This question is open to everyone -- why single out BTC runners/coaches? Which athlete/coach has come forward to condemn Houlihan as expected by the anonymous huddled masses here? Who is the model that BTC should follow?
I suspect that most athletes/coaches do not condemn Houlihan, because this is not their idea of what deliberate doping looks like. To athletes/coaches, this is not comparable to Lance Armstrong, or Marion Jones, or Regina Jacobs. To the AIU, and WADA lab directors, and the CAS, it is a different story. By refined design, the codified presumptions that form the WADA anti-doping "due process" does not even attempt to make any distinction between unprovable accidental ingestion, and deliberate injection of a banned substance. But the athletes/coaches can. As USADA anti-doping chief has told us repeatedly, there is a wide range of athletes across the guilt spectrum who will be caught by this same net, and receive the same 4-year ban.
In fact, deliberate injection seems to be preferable to the AIU and to WADA, compared to defending, yet not proving, accidental ingestion. Recently the AIU only gave a 3-year ban to Kenyan Edward Kiprop Kibet, for buying Deca-Durabolin and deliberately injecting himself, leading to a test result 3x greater than Houlihan. And since it was injected directly into the muscle, much more of it gets into and stays in the blood stream for as long as 9 months, rather than mostly filtered out in first pass and completely gone within a day.
Had Houlihan simply said "I don't know. I plead"nolo contendere".", she could have qualified for a reduced sentence and still make the 2024 Olympics. It's a hard pill for athletes to swallow, resisting the temptation to "prove" their innocence, but the WADA "due process" gives accused athletes few choices, as most of the available defenses have been removed by design from both innocent and guilty athletes alike.
Athletes/coaches may learn from Houlihan's story, and put themselves on notice that a robust defense may require freezing portions of all their meals for a period of 1 month or longer, and keeping samples of all their medicine and supplements for any subsequent testing. With luck, they may be able to prove their innocence, like handballer Simon Getzmann, and merely serve a 1 year ban, at a personal non-reimbursed cost of more than 10,000 dollars/Euros for legal and scientific tests, for their first offense ADRV.
How do you know she would have received only 2 years if she didn’t try to appeal the ban? Sha’Carri didn’t appeal her ban but it wasn’t reduced to 15 days.
What you’re suggesting is illogical. Why give her a 4-year ban when they really meant 2?
I suggest you read the Wada Code.
I never suggested they meant to give two.
And she never appealed the ban… yet.Read the Decision.
Your knowledge means that you are unfit to post on complicated matters that are pre set out publically.
Some posters have some serious issues and need to reflect on what is important. They probably are not condemning her for several reasons.
1. She is considered a friend who made a mistake.
2. Why the need to condemn people? What is the benefit? Why do you think they have a responsibility to condemn someone else? I have fired numerous people for various reasons and feel no need to bash them publicly or privately. I know people who have gone to jail, cheated on their spouses, etc and I have felt no responsibility to bash them. Their actions speak for itself and doesn't need to be addressed.
Something to think about: If you find Bowerman 'disgusting' or you have 'lost respect' you really need to step off your soap box because nobody cares what you think. They're professional athletes in a fringe sport trying to chase a dream and make a living. Your respect is the least of their concerns directly behind condemning a former training partner.
Well said, Former Coach.
I don't think it was well said at all. In fact, I think it was poorly thought-out and poorly reasoned.
1. Okay sure it is human nature to go easier on a friend/teammate/ give them the benefit of the doubt, but when many of these same athletes have condemned any and all other suspected drug cheats in the harshest of terms, it is highly hypocritical to say nothing when a convicted drug cheat is on your own team.
One of the very most important things to clean runners is to have have a clean sport. Again I cannot stress how important this is to them. The ones that have taken a vow to run clean demand the same from their teammates. When one of their teammates breaks that vow and lets them down they should be very disappointed and hold them just as accountable as they would hold someone else from another team. And/or they should be a little less condemning if an outsider gets accused of doping but denies it. But they should not harshly cast aspersions at competitors accused of doping [ as many/most of them do ] and then say and do nothing when one of their teammates gets busted. It's as simple as that. At the very least they should say "while we take her at her word, we would be very disappointed if it were true. We HOPE it is a mistake. If not, we are angry/heartbroken" And.... "we would like to apologise to other athletes we have condemned who maybe were telling the truth also." A little consistency is all one asks for!
