a personal low point for me wrote:
Feels her 4 year ban was harsh - they offered a plea deal 3 years instead of 4 but she had to
take it before going to trial. She said no. She said she wasn't willing to compromise on her values because she was clean etc, but that it would have been a no brainer for her (implied, if she was dirty). This stands out as a weak argument supporting her innocence, because she also has said she and her support team all truly believed that they would win their case, and then later even believed they had a good shot before the Swiss Court. Why take a plea deal in a case you're think you're going to win? Again, kinda misleading and fudging.
I hadn't previously heard about the plea deal.
I think the rejecting the plea is interesting for two reasons.
First, she kept referencing the legal costs of fighting, but never really acknowledged whether she's personally liable for any of the legal fees, or if most/all were covered by a benefactor.
Second, she really rolled the dice by refusing the deal. She could've taken the three year ban and been around for another Olympic cycle. Instead, she bet the house on a really, really bad hand and effectively lost her career. The conversations between her and counsel must have been interesting. Shelby, you can cop a deal and be around for the next cycle, or you can bet it all on this burrito defense that's going to cost $$$...
