What a naive question! What lame trolling. For doping. For lying. For the ludicrous press conference. For her vitriol towards the organizations who caught her and the courts who banned her - they were just doing their job (as confirmed by your beloved Tygart). For her vitriol towards her disappointed fans. For her outrageous houlier-than-thou pretense. For her gofundme scam. For tricking Dominic into spreading her propaganda.
For her ridiculous burrito joke. Science has studied nandrolone from ingesting boar meat/organs for decades - fortunately there were real experts on the matter consulted by World Athletics, not anonymous letsrun trolls. We dodged a bullet there.
BTW, @dunes runner/rekrunner/twoggle and all other pro-dopers: the ban was confirmed in court, and not just in any court, it was the highest court of the responsible country. You are extremely poorly informed, not untypical for a Shelby supporter.
My evidentiary bar is higher. If I am poorly informed it is only because there is little real information, despite all the "court" cases.
You falsely assume that any of these "court" cases factually established whether Houlihan intentionally doped with a banned substance, or whether they even can, or whether that is an intended goal of the process.
Regarding "confirmed in court", we have recently learned that confirmation, even by the US Supreme Court, can still lead to very wrong and controversial decisions, especially when conflicted parties do not recuse themselves. Confirmation by courts are no guarantee.
From day one until today, every statement and event is consistent with an innocent athlete who was blind-sided by a positive test result, and unable to sufficiently establish the origin with the required concrete elements, under the time pressure of Olympic trials, and railroaded to a 4-year ban, becoming the next victim of a fast-track process, and to add insult to injury, demonized in the court of public opinion.
Unfortunately for the truth, after all the court cases, and all the supplemental information, the origin of the nandrolone remains ambiguous, and to this day it remains premature to conclusively say that she intentionally doped, or that she ever lied, or that the press conference was ludicrous, or that the gofundme was not justified, or that the anti-doping organization, and their experts, actually got it right in this case.
I haven't watched all of the interview yet, but Shelby alluded to the fact that the doping organization, whatever it's initials are now, is never required to provide valid evidence that would hold up in a court where it would be open to challenges. In other words, people can be banned over and over and over for no valid reasons.
Based on this thread where all the accusers are basing their attacks on hypothetical conjecture and often obvious lies, I am coming to the conclusion that none of the so called doping busts can be considered to be credible, and they won't ever be credible, because they are never held to the standard that they must be open to legitimate challenges.
The people accused should always be considered to be innocent, unless and until the evidence is conclusive, and conclusive means conclusive, not spurious, hypothetical & dishonest.
I don't recall her saying anti-doping bodies should be required to provide evidence that would hold up in a court. What she says in the podcast is that anti-doping bodies should be held accountable for "getting it right" for the athlete. This is in line with what Travis Tygart repeatedly criticizes about recent (2015) changes in the WADA Code shifting all of the burden onto the athlete, relieving the anti-doping bodies of any accountability.
The scenario here isn't all doping busts, but the subset where the source can be accidental or unknowing contamination from food or medicine or supplements.
It's quite simple - which is why you don't get it. If an athlete tests positive for a banned substance they have committed an antidoping violation unless they can show legitimate cause for the presence of a banned substance. If they can't, the violation is upheld and they are convicted. Antidoping doesn't have to show how the banned substance got into their body - a near impossible task for it to do. Antidoping is "accountable" - it is required to follow rules and procedures that are legally reviewable and to which the athlete is given the right to respond. Houlihan was given that opportunity. The Court came to the right decision. We also know this because you constantly whine about it - as she does.
It's quite simple - which is why you don't get it. If an athlete tests positive for a banned substance they have committed an antidoping violation unless they can show legitimate cause for the presence of a banned substance. If they can't, the violation is upheld and they are convicted. Antidoping doesn't have to show how the banned substance got into their body - a near impossible task for it to do. Antidoping is "accountable" - it is required to follow rules and procedures that are legally reviewable and to which the athlete is given the right to respond. Houlihan was given that opportunity. The Court came to the right decision. We also know this because you constantly whine about it - as she does.
We are all saying the same thing. It is the rules and procedures that permit anti-doping bodies to ban athletes based on inconclusive evidence.
It's quite simple - which is why you don't get it. If an athlete tests positive for a banned substance they have committed an antidoping violation unless they can show legitimate cause for the presence of a banned substance. If they can't, the violation is upheld and they are convicted. Antidoping doesn't have to show how the banned substance got into their body - a near impossible task for it to do. Antidoping is "accountable" - it is required to follow rules and procedures that are legally reviewable and to which the athlete is given the right to respond. Houlihan was given that opportunity. The Court came to the right decision. We also know this because you constantly whine about it - as she does.