2. As far as the Former Coach's comment "why the need to condemn anyone?" , that's much of the point : many of these athletes HAVE condemned any and all suspected or convicted drugs cheats in the sport. We are looking for a little consistency. [ and Coach should not pretend he has never condemned anyone for anything or that there is not actually a constructive time and place to condemn people for certain things]
3. Former Coach"s final comments are the most confused. He says: "no one cares what you think". Then why the hell is he posting his thoughts on this board ? right back at you coach! And lastly, when he writes "They're professional athletes in a fringe sport trying to chase a dream and make a living. Your respect is the least of their concerns" it sounds as if he is making the case for doping. In other words: they don't care about respect from the fans or or even fellow athletes. No, they are just chasing a dream and...... will do anything to achieve it? Many, like Shelby have taken that Viewpoint apparently. And that is the view point that BTC usually condemns. But this time they have made an exception. And it is a hypocritical , dangerous one to make.
I think some athletes have "made a statement" by leaving the team. I'm sure they were all friends or "friendly" with Shelby, so the last thing they want to do is smear her name. Instead they chose the quiet route and left BTC entirely. That's always kinda been my take on this.
I don't think it was well said at all. In fact, I think it was poorly thought-out and poorly reasoned.
1. Okay sure it is human nature to go easier on a friend/teammate/ give them the benefit of the doubt, but when many of these same athletes have condemned any and all other suspected drug cheats in the harshest of terms, it is highly hypocritical to say nothing when a convicted drug cheat is on your own team.
One of the very most important things to clean runners is to have have a clean sport. Again I cannot stress how important this is to them. The ones that have taken a vow to run clean demand the same from their teammates. When one of their teammates breaks that vow and lets them down they should be very disappointed and hold them just as accountable as they would hold someone else from another team. And/or they should be a little less condemning if an outsider gets accused of doping but denies it. But they should not harshly cast aspersions at competitors accused of doping [ as many/most of them do ] and then say and do nothing when one of their teammates gets busted. It's as simple as that. At the very least they should say "while we take her at her word, we would be very disappointed if it were true. We HOPE it is a mistake. If not, we are angry/heartbroken" And.... "we would like to apologise to other athletes we have condemned who maybe were telling the truth also." A little consistency is all one asks for!
2. As far as the Former Coach's comment "why the need to condemn anyone?" , that's much of the point : many of these athletes HAVE condemned any and all suspected or convicted drugs cheats in the sport. We are looking for a little consistency. [ and Coach should not pretend he has never condemned anyone for anything or that there is not actually a constructive time and place to condemn people for certain things]
3. Former Coach"s final comments are the most confused. He says: "no one cares what you think". Then why the hell is he posting his thoughts on this board ? right back at you coach! And lastly, when he writes "They're professional athletes in a fringe sport trying to chase a dream and make a living. Your respect is the least of their concerns" it sounds as if he is making the case for doping. In other words: they don't care about respect from the fans or or even fellow athletes. No, they are just chasing a dream and...... will do anything to achieve it? Many, like Shelby have taken that Viewpoint apparently. And that is the view point that BTC usually condemns. But this time they have made an exception. And it is a hypocritical , dangerous one to make.
I mean to be fair to your point 1 - you're asking for BTC women to say "while we take her at her word, we would be very disappointed if it were true. We HOPE it is a mistake." when GDS was interviewed about NB Indoors and was asked about how either Shelby is lying or has been horribly mistreated, GDS agreed with the interviewer and said that's part of why the whole situation is so bad. She didn't go so far as to apologize for accusing other athletes, but as far as I know she isn't on the record accusing anyone of anything, pretty sure she recently called Kipyegon and Hassan "GOAT level" or something like that.
Now of course that's just one person, but makes me inclined to agree with the poster on page 1 who suggests not everyone on the team is as enthusiastic about defending Houlihan as the coaches.
What we have here is a case of a dirty official, one who was already caught faking the results of one person's tests.
She has no business being associated with the WADA or any other organization testing athletes.
What on earth is your post about?
I suspect the "dirty official" here is Prof. Ayotte, and the fake results is related to Jarrion Lawson's initial conviction overturned by his CAS Panel.
