Shelby actually confesses in the article to doping.
“Guilt gnaws at her, and she has trouble identifying why.” This itself is an admission of guilt.
”Because I’m serving the consequences for it, I’m also getting the emotions. I feel embarrassed, and I’m feeling ashamed…”
This is a confession from Shelby, and as close as she will likely come to a full confession until she sees that maybe she can make money from a full mea culpa.
Somebody actually read the article. I'm semi-amazed at that around here.
The Washington Post is phenomenal and in particular has always been known for continuing to ask questions. That practice lends to great quotes, even if you have to look for them instead of offering the same rant for the 5000th consecutive day.
Seriously? Here's the rest of the sentence:
"...and all of these different emotions for having to serve a ban, even though I didn’t do anything."
But sure, let's pretend it's an admission of guilt and a confession.
This was an article that did not need to be written. We've heard it all before. Sadly, I have no doubt that many of the Washington Post readers will fall for her side.
Did you already hear that USADA supported her in her appeal? I didn't hear that before.
"When Houlihan made a long-shot appeal to a Swiss court, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency Chief Science Officer Matthew Fedoruk submitted an affidavit backing Houlihan. Fedoruk called evidence World Athletics used to make its case "erroneous," citing a Kansas State professor who refuted parts of McGlone’s testimony. Fedoruk wrote it was "highly plausible … the positive test must be considered the result of unintentional and unknowing consumption of 19-NA containing boar meat.""
Marion Jones admitted using steroids. She literally went on Oprah and talked about it.
Lol, she never hid it very well, with her late onset acne, ever widening jawline, and shiny new braces.
She didn’t admit to anything until the feds had her dead-to-rights as part of their BALCO investigation. When Marion went on Oprah, she claimed she still would have won her world championships even if she hadn’t been on PED’s.
This was an article that did not need to be written. We've heard it all before. Sadly, I have no doubt that many of the Washington Post readers will fall for her side.
Yeah, this is a campaign for the casual person who is not involved in sports at all or is a run club simp whose social media emulates sponsored athletes (even though they don't have even have a gear deal). I've talked to a lot of current/former ex-collegiate athletes since the bust and I've never met a single one who definitely thinks Shelby was clean. If you've followed the story closely and read any of the reports you'd have to be pretty foolish to still buy it.
The silent majority of folks who don't believe the burrito story aren't posting about it though. There's no real point because here's nothing to gain by fighting from the winning position. Shelby is banned, it's final, nothing she or her supporters do or say is going to change that.
This was an article that did not need to be written. We've heard it all before. Sadly, I have no doubt that many of the Washington Post readers will fall for her side.
Did you already hear that USADA supported her in her appeal? I didn't hear that before.
"When Houlihan made a long-shot appeal to a Swiss court, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency Chief Science Officer Matthew Fedoruk submitted an affidavit backing Houlihan. Fedoruk called evidence World Athletics used to make its case "erroneous," citing a Kansas State professor who refuted parts of McGlone’s testimony. Fedoruk wrote it was "highly plausible … the positive test must be considered the result of unintentional and unknowing consumption of 19-NA containing boar meat.""
USADA's involvement in this scare's me. That they are openly thumbing their nose at the AIU, CAS and WADA makes me think they have an agenda of their own.
Somebody actually read the article. I'm semi-amazed at that around here.
The Washington Post is phenomenal and in particular has always been known for continuing to ask questions. That practice lends to great quotes, even if you have to look for them instead of offering the same rant for the 5000th consecutive day.
Seriously? Here's the rest of the sentence:
"...and all of these different emotions for having to serve a ban, even though I didn’t do anything."
But sure, let's pretend it's an admission of guilt and a confession.
Yep! And this:
“I think about it every day,” Houlihan said this month, walking along Lake Okoboji. “Maybe I shouldn’t, but it’s hard not to. I feel like it would be so much of an easier process to accept if I had cheated. Then it’s like: ‘I f---ed up. These are the consequences of my actions. I made a mistake, and I deserve everything I’m going through.’ But it’s been so much harder to get to that point of accepting it when I’m like, ‘I don’t deserve this.’ It’s been really tricky to navigate that. I don’t have answers.”
Somebody actually read the article. I'm semi-amazed at that around here.
The Washington Post is phenomenal and in particular has always been known for continuing to ask questions. That practice lends to great quotes, even if you have to look for them instead of offering the same rant for the 5000th consecutive day.
Seriously? Here's the rest of the sentence:
"...and all of these different emotions for having to serve a ban, even though I didn’t do anything."
But sure, let's pretend it's an admission of guilt and a confession.
I really hope you never get married. You are the most gullible idiot on this site.
Did you already hear that USADA supported her in her appeal? I didn't hear that before.
"When Houlihan made a long-shot appeal to a Swiss court, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency Chief Science Officer Matthew Fedoruk submitted an affidavit backing Houlihan. Fedoruk called evidence World Athletics used to make its case "erroneous," citing a Kansas State professor who refuted parts of McGlone’s testimony. Fedoruk wrote it was "highly plausible … the positive test must be considered the result of unintentional and unknowing consumption of 19-NA containing boar meat.""
USADA's involvement in this scare's me. That they are openly thumbing their nose at the AIU, CAS and WADA makes me think they have an agenda of their own.
USADA's agenda, according to the article:
"We always seek justice — to do what is right given the facts — not just the blind, tone deaf execution of WADA’s sometimes unfair, ivory tower demands," USADA CEO Travis Tygart said in a text message. "Unfortunately, there is frequently a real tension between the two.""
1) I'm happily married; 2) I am not gullible; 3) I am not an idiot; and 4) Houlihan did not confess.
It was rather dishonest not to complete the sentence in your quote, in order to conclude the contrary.
Contrary to your suggestion, it would be gullible to believe things that extend beyond the facts presented in the CAS report, and the supporting documents.
1) I'm happily married; 2) I am not gullible; 3) I am not an idiot; and 4) Houlihan did not confess.
It was rather dishonest not to complete the sentence in your quote, in order to conclude the contrary.
Contrary to your suggestion, it would be gullible to believe things that extend beyond the facts presented in the CAS report, and the supporting documents.
Please explain why Houlihan is feeling guilt. Why is she feeling guilt and shame? If I have ever been wrongly accused I feel anger and outrage but NOT guilt and NOT shame. The reason is obvious to the intelligent.
1) I'm happily married; 2) I am not gullible; 3) I am not an idiot; and 4) Houlihan did not confess.
It was rather dishonest not to complete the sentence in your quote, in order to conclude the contrary.
Contrary to your suggestion, it would be gullible to believe things that extend beyond the facts presented in the CAS report, and the supporting documents.
Please explain why Houlihan is feeling guilt. Why is she feeling guilt and shame? If I have ever been wrongly accused I feel anger and outrage but NOT guilt and NOT shame. The reason is obvious to the intelligent.
You are not her, and different people would react in different ways. Your self-projection is not "intelligent", but rather childishly naive.
It would be gullible to pretend you drew an obviously "intelligent" conclusion. It would require someone highly qualified and experienced in this area of psychology to provide an "intelligent" explanation, rather than some anonymous poster in a forum analyzing a cherry-picked and truncated for self-serving convenience quote.
The article explains it as something complex and difficult to identify why:
"She grapples with complex feelings. Guilt gnaws at her, and she has trouble identifying why.
"Because I’m serving the consequences for it, I’m also getting the emotions," Houlihan said. "I feel embarrassed, and I’m feeling ashamed, and all of these different emotions for having to serve a ban, even though I didn’t do anything. So that’s been really hard to navigate and work through.""
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.