We are all saying the same thing. It is the rules and procedures that permit anti-doping bodies to ban athletes based on inconclusive evidence.
No, we are not "all saying the same thing". Antidoping bans athletes based on the fact they test positive for a banned substance for which they cannot produce an accepted defence. That's conclusive enough, except to the guilty athletes and doping apologists like yourself.
We are all saying the same thing. It is the rules and procedures that permit anti-doping bodies to ban athletes based on inconclusive evidence.
No, we are not "all saying the same thing". Antidoping bans athletes based on the fact they test positive for a banned substance for which they cannot produce an accepted defence. That's conclusive enough, except to the guilty athletes and doping apologists like yourself.
The conclusions were presumed, not established or proven.
No, we are not "all saying the same thing". Antidoping bans athletes based on the fact they test positive for a banned substance for which they cannot produce an accepted defence. That's conclusive enough, except to the guilty athletes and doping apologists like yourself.
The conclusions were presumed, not established or proven.
The positive test was proven without any doubt. Houlihan's defence failed to meet the balance of probabilities so that left the presumption of intent unrebutted. So guilty of an intentional ADRV and a consequential 4 year ban. The process worked.
The conclusions were presumed, not established or proven.
The positive test was proven without any doubt. Houlihan's defence failed to meet the balance of probabilities so that left the presumption of intent unrebutted. So guilty of an intentional ADRV and a consequential 4 year ban. The process worked.
The positive test, plus two unproven presumptions, led to the 4-year ban.
“I got busted for doping, I didn’t run the world record or close to it in my prime whilst on the sauce, so the first thing I’m going to do is break the world record now a crucial few years older supposedly off the sauce.”
You can’t make this up. Probably the same self importance that caused the doping problem and maybe what will continue the doping problem. I hate that she’s pushing the narrative that she’s some kind of victim for being caught cheating and that she’s gonna make the heroic comeback she deserves. If she wants any semblance of respect/forgiveness from the track community which she clearly craves she should just come clean and enjoy being an also ran for the rest of her career, and show gratitude that she has garnered enough forgiveness from USATF and World Athletics to be allowed to do that.
Actually, you did indeed just make that up. Shelby didn't say anything remotely close to that quote because she denies doping. So your post is made up.
But her test results do not deny the doping, and her reason for the supposed false flag is a statistical impossibility, therefor she was caught doping. Doesn’t really matter if she denies it or not.
And now she’s saying she’s gonna make a mile world record attempt on her first race back, something she wasn’t even close to when she was doping and in her physical prime.
So to me, this either means shes doping harder than she did before, or is delusional enough to think she can be better now than she was 4 years ago on Nandrolone training under one of the best distance programs in the world.
There’s what people are literally saying, and there’s what people are saying given context, and I was highlighting what she was saying given context. Hope this helps you understand the post.
No seriously. I said in my post that I think it was probably the cause of the doping too.
I got dogged for it in another thread as i’m sure I will here too, but narcissism is extremely prevalent in high level athletics, and I think people think I am calling someone a bad person of sorts by saying they may have the disorder but i’m not, i’m just saying they are mentally ill. Narcissism on the surface looks like someone who thinks they are the best and can’t do anything wrong but what’s happening on the inside of a narcissist is the opposite of that and it’s a serious mental health issue that can lead to extreme self identity issues and depression. I’m not just throwing around the phrase on people I don’t like either.
Grandiose sense of self
Abuse of substances
Delusions of grandiose future accomplishments
Dishonesty about anything that could make one’s character look bad
Cheating to obtain goals
Doubling down on lies and forming elaborate stories to validate the lies when exposed
These are all narcissistic signs/behaviors that in my eyes Shelby exhibits, and when the lie all falls apart which it currently is, it can be horrific on someone’s mental well being. I have/had a close friend going through a similar thing but out of the public eye and I feel really bad for him. A year ago he had convinced everyone he was the best thing ever and had some kind of savior complex that a lot of people bought into, and now he’s losing all of his friends, his long term romantic relationship is falling apart, his family doesn’t trust him, and he’s spiraling out of control abusing substances and flunking out of school. He’s dropping all of the people that stuck by him because he asks them for advice and the advice they give threaten his ego so he’s deluded himself into thinking everyone is against him, and in doing so is turning everyone against him.