**So I believe it's most likely she did it, and that she should quit hanging about and leave the sport alone, and that Schumacher coming out all guns blazing in June and then hiding from all media and questions ever since is cowardly and bad for the sport.** However, this is my genuine attempt to put myself in BTC athlete shoes and answer the question: why have no BTC athletes have come out and criticized SH? If you want to skip to the conclusion of my answer, just go past point 4.
1) The low hanging fruit answer is "well 'cause they're in on it." I mean, sure. Still seems unlikely; it's a massive group in sheer number of athletes and has very high turnover, complete with people leaving feeling quite comfortable speaking negatively of the group (Quigley). If Schumacher were running a full blown doping system for years involving 40+ athletes, I believe there'd be way more smoke. Look how much smoke there was at NOP just with the "grey area" stuff with L-Carnitine and thyroid meds, let alone nandrolone and they were a way smaller group (more people = harder to keep things under wraps). With US Post there were years of rumors picked up by investigators and the press. BTC has basically zero beyond Houlihan. And not only has he kept all whispers to zero, but has successfully fooled all but one test out of the quite literally 1100+ USADA tests his group has gone through in history, not counting WADA/AIU tests or non-US athlete tests? To me it's most likely Houlihan snapped at some point and decided for whatever reason that she needed a boost. Seems way more plausible than the alternative. There are way way too many people who would have had an opportunity to stick a knife in the team's back across the years to assume they all passed it up. NOP had a small army of people willing to spill dirt on Salazar while Armstrong was brought down by old teammates, and yet no ex Schumacher athlete has said anything, even the ones who seem to have an issue with the group.
2) Okay, so if they're not all dirty, what gives? Well, if she's lying, then maybe it's as simple as they believe her. She's clearly good friends with a lot of the team, it's very possible they truly believe everything she says, or if they don't think it was the burrito, that maybe she got it elsewhere. How many people do you know who have been in relationships where they were willfully ignorant of their partner cheating on them for months, or even years? It happens every day.
3) Peer pressure. It's quite possible the team doesn't actually all agree on this, but a significant enough majority of the team falls into group 2 (believing her), that they don't feel comfortable speaking out, publicly at least about it. It's been less than a year since SH's ban became public. Some athletes, Schweizer, Cranny, Frerichs, plus the coaches, have been extremely outspoken about supporting Houlihan. Peer pressure sounds weak, and it kind of is, but I think in combination with number four it explains more.
4) Commercial/Institutional Pressure - There are several components at play here. BTC came out all guns blazing attacking the AIU and WADA. There's no way in hell that a corporation with Nike would let multiple employees/contractors (I believe it is the latter not former), shoot from the hip like that on such a touchy issue without giving at least tacit approval for BTC to attack like that. That means there are people higher up at Nike who for whatever reason are "Team Houlihan." These people likely have a big influence, if not full say on who gets contracts, how good those contracts are, and who gets reduced. Add to this, that Nike have been noted numerous times in the past having contracts contingent on athletes being affiliated with X group. Also consider how USATF were fully prepared to instate Houlihan into Trials even after her ban was announced only stopping after WA, WADA, AIU, and many athletes collectively freaked out. There's clearly a lot of clout still backing Houlihan.
So why have no BTC athletes have come out and criticized SH? I think there the majority of the athletes fall into category 2 - they believe her. But I also think it not just possible but also likely that there are some who don't, but for reason 3+4 haven't said anything *publicly* so far. How eager would someone be to publicly attack a former teammate if most of their friends and co-workers would hate them for it, and it would likely lead to them losing their job and gaining the animosity of a multi-billion $ corporation and federation administrators who have both shown a willingness in the past to be vindictive and litigious. Further, if I am right on point 1 and it was just Houlihan doping herself, what is publicly calling Houlihan a liar going to achieve for you other than making you feel like you have the moral high ground. If Schumacher were actually cheating somehow, it would be different, but if not then losing your job and your friends seems a high price to pay just to say "I think Houlihan is lying, I have no new evidence, but I don't believe her."
I'll point out that until CAS published its decision, the track and field community only had Houlihan's own account to judge off of and many people bought it. How many BTC athletes have actually supported Houlihan since that report came out? And I mean explicitly like Cranny and Flanagan after the BU races, not implicitly "well they're still with the team so that means they support her."
Post of the week here. I really love that analysis.
