she wasn't provisionally suspended in January. She was *actually* suspended. You can't *appeal* to CAS unless you've been sanctioned.
Isn't it normal practice for an actual suspension / ban to be publicly announced?
Normally, yes. But this case was special.
From the CAS decision:
"On 14 January 2021, the Athletics Integrity Unit (“AIU”) imposed a provisional suspension on the Athlete.
The parties to the proceedings, with the consent of WADA, agreed that the matter be heard in a single hearing directly at CAS. The Panel of CAS arbitrators appointed to decide the matter held a hearing with the parties by video-conference on 4 June 2021."
Normal practice:
1) provisional suspension by AIU, publicly announced
https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/disciplinary-process/provisional-suspensions-in-force2) suspension by DT, publicly announced
https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/disciplinary-process/first-instance-decisions3) appeal, publicly announced
(same link as 2)
4) CAS hearing, results publicly announced
By Nike's power over AIU/WA/WADA, AIU stayed silent until step 4 (while step 2 was skipped).
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 think Houlihan got word in a video conference. Whatever the case, USATF's explanation makes more sense than the dog and pony we got from BTC.
https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/disciplinary-process/provisional-suspensions-in-forceSalvitore Stitchmo wrote:
Okay quick question - do you know exactly what the fine print is regarding name suppression while under appeal? Because I don't. What that means is for all I know, there may be a provision in play where name suppression is allowed until after an appeal. If that isn't automatic then maybe you can apply for name suppression until after appeal (the exact same thing that can happen in criminal trials.
In this section of the site, we list the Provisional Suspensions currently in force.
Except, Shelby's name never appeared there, although CAS wrote:
On 14 January 2021, the Athletics Integrity Unit (“AIU”) imposed a provisional suspension on the Athlete.
Note that that has nothing to do with an appeal. See e.g. Kiprop and Coleman, who both announced to appeal, yet their provisional suspension and their first instance decision appeared publicly.
See also the current list, where several cases are listed as "Under CAS appeal":
https://www.athleticsintegrity.org/disciplinary-process/first-instance-decisionsTo the best of my knowledge, there hasn't been a single case where "name suppression" was allowed, before Shelby.
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
+1
Several of us have pointed this out. Obviously we've seen Nike's power in action, successfully hiding a drug cheat's positive test for months, including a gag order for the AIU. Quite impressive, actually.
Fortunately CAS didn't give in to their demands...
Okay quick question - do you know exactly what the fine print is regarding name suppression while under appeal? Because I don't. What that means is for all I know, there may be a provision in play where name suppression is allowed until after an appeal. If that isn't automatic then maybe you can apply for name suppression until after appeal (the exact same thing that can happen in criminal trials.
So this is all a non issue until you or anyone can provide the hard evidence that says " when an athlete tests positive it MUST be immediately announced by the national/global federation, even prior to an appeal.
Ball is in your court - if you provide this then we can start talking about "Nike conspiracies" or "USATF conspiracies" - none of which even matter to the ultimate outcome of this that she cheated, was caught, appealed, lost and is now suspended for 4 years.
Well, that's the question posters are asking. There are certain organizations and individuals that have a need to know if an athlete is eligible to compete. How are they to obtain that information?
No one is talking about holding a press conference, but some sort of updated list on a website that indicates the type of suspension (provisional, etc.) and the date it will be lifted. Apparently, so such thing exists.
If Houlihan had defied WADA and the USATF, it would have been a Trumpian-like PR disaster of immense proportions for American track and field and women's distance running.
The tide turned against Houlihan yesterday when the all the facts were analyzed.
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
+1
Several of us have pointed this out. Obviously we've seen Nike's power in action, successfully hiding a drug cheat's positive test for months, including a gag order for the AIU. Quite impressive, actually.
Fortunately CAS didn't give in to their demands...
Okay quick question - do you know exactly what the fine print is regarding name suppression while under appeal? Because I don't. What that means is for all I know, there may be a provision in play where name suppression is allowed until after an appeal. If that isn't automatic then maybe you can apply for name suppression until after appeal (the exact same thing that can happen in criminal trials.
So this is all a non issue until you or anyone can provide the hard evidence that says " when an athlete tests positive it MUST be immediately announced by the national/global federation, even prior to an appeal.
Ball is in your court - if you provide this then we can start talking about "Nike conspiracies" or "USATF conspiracies" - none of which even matter to the ultimate outcome of this that she cheated, was caught, appealed, lost and is now suspended for 4 years.
The fact that Houlihan's positive drug test wasn't publicly announced back in January may or may not have anything to do with Nike.
Recently Brenda Martinez (a New Balance athlete) had the same problem - She took something that accidentally contained a banned substance. She appealed her suspension and was found to be innocent and the suspension was removed. But that whole process happened in secret. It wasn't publicly announced until it was all over. And it had nothing to do with Nike.
So the fact that the appeals process happened in secret with Houlihan isn't the suspicious part. The suspicious part is that USATF knew it was against the rules for Houlihan to compete in the Olympic trials because she was suspended, which is why USATF removed her on Tuesday. Then on Wednesday evening USATF decided to break the rules and put Houlihan back in for reasons that are currently unclear.
The CAS decision had been publicly announced at the time that USATF decided to put Houlihan back in. USATF knows they can't put in a runner once a CAS decision has been made, but they threw the rules out the window and did it anyway. Why? Are they crazy? Do they like breaking the rules? Did Nike put pressure on them? Is there another reason?
USATF should just call themselves a subsidiary of Nike on their website based on how they've operated and will continue to do so to benefit exclusively Nike athletes.
gretchen weiners wrote:
USATF should just call themselves a subsidiary of Nike on their website based on how they've operated and will continue to do so to benefit exclusively Nike athletes.
Ehhhhh, they kinda do already. They don’t hide the fact that they are partners with Nike.