I personally think humility can help Shelby a lot, I think she’d be surprised at how much her former fans will be willing to forgive her and support her by just coming clean and talking about how much pressure she felt to start doping and prove to everyone she can still exist on the pro scene without doping. Probably a lot of REAL self actualization/realization to be had there too.
You got dogged because your armchair psychological "analysis" is absurd. By your theory, any professional athlete who denies doping is a narcissist. Absurd.
"Delusions of grandiose future accomplishments" and "grandiose sense of self" are things that can be said about almost all professional athletes. Who even tries to become a professional athlete unless they believe they can achieve great things? People might have accused Kenneth Rooks of having "delusions of grandiose future accomplishments" for thinking he could medal at the Olympics before he did it.
The women's indoor mile world record is 4:13.31. That is equivalent to a 3:54.61 1500. Shelby has run 3:54.99 outdoors, so it is not a stretch for her to think that she is capable of running the equivalent of less than four-tenths of a second faster indoors.
So this post paints a much clearer picture of who i’m debating with than the previous one.
There’s a reason I listed multiple identifiable symptoms and not just one.
Respectfully, do some research as to how people are diagnosed with cluster B personality disorders, what those diagnostic categories look like, and then I’ll happily continue debating with you if you’d like. Maybe think really hard about your post afterwards too. You directly supported my points throughout your post while trying to call me an armchair psychologist lol.
The “absurd” thing here is having a complete lack of understanding of how something works, and then telling someone who is formally educated on that thing that they are the ones who don’t know what they are talking about because you don’t like what they are saying.
Once you get a little more educated on cluster B personality disorders I would strongly recommend taking a look at who’s influencing your life, whether through friendships, politics, family, or religion. You’d be really surprised. Take the red pill my friend!
I don't recall her saying anti-doping bodies should be required to provide evidence that would hold up in a court. What she says in the podcast is that anti-doping bodies should be held accountable for "getting it right" for the athlete. This is in line with what Travis Tygart repeatedly criticizes about recent (2015) changes in the WADA Code shifting all of the burden onto the athlete, relieving the anti-doping bodies of any accountability.
The scenario here isn't all doping busts, but the subset where the source can be accidental or unknowing contamination from food or medicine or supplements.
It's quite simple - which is why you don't get it.
He only gets the difficult ones? Dumbstrong rules.
Regarding "confirmed in court", we have recently learned that confirmation, even by the US Supreme Court, can still lead to very wrong and controversial decisions, especially when conflicted parties do not recuse themselves. Confirmation by courts are no guarantee.
You are moving the goalposts again with a number of irrelevant and mostly false distractions. The false claim was that the evidence wouldn't hold up in court - that is evidently wrong because it did hold up in TWO courts.
Regarding "confirmed in court", we have recently learned that confirmation, even by the US Supreme Court, can still lead to very wrong and controversial decisions, especially when conflicted parties do not recuse themselves. Confirmation by courts are no guarantee.
You are moving the goalposts again with a number of irrelevant and mostly false distractions. The false claim was that the evidence wouldn't hold up in court - that is evidently wrong because it did hold up in TWO courts.
Downvoted.
Given the scope of the podcast, isn't the whole discussion about Shelby's ban an irrelevant distraction?
My "goalpost" that triggered the "confirmed in court" response was "What is she supposed to apologize (to the fans) for? For the fans who presume to know some unproven truth based on a decision that itself explicitly relies on two presumptions?"
You mischaracterize what these courts "upheld". They did not judge the conclusivity of the evidence. Indeed "Drug Cheats Out" only said that the "ban", which was expressly based on two presumptions, was "upheld" by the courts.
What is the strongest demonstration that the evidence was "inconclusive"? From the uncontested evidence of the positive tests, and the WADA Lab guidelines defining how to interpret and report the results, the CAS Panel arbitrators were still split whether the ADRV was correctly charged in the first place.
None of the decisions justifies the vitriol from the fans, nor permits the fans to draw stronger conclusions that the CAS or these other courts did not.
What a naive question! What lame trolling. For doping. For lying. For the ludicrous press conference. For her vitriol towards the organizations who caught her and the courts who banned her - they were just doing their job (as confirmed by your beloved Tygart). For her vitriol towards her disappointed fans. For her outrageous houlier-than-thou pretense. For her gofundme scam. For tricking Dominic into spreading her propaganda.
For her ridiculous burrito joke. Science has studied nandrolone from ingesting boar meat/organs for decades - fortunately there were real experts on the matter consulted by World Athletics, not anonymous letsrun trolls. We dodged a bullet there.