On a further note, it would be particularly enlightening if interviewers asked this follow-up question to her teammates:
You say you're clean, and you believe Shelby is clean even though she tested positive. You believe that her excuse of contamination is plausible. As her teammate, does this mean that it's plausible that you will also at some point test positive from contamination in the same way that Shelby did?
It's a subtle reframing, but it forces Houlihan defenders to choose between defending her and defending the system. Right now, they're saying "the system is mostly fine, and when it catches other people it's likely correct, but when it catches my teammate that's a travesty because I know she is clean".
If a teammate went all the way and said "yes, I'm now convinced that it's probably quite common for a clean athlete to receive a false positive. There are some unambiguous cases, but I believe a good number of convicted dopers are actually innocent", I would actually gain a lot of respect for them (whether or not I agree). It's this very-selective defense which somehow only applies to certain athletes that rubs a lot of us the wrong way.
I suspect the "dirty official" here is Prof. Ayotte, and the fake results is related to Jarrion Lawson's initial conviction overturned by his CAS Panel.
**So I believe it's most likely she did it, and that she should quit hanging about and leave the sport alone, and that Schumacher coming out all guns blazing in June and then hiding from all media and questions ever since is cowardly and bad for the sport.** However, this is my genuine attempt to put myself in BTC athlete shoes and answer the question: why have no BTC athletes have come out and criticized SH? If you want to skip to the conclusion of my answer, just go past point 4.
1) The low hanging fruit answer is "well 'cause they're in on it." I mean, sure. Still seems unlikely; it's a massive group in sheer number of athletes and has very high turnover, complete with people leaving feeling quite comfortable speaking negatively of the group (Quigley). If Schumacher were running a full blown doping system for years involving 40+ athletes, I believe there'd be way more smoke. Look how much smoke there was at NOP just with the "grey area" stuff with L-Carnitine and thyroid meds, let alone nandrolone and they were a way smaller group (more people = harder to keep things under wraps). With US Post there were years of rumors picked up by investigators and the press. BTC has basically zero beyond Houlihan. And not only has he kept all whispers to zero, but has successfully fooled all but one test out of the quite literally 1100+ USADA tests his group has gone through in history, not counting WADA/AIU tests or non-US athlete tests? To me it's most likely Houlihan snapped at some point and decided for whatever reason that she needed a boost. Seems way more plausible than the alternative. There are way way too many people who would have had an opportunity to stick a knife in the team's back across the years to assume they all passed it up. NOP had a small army of people willing to spill dirt on Salazar while Armstrong was brought down by old teammates, and yet no ex Schumacher athlete has said anything, even the ones who seem to have an issue with the group.
2) Okay, so if they're not all dirty, what gives? Well, if she's lying, then maybe it's as simple as they believe her. She's clearly good friends with a lot of the team, it's very possible they truly believe everything she says, or if they don't think it was the burrito, that maybe she got it elsewhere. How many people do you know who have been in relationships where they were willfully ignorant of their partner cheating on them for months, or even years? It happens every day.
3) Peer pressure. It's quite possible the team doesn't actually all agree on this, but a significant enough majority of the team falls into group 2 (believing her), that they don't feel comfortable speaking out, publicly at least about it. It's been less than a year since SH's ban became public. Some athletes, Schweizer, Cranny, Frerichs, plus the coaches, have been extremely outspoken about supporting Houlihan. Peer pressure sounds weak, and it kind of is, but I think in combination with number four it explains more.
4) Commercial/Institutional Pressure - There are several components at play here. BTC came out all guns blazing attacking the AIU and WADA. There's no way in hell that a corporation with Nike would let multiple employees/contractors (I believe it is the latter not former), shoot from the hip like that on such a touchy issue without giving at least tacit approval for BTC to attack like that. That means there are people higher up at Nike who for whatever reason are "Team Houlihan." These people likely have a big influence, if not full say on who gets contracts, how good those contracts are, and who gets reduced. Add to this, that Nike have been noted numerous times in the past having contracts contingent on athletes being affiliated with X group. Also consider how USATF were fully prepared to instate Houlihan into Trials even after her ban was announced only stopping after WA, WADA, AIU, and many athletes collectively freaked out. There's clearly a lot of clout still backing Houlihan.
