A question for those who are against my proposal: Why? What’s wrong with my proposal? I’m not saying her suspension should be reduced. I’m just saying to have her finish it next year so she has the chance to qualify for the second Olympics after her suspension began, just like other people who get the standard four-year ban.
Pretty much everything is wrong with it. Just a few thoughts:
1) I am vehemently opposed to helping dopers during their ban.
2) The rules say absolutely nothing about the Olympics.
3) No authority brought such a postponement up, ever, and even her lawyers have not.
4) Contrary to your claim, Shelburrito's situation is not unique at all. The pandemic was. Lots of other dopers got banned for 4 years between summer 2019 and summer 2020 and are therefore in the same situation.
5) RE 3): Where would you draw the line: from 08-01-19 to 07-31-20? Or from 09-01-19 to 08-31-20? etc. The exact date of the Olympics changes by a couple of weeks every time.
6) What would you do with dopers who get banned between the Olympic Trials and the Olympics 2024, say in July 2024? Give them a 3 month postponement of the ban from May - July 2028 into 2029 so they can compete during the 2028 Trials?
7) You are of course way too late to start that discussion now. This being a ban from CAS, way too many authorities are involved (WA + AIU + WADA + CAS) to make this work within 3 months, and you haven't even collected any signatures yet.
This whole idea is just ludicrous. Still hoping you are rekrunner trolling us again with your beloved doper...
Thank you for being one of the few people here to offer a thoughtful response that criticized my idea rather than attacking me as a person. People can learn from your example. Here are my comments on your thoughts:
1) It’s not so much about helping dopers. It’s about fairness in punishments.
2) Read my post covering the history of how the standard 4-year ban came to be. The only reason the Olympics aren’t mentioned in the rulebook is because of fear that it would get struck down in court, like what happened in the LaShawn Merritt case. Missing the Olympics was part of an early draft of the rule change, then they replaced it with a four-year ban intended to serve the same purpose.
3) Her lawyers haven’t mentioned this idea because they were so focused on trying prove her innocence. And also because it’s a brilliant idea, which means it’s not obvious. I bet if they see this thread their first thought would be, “What an elegant solution indeed, I wish we thought of that!”
4) I’m not saying my proposal should only apply to Shelby. It should be applied to those other people who got suspended in 2019 and 2020 too. It’s a unique situation due to there being two Olympics in a three-year span.
5) Those details can be sorted.
6) Same comment as 5.
7) I agree this proposal is late. Like Shelby’s lawyers probably do, I wish I thought of it sooner. But it can still be acted upon. Get the key people from those orgs you listed in a virtual meeting this week to hash it out so that justice can be served.
No, simpleton, it means nothing he says changes anything. Same as me. But like most I'm happy with the solution CAS arrived at. Very elegant. A 4-year ban.
Simpleton? Be quiet, you little bully.
I'm a great supporter of the elegance of the CAS decision. 4 years with no reduction.
Pretty much everything is wrong with it. Just a few thoughts:
1) I am vehemently opposed to helping dopers during their ban.
2) The rules say absolutely nothing about the Olympics.
3) No authority brought such a postponement up, ever, and even her lawyers have not.
4) Contrary to your claim, Shelburrito's situation is not unique at all. The pandemic was. Lots of other dopers got banned for 4 years between summer 2019 and summer 2020 and are therefore in the same situation.
5) RE 3): Where would you draw the line: from 08-01-19 to 07-31-20? Or from 09-01-19 to 08-31-20? etc. The exact date of the Olympics changes by a couple of weeks every time.
6) What would you do with dopers who get banned between the Olympic Trials and the Olympics 2024, say in July 2024? Give them a 3 month postponement of the ban from May - July 2028 into 2029 so they can compete during the 2028 Trials?
7) You are of course way too late to start that discussion now. This being a ban from CAS, way too many authorities are involved (WA + AIU + WADA + CAS) to make this work within 3 months, and you haven't even collected any signatures yet.