BTW, @dunes runner/rekrunner/twoggle and all other pro-dopers: the ban was confirmed in court, and not just in any court, it was the highest court of the responsible country. You are extremely poorly informed, not untypical for a Shelby supporter.
My evidentiary bar is higher. If I am poorly informed it is only because there is little real information, despite all the "court" cases.
You falsely assume that any of these "court" cases factually established whether Houlihan intentionally doped with a banned substance, or whether they even can, or whether that is an intended goal of the process.
Regarding "confirmed in court", we have recently learned that confirmation, even by the US Supreme Court, can still lead to very wrong and controversial decisions, especially when conflicted parties do not recuse themselves. Confirmation by courts are no guarantee.
From day one until today, every statement and event is consistent with an innocent athlete who was blind-sided by a positive test result, and unable to sufficiently establish the origin with the required concrete elements, under the time pressure of Olympic trials, and railroaded to a 4-year ban, becoming the next victim of a fast-track process, and to add insult to injury, demonized in the court of public opinion.
Unfortunately for the truth, after all the court cases, and all the supplemental information, the origin of the nandrolone remains ambiguous, and to this day it remains premature to conclusively say that she intentionally doped, or that she ever lied, or that the press conference was ludicrous, or that the gofundme was not justified, or that the anti-doping organization, and their experts, actually got it right in this case.
The whining - "she was railroaded!" - gets even louder.
The positive test was proven without any doubt. Houlihan's defence failed to meet the balance of probabilities so that left the presumption of intent unrebutted. So guilty of an intentional ADRV and a consequential 4 year ban. The process worked.
The positive test, plus two unproven presumptions, led to the 4-year ban.
You left out the failed defence. But you lie about everything.
You got dogged because your armchair psychological "analysis" is absurd. By your theory, any professional athlete who denies doping is a narcissist. Absurd.
"Delusions of grandiose future accomplishments" and "grandiose sense of self" are things that can be said about almost all professional athletes. Who even tries to become a professional athlete unless they believe they can achieve great things? People might have accused Kenneth Rooks of having "delusions of grandiose future accomplishments" for thinking he could medal at the Olympics before he did it.
The women's indoor mile world record is 4:13.31. That is equivalent to a 3:54.61 1500. Shelby has run 3:54.99 outdoors, so it is not a stretch for her to think that she is capable of running the equivalent of less than four-tenths of a second faster indoors.
So this post paints a much clearer picture of who i’m debating with than the previous one.
There’s a reason I listed multiple identifiable symptoms and not just one.
Respectfully, do some research as to how people are diagnosed with cluster B personality disorders, what those diagnostic categories look like, and then I’ll happily continue debating with you if you’d like. Maybe think really hard about your post afterwards too. You directly supported my points throughout your post while trying to call me an armchair psychologist lol.
The “absurd” thing here is having a complete lack of understanding of how something works, and then telling someone who is formally educated on that thing that they are the ones who don’t know what they are talking about because you don’t like what they are saying.
Once you get a little more educated on cluster B personality disorders I would strongly recommend taking a look at who’s influencing your life, whether through friendships, politics, family, or religion. You’d be really surprised. Take the red pill my friend!
guy probably took like a 200 level psych class in undergrad and thinks thats enough to diagnose somebody he's never met with a severe psychological disorder. ok guy.
So this post paints a much clearer picture of who i’m debating with than the previous one.
There’s a reason I listed multiple identifiable symptoms and not just one.
Respectfully, do some research as to how people are diagnosed with cluster B personality disorders, what those diagnostic categories look like, and then I’ll happily continue debating with you if you’d like. Maybe think really hard about your post afterwards too. You directly supported my points throughout your post while trying to call me an armchair psychologist lol.
The “absurd” thing here is having a complete lack of understanding of how something works, and then telling someone who is formally educated on that thing that they are the ones who don’t know what they are talking about because you don’t like what they are saying.
Once you get a little more educated on cluster B personality disorders I would strongly recommend taking a look at who’s influencing your life, whether through friendships, politics, family, or religion. You’d be really surprised. Take the red pill my friend!
You're like a weirdo @$$hole. Horrible combo. Off putting.
The positive test, plus two unproven presumptions, led to the 4-year ban.
You left out the failed defence. But you lie about everything.
And in your quest to be the most clever poster, your many posts failed to address the original point: the evidence against her is inconclusive, and she was banned on the strength of two presumptions -- the truth according to the CAS.
Your silence gives consent -- the truth according to Plato.
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.