So why have no BTC athletes have come out and criticized SH? I think there the majority of the athletes fall into category 2 - they believe her. But I also think it not just possible but also likely that there are some who don't, but for reason 3+4 haven't said anything *publicly* so far. How eager would someone be to publicly attack a former teammate if most of their friends and co-workers would hate them for it, and it would likely lead to them losing their job and gaining the animosity of a multi-billion $ corporation and federation administrators who have both shown a willingness in the past to be vindictive and litigious. Further, if I am right on point 1 and it was just Houlihan doping herself, what is publicly calling Houlihan a liar going to achieve for you other than making you feel like you have the moral high ground. If Schumacher were actually cheating somehow, it would be different, but if not then losing your job and your friends seems a high price to pay just to say "I think Houlihan is lying, I have no new evidence, but I don't believe her."
I'll point out that until CAS published its decision, the track and field community only had Houlihan's own account to judge off of and many people bought it. How many BTC athletes have actually supported Houlihan since that report came out? And I mean explicitly like Cranny and Flanagan after the BU races, not implicitly "well they're still with the team so that means they support her."
Post of the week here. I really love that analysis.
On a further note, it would be particularly enlightening if interviewers asked this follow-up question to her teammates:
You say you're clean, and you believe Shelby is clean even though she tested positive. You believe that her excuse of contamination is plausible. As her teammate, does this mean that it's plausible that you will also at some point test positive from contamination in the same way that Shelby did?
It's a subtle reframing, but it forces Houlihan defenders to choose between defending her and defending the system. Right now, they're saying "the system is mostly fine, and when it catches other people it's likely correct, but when it catches my teammate that's a travesty because I know she is clean".
If a teammate went all the way and said "yes, I'm now convinced that it's probably quite common for a clean athlete to receive a false positive. There are some unambiguous cases, but I believe a good number of convicted dopers are actually innocent", I would actually gain a lot of respect for them (whether or not I agree). It's this very-selective defense which somehow only applies to certain athletes that rubs a lot of us the wrong way.
Utter none sense.
Person A is hit by a car at a cross roads.
Person B says “ yes that is what I believe”
Person C says what is the chance of you being hit.
Person B says the same chance but as I don’t know the chance of being hit I can only say the same as Person A
Everyone on BTC condemned Salazar and Oregon Project as drug cheats. BTC was universal in their support of USADA banning of Salazar. BTC was consistent in their accusations that both Rupp and Farah were on PED's even though neither ever tested positive for any banned substance. Houlihan tested positive for a substantial amount of Nandrolone and denies it and the coach of BTC in his defense stated that he never even had heard of the drug.
Everyone on BTC run's under a cloud of suspicion and the club should be disbanded. It is what is in the best interest of the sport.
Everyone on BTC condemned Salazar and Oregon Project as drug cheats. BTC was universal in their support of USADA banning of Salazar. BTC was consistent in their accusations that both Rupp and Farah were on PED's even though neither ever tested positive for any banned substance. Houlihan tested positive for a substantial amount of Nandrolone and denies it and the coach of BTC in his defense stated that he never even had heard of the drug.
Everyone on BTC run's under a cloud of suspicion and the club should be disbanded. It is what is in the best interest of the sport.
Everyone on BTC run's under a cloud of suspicion and the club should be disbanded. It is what is in the best interest of the sport.
+1
That one of them got eventually caught is not too surprising actually, considering the AW / NOP tradition, and that Schumacher learned under Salazar, and used the same corrupt - now finally banned - doctor, and that Jager was the most likely of the likely blood dopers back in 2016 with this comical 5 priority stars out of 3.
Everyone on BTC run's under a cloud of suspicion and the club should be disbanded. It is what is in the best interest of the sport.
+1
That one of them got eventually caught is not too surprising actually, considering the AW / NOP tradition, and that Schumacher learned under Salazar, and used the same corrupt - now finally banned - doctor, and that Jager was the most likely of the likely blood dopers back in 2016 with this comical 5 priority stars out of 3.
This question is open to everyone -- why single out BTC runners/coaches? Which athlete/coach has come forward to condemn Houlihan as expected by the anonymous huddled masses here? Who is the model that BTC should follow?
I suspect that most athletes/coaches do not condemn Houlihan, because this is not their idea of what deliberate doping looks like. To athletes/coaches, this is not comparable to Lance Armstrong, or Marion Jones, or Regina Jacobs. To the AIU, and WADA lab directors, and the CAS, it is a different story. By refined design, the codified presumptions that form the WADA anti-doping "due process" does not even attempt to make any distinction between unprovable accidental ingestion, and deliberate injection of a banned substance. But the athletes/coaches can. As USADA anti-doping chief has told us repeatedly, there is a wide range of athletes across the guilt spectrum who will be caught by this same net, and receive the same 4-year ban.