This whole idea is just ludicrous. Still hoping you are rekrunner trolling us again with your beloved doper...
Thank you for being one of the few people here to offer a thoughtful response that criticized my idea rather than attacking me as a person. People can learn from your example. Here are my comments on your thoughts:
1) It’s not so much about helping dopers. It’s about fairness in punishments.
2) Read my post covering the history of how the standard 4-year ban came to be. The only reason the Olympics aren’t mentioned in the rulebook is because of fear that it would get struck down in court, like what happened in the LaShawn Merritt case. Missing the Olympics was part of an early draft of the rule change, then they replaced it with a four-year ban intended to serve the same purpose.
3) Her lawyers haven’t mentioned this idea because they were so focused on trying prove her innocence. And also because it’s a brilliant idea, which means it’s not obvious. I bet if they see this thread their first thought would be, “What an elegant solution indeed, I wish we thought of that!”
4) I’m not saying my proposal should only apply to Shelby. It should be applied to those other people who got suspended in 2019 and 2020 too. It’s a unique situation due to there being two Olympics in a three-year span.
5) Those details can be sorted.
6) Same comment as 5.
7) I agree this proposal is late. Like Shelby’s lawyers probably do, I wish I thought of it sooner. But it can still be acted upon. Get the key people from those orgs you listed in a virtual meeting this week to hash it out so that justice can be served.
Whatever your reasons you are arguing for a reduction in the effects of an antidoping penalty. No one here except you favours that but, more importantly, the antidoping authorities don't. So it isn't going to happen.
My suggestion isn’t stupid. It’s currently one of the featured threads on the home page of this site. That means this site’s administrators think it’s a proposal worth discussing.
The posting of a thread says nothing about its validity. Yours only stays up because it isn't against the rules pertaining to racism etc.
This post was edited 25 seconds after it was posted.
My suggestion isn’t stupid. It’s currently one of the featured threads on the home page of this site. That means this site’s administrators think it’s a proposal worth discussing.
The posting of a thread says nothing about its validity. Yours only stays up because it isn't against the rules pertaining to racism etc.
I was referring to the “On The Boards” section on the home page in which the site admins list what they deem to be the top 10 or so most interesting threads of the day. This thread was featured there.
The posting of a thread says nothing about its validity. Yours only stays up because it isn't against the rules pertaining to racism etc.
I was referring to the “On The Boards” section on the home page in which the site admins list what they deem to be the top 10 or so most interesting threads of the day. This thread was featured there.
What is "interesting" about the thread is that amongst all the opinions expressed here yours is the only one supporting your proposal.
What is "interesting" about the thread is that amongst all the opinions expressed here yours is the only one supporting your proposal.
That’s often the case with brilliant ideas. The ideas for the telephone, motor-cars, light bulb, radio, movies with talking actors, Xerox machine, personal computer, and many more were all soundly rejected at first.
What is "interesting" about the thread is that amongst all the opinions expressed here yours is the only one supporting your proposal.
That’s often the case with brilliant ideas. The ideas for the telephone, motor-cars, light bulb, radio, movies with talking actors, Xerox machine, personal computer, and many more were all soundly rejected at first.
I knew you were deluded but you've outdone yourself.
What is "interesting" about the thread is that amongst all the opinions expressed here yours is the only one supporting your proposal.
That’s often the case with brilliant ideas. The ideas for the telephone, motor-cars, light bulb, radio, movies with talking actors, Xerox machine, personal computer, and many more were all soundly rejected at first.
Heres an interesting elegant idea: reduced ban for admitting guilt and educating young athletes about The consequences of doping. Admitting guilt and doing the podcast and tv show rounds lamenting your decision and how terrible you feel for trying to take shortcuts. Admitting guilt and turning in your enablers. Admitting guilt and apologizing to your competitors, especially the ones you eliminated by taking their spot. Admitting guilt and apologizing to your competitors and officials for destroying the image of the sport. Time off for good behavior...
