Wait - didn't you say you were here to argue against the Wada code and not to make propaganda for the Burrito Trick Club (and exchange insults with Armstronglivs)?
There is nothing dirty about Ayotte (that we know of). The doper apologists here make a big deal out of her statement in the Larrion case, that CAS then decided to discard. Contrary to rojo et al., CAS did not let Larrion get away because of her, just some of her evidence was dismissed.
See points 62 + 63 from that CAS decision:
A misunderstanding based on vague words like “low” and "high" and "large"? A poor memory? A lie? Definitely not a perjury. But I agree that that reflects poorly on her.
In Houlihan's case, CAS was well advised to accept her correct statements. Nothing to see there.
In that case, it was Shelby's experts who embarrassed themselves with misleading statements and little tricks, like not testing the hair for the right prohormones etc.
Anyway, Houlihan's nandro doping was a slam dunk case. Didn't matter who was called as experts.
Are you an expert in the Nandolone TD do say it was slam dunk?
Anyway CAS never found her guilty of intent to cheat.
Given the comments in the Lawson case I am astonished she was allowed to be an expert of opinion.
The CAS does not find people guilty or convict them. Houlihan was banned and lost her appeal. Her claim that she accidentally ingested nandrolone from a tainted burrito was deemed to be implausible.
If a convict loses an appeal, he is not re-convicted or declared guilty. The judge only affirms the previous verdict.
It's always the same people who turn any conversation about Houlihan in q specific context into a long drawn argument about CAS and some specifics.
Can't you all just make a CAS specific thread and argue in there so people discussing the issue at hand don't get buried by two posters going back and forth a dozen times in an hour?
I'll call it Houlihan's Law - that no thread about any topic associated with Shelby Houlihan on LetsRun can make it 5 pages before it devolves into two posters yelling at each other about either factual or semantic details going back to CAS.
**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."
Are you an expert in the Nandolone TD do say it was slam dunk?
Anyway CAS never found her guilty of intent to cheat.
Given the comments in the Lawson case I am astonished she was allowed to be an expert of opinion.
The CAS does not find people guilty or convict them. Houlihan was banned and lost her appeal. Her claim that she accidentally ingested nandrolone from a tainted burrito was deemed to be implausible.
If a convict loses an appeal, he is not re-convicted or declared guilty. The judge only affirms the previous verdict.
The CAS does not find people guilty or convict them. Houlihan was banned and lost her appeal. Her claim that she accidentally ingested nandrolone from a tainted burrito was deemed to be implausible.
If a convict loses an appeal, he is not re-convicted or declared guilty. The judge only affirms the previous verdict.
There was no previous hearing to appeal.
Maybe we’re hairsplitting over terminology but Houlihan was trying to appeal her ban and she failed.
Not sure how Houlihan managed that, but she got lots of perks along the way, including WA skipping the DT decision. As such, it was WA who appealed to CAS, not Houlihan, and CAS was the first and only panel to ban this doper. So formally she never appealed.
Mind you, that was all on request of Team Houlihan, so they really shouldn't complain about any of that.
In the end, none of that mattered, and CAS had the final word as it would have had in any case.
Going back to the original question: here is the link to CleanSportCO trying to stop the cheater from competing while banned, including a list of names:
Going back to the original question: here is the link to CleanSportCO trying to stop the cheater from competing while banned, including a list of names:
Going back to the original question: here is the link to CleanSportCO trying to stop the cheater from competing while banned, including a list of names:
That looks like a list of athletes condemning the USATF decision.
Not sure how Houlihan managed that, but she got lots of perks along the way, including WA skipping the DT decision. As such, it was WA who appealed to CAS, not Houlihan, and CAS was the first and only panel to ban this doper. So formally she never appealed.
Mind you, that was all on request of Team Houlihan, so they really shouldn't complain about any of that.
In the end, none of that mattered, and CAS had the final word as it would have had in any case.
Perks? That's a weird way to look at it.
I think Team Houlihan's main complaint was the length of time it took to be charged with a violation, considering the fixed date of the Olympic Trials. In the interest of expediting the process, both parties agreed to a single hearing, but this harmed Houlihan as she had to give up her right of appeal, and a second chance to expose some of the "misrememberings" of the type that got Lawson re-instated. The alternative was a lengthy "due process" which would ensure missing the Olympic Trials.
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.
It seems that no one here can point to any athlete/coach, in or out of BTC, that has come forward to condemn Houlihan the way a few outraged and disgusted "fans" of the sport expect.
I suspect this small vocal minority of zero-tolerance mentality fans are simply out of touch with the real world of athletes, coaches, and athletics.
I'm still waiting for some examples of non-BTC athletes and coaches who had the courage and morality to condemn Houlihan for what many zero-tolerance thinking "fans" consider lying and cheating.
I don't mean a list of athletes condemning a USATF for a decision they reversed, but outright condemning Houlihan the way the OP describes for apparent ingestion of a small quantity of steroids. After all, why single out BTC if they cannot be singled out?
Without any examples, it doesn't look like any athletes and coaches are standing with the morally outraged "fans".
It seems that no one here can point to any athlete/coach, in or out of BTC, that has come forward to condemn Houlihan the way a few outraged and disgusted "fans" of the sport expect.
I suspect this small vocal minority of zero-tolerance mentality fans are simply out of touch with the real world of athletes, coaches, and athletics.
I'm still waiting for some examples of non-BTC athletes and coaches who had the courage and morality to condemn Houlihan for what many zero-tolerance thinking "fans" consider lying and cheating.
I don't mean a list of athletes condemning a USATF for a decision they reversed, but outright condemning Houlihan the way the OP describes for apparent ingestion of a small quantity of steroids. After all, why single out BTC if they cannot be singled out?
Without any examples, it doesn't look like any athletes and coaches are standing with the morally outraged "fans".
It may well be that non BTC athletes understand the implications of strict liability and know that it is not at all clear if she had any intent to break the rules.
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.