In fact, deliberate injection seems to be preferable to the AIU and to WADA, compared to defending, yet not proving, accidental ingestion. Recently the AIU only gave a 3-year ban to Kenyan Edward Kiprop Kibet, for buying Deca-Durabolin and deliberately injecting himself, leading to a test result 3x greater than Houlihan. And since it was injected directly into the muscle, much more of it gets into and stays in the blood stream for as long as 9 months, rather than mostly filtered out in first pass and completely gone within a day.
Had Houlihan simply said "I don't know. I plead"nolo contendere".", she could have qualified for a reduced sentence and still make the 2024 Olympics. It's a hard pill for athletes to swallow, resisting the temptation to "prove" their innocence, but the WADA "due process" gives accused athletes few choices, as most of the available defenses have been removed by design from both innocent and guilty athletes alike.
Athletes/coaches may learn from Houlihan's story, and put themselves on notice that a robust defense may require freezing portions of all their meals for a period of 1 month or longer, and keeping samples of all their medicine and supplements for any subsequent testing. With luck, they may be able to prove their innocence, like handballer Simon Getzmann, and merely serve a 1 year ban, at a personal non-reimbursed cost of more than 10,000 dollars/Euros for legal and scientific tests, for their first offense ADRV.
How do you know she would have received only 2 years if she didn’t try to appeal the ban? Sha’Carri didn’t appeal her ban but it wasn’t reduced to 15 days.
What you’re suggesting is illogical. Why give her a 4-year ban when they really meant 2?
I didn't say 2 years. I was mentally calculating 3 years from Dec. 2020.
But I would agree it doesn't seem entirely logical that the Kenyan's certainly deliberate injection of a higher dose, directly into the muscle, gets a shorter penalty from the AIU.
I suspect the "dirty official" here is Prof. Ayotte, and the fake results is related to Jarrion Lawson's initial conviction overturned by his CAS Panel.
Thanks.
Yes! Does anyone know the facts surrounding this official's history and how she handled Houlihan's testing?
The real question here is how come nobody has come out and publicly condemed Al Sal for his finger penetration of an athlete on more than one occasion. This episode is far worse that anything Shelby did.
She did not make a mistake. No one accidentally takes Nando. Yes, some athletes have lied and said they accidentally injected it and idiots believed them but they were all lies.
It doesn't matter if CAS or WADA specifically stated she cheated, we k ow she cheated. They know it too but decided to leave it out of the report.
Here is the bottom line. She will miss 2 Olympics and that makes me very happy. I hope it depresses her because people that dope deserve bad things to happen to them.
Hahaha, yes, CAS of course used WADA language and called it an intentional anti doping rule violation after she tested positive. Most people would see that as cheating, but then, there are hardcore fans and letsrun trolls.
Sadly, Flanagan didn't get her way, and this doper too got to keep her "accolades".
Hahaha, yes, CAS of course used WADA language and called it an intentional anti doping rule violation after she tested positive. Most people would see that as cheating, but then, there are hardcore fans and letsrun trolls.
Sadly, Flanagan didn't get her way, and this doper too got to keep her "accolades".
I used to consider you more informed than most people, who largely would not read the WADA language. It is inexplicable why you place so much weight on "intentional" when the WADA Code clearly doesn't. While most people could claim ignorance for not having read the WADA language, you cannot.
To arrive at "cheating", it seems you need to start with WADA's "appeal to ignorance", and for good measure, top it with an "appeal to the masses", as if this can be decided by popular vote rather than by defintion. You may be right that most people might see that as cheating. But it is really an emotional appeal which attempts to shift the burden to a group you want to call trolls for pointing out Basic Fundamentals of Logic 101.
Here is how logicians interpret what most people see in WADA's presumption of intent:
"The appeal to ignorance is a fallacy based on the assumption that a statement must be true if it cannot be proven false — or false if it cannot be proven true."
"How They're Manipulated" "People can use this fallacy to manipulate others because there is often an appeal to people's emotions within the proposed ideas. The assertion then puts nonbelievers in the fallacy on the defensive, which is irrational, as the person proposing the idea should have the burden of proof ..."
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.