LetSee: L,L,L,L,L--HooliVan takes a royal flush L! Goes down devastated!
Now you want to expand this idea to other suspended dopers? Why? Careers are made along with substantial incomes by performing well at meets like the Olympics and Worlds. The prospect of being banned from those meets and their potential rewards is a major incentive to not dope or at least be very careful to avoid getting caught. You'd turn the sport into a farce by banning an athlete from all "lesser" competitions but letting them into the biggest meets of all. And if you carry this idea to its logical conclusion you actually could not make such athletes eligible for the Worlds and Olympics without making them eligible for other competitions because they'll need to get qualifying marks.
One of the big reasons for handing out four year bans rather than the original two year bans was precisely to make sure convicted dopers miss at least one Olympics. Letting them into an Olympics in the midst of their suspension and finishing up by missing later competitions neutralizes the effect of the extension.
Your point that she would not have missed the 2020 Games if they'd actually been held in 2020 is completely unmoving to me because I see no reason to not believe she was doping then and had just been getting away with it. If she thought she needed nandrolone in 2021 why would she have thought differently in 2020? But let's say she wasn't using it in 2020 and Covid cost her a Games she would likely have run in and now she's missing Paris as well. This goes to a fact you're not dealing with. She's not being wronged here. She has no one but herself to blame. She chose to take nandrolone in 2021. She was offered a path to the Paris Games and chose not to take it.
The reason is it would be unfair for my proposal to only apply to Shelby and not others in the same boat of missing two Olympic years due to Tokyo’s postponement. I believe in fairness of rules and procedures.
One clarification: as shown in the documented history I provided, the intent behind the standard 4-year ban was to have convicted dopers miss the next Olympics, not “at least one.” It’s very important we get the facts straight.
The speculative question of if she was doping in previous years before the one in which she tested positive is beyond the scope of this thread.
The reason is it would be unfair for my proposal to only apply to Shelby and not others in the same boat of missing two Olympic years due to Tokyo’s postponement. I believe in fairness of rules and procedures.
One clarification: as shown in the documented history I provided, the intent behind the standard 4-year ban was to have convicted dopers miss the next Olympics, not “at least one.” It’s very important we get the facts straight.
The speculative question of if she was doping in previous years before the one in which she tested positive is beyond the scope of this thread.
Making sure that a convicted doper misses a next Olympics does not mean an athlete should not be banned for more than the next Olympics. Yes, her situation is unusual but probably far from unique now. I can't say this with absolute certainty because I don't follow doping news obsessively, but there must be athletes in other countries who were banned in early 2021 whose bans cover both Games.
And once more, maybe for the last time because you either do not understand this or just refuse to acknowledge it so saying it repeatedly seems pointless, Houlihan could have shortened her ban and been eligible for Paris. She decided not to.
Thanks. My apologies, I believe I previously acknowledged your point about her having the option to have her ban reduced to 3 years by admitting guilt, but maybe that was in another thread (there’s a whole other thread about that point specifically). My stance on that point is she shouldn’t have been forced to make that choice. If she truly believes in the depths of her heart that she is innocent and she truly doesn’t know how/why she tested positive, then she shouldn’t have to make a false confession to avoid the cruel and unusual punishment of missing two Olympics.
Thanks. My apologies, I believe I previously acknowledged your point about her having the option to have her ban reduced to 3 years by admitting guilt, but maybe that was in another thread (there’s a whole other thread about that point specifically). My stance on that point is she shouldn’t have been forced to make that choice. If she truly believes in the depths of her heart that she is innocent and she truly doesn’t know how/why she tested positive, then she shouldn’t have to make a false confession to avoid the cruel and unusual punishment of missing two Olympics.
"Cruel and unusual punishment" of missing two Olympics? For a moment I thought you were going to refer to a public flogging, or being paraded naked into a public stadium. But then I saw you were only talking about a drug cheat missing two international competitions. She is so fortunate that doping doesn't incur a life-time ban. Particularly when she continues to lie about her offence.
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.