That is a role assumed by the Shelby doping-deniers. CAS has shown that.
When someone uses the word “denier,” it’s hard to take anything they say seriously.
It is a reality of the world we live in that not everything that is force fed to us is correct. Governing bodies get stuff wrong…get over it and stop building your cross to crucify Shelby on daily.
There is a fully legitimate possibility that CAS/WADA was 100% wrong about Shelby. That’s not being a “denier,” it is being an open minded person who doesn’t just trust everything they’re told all the time.
Sometimes narratives are convenient, and just like every single narrative about a political figure you dislike continues to be super convenient for those who disliked he/she, it is super convenient for people who were legitimately cheated or who were not fast runners to believe that someone like Shelby Houlihan was cheating, without actually knowing her or knowing that there may be real reasons why she and people in her circle pushed back so hard against the ban. I’ve never, in all my years in the sport, seen someone push back so hard against a ban as Shelby did, and there are legitimate reasons to believe this was because she was innocent the whole time.
When someone uses the word “denier,” it’s hard to take anything they say seriously.
It is a reality of the world we live in that not everything that is force fed to us is correct. Governing bodies get stuff wrong…get over it and stop building your cross to crucify Shelby on daily.
There is a fully legitimate possibility that CAS/WADA was 100% wrong about Shelby. That’s not being a “denier,” it is being an open minded person who doesn’t just trust everything they’re told all the time.
Sometimes narratives are convenient, and just like every single narrative about a political figure you dislike continues to be super convenient for those who disliked he/she, it is super convenient for people who were legitimately cheated or who were not fast runners to believe that someone like Shelby Houlihan was cheating, without actually knowing her or knowing that there may be real reasons why she and people in her circle pushed back so hard against the ban. I’ve never, in all my years in the sport, seen someone push back so hard against a ban as Shelby did, and there are legitimate reasons to believe this was because she was innocent the whole time.
Okay Travis Tygart. Keep your crusade going. I’m sure some of the other countries will buy it soon.
When someone uses the word “denier,” it’s hard to take anything they say seriously.
It is a reality of the world we live in that not everything that is force fed to us is correct. Governing bodies get stuff wrong…get over it and stop building your cross to crucify Shelby on daily.
There is a fully legitimate possibility that CAS/WADA was 100% wrong about Shelby. That’s not being a “denier,” it is being an open minded person who doesn’t just trust everything they’re told all the time.
Sometimes narratives are convenient, and just like every single narrative about a political figure you dislike continues to be super convenient for those who disliked he/she, it is super convenient for people who were legitimately cheated or who were not fast runners to believe that someone like Shelby Houlihan was cheating, without actually knowing her or knowing that there may be real reasons why she and people in her circle pushed back so hard against the ban. I’ve never, in all my years in the sport, seen someone push back so hard against a ban as Shelby did, and there are legitimate reasons to believe this was because she was innocent the whole time.
Okay Travis Tygart. Keep your crusade going. I’m sure some of the other countries will buy it soon.
So let me get this straight…you think Travis Tygart who brought down Lance Armstrong and Alberto Salazar is now an apologist for dopers?
I haven’t been on LetsRun in years and had no idea how much things had deteriorated.
Okay Travis Tygart. Keep your crusade going. I’m sure some of the other countries will buy it soon.
So let me get this straight…you think Travis Tygart who brought down Lance Armstrong and Alberto Salazar is now an apologist for dopers?
I haven’t been on LetsRun in years and had no idea how much things had deteriorated.
Apologist probably isn’t quite the right word.
Tygart is the head of USADA. His job is to cover up doping by American athletes. If he has to defend them in public, like he has with Houlihan and Erriyon Knighton, he’s messed up somehow.
Proof is "evidence sufficient to conclude" that a fact exists. "Evidence" is anything that makes the existence of a fact more or less likely. You seem to be demanding what is sometimes referred to as "direct" rather than "circumstantial" evidence (though there isn't really a clear line between the two categories). In any event, you seem to be demanding a standard of proof for intent that could never be met and would effectively make doping legal. There will never be a video of an athlete injecting herself with a big syringe marked, "WADA-banned substance," as she exclaims out loud, "I love cheating!"
The fact that a performance enhancing drug is in your system is absolutely evidence of intentional doping. If you take two people, one with glowing blood, and one with clean blood, it is obviously more likely that the one with glowing blood intentionally took a performance enhancing drug. That's what "evidence" means.
That "evidence" is also "proof" if there is no evidence going the other way because that means it's more likely than not that the person with the positive test took the drug on purpose.
Just like you can be convicted of drug possession based on testimony that drugs were found in your car. It's not because drug possession is a strict liability offense (it's not). It's because the fact that drugs are in your car is enough to conclude (beyond a reasonable doubt, no less) that you probably knew they were there, unless you have a credible alternative explanation.
The fact remains that, however you want to describe it or explain it, there simply was no proof, nor evidence, direct or circumstantial or otherwise, of intent. The standard of proof used by the CAS for finding intent was "presumption".
LOL. You have very poor reading comprehension. I used the downvotes in my response to the "reputation" comment, showing that the OP's "desperate propaganda" didn't work, not to decide facts.
Facts... well the facts have been ruled on by CAS, supported by the Swiss Supreme Court, supported by long time USADA CEO Tygart, supported by the independent scientist Professor Tucker. She got banned for four years for intentional doping - your propaganda does not help her reputation, and does nothing to change the facts.
These facts do not shed any light on Houlihan's intent. The CAS deemed intent based on presumption, because the rules permit it. The same rules permit railroading innocent athletes to 4 year bans, if they do not, or cannot, establish non-intent with specific and concrete elements.
Your "higher intellectual standards" are your biased and unsubstantiated speculation that seeks to exonerate a convicted doper. Nothing more. You're a joke.
This is tossed salad. A higher intellectual standard serves to reject unsubstantiated speculation based on faith and fallacy.
Your "higher intellectual standards" are your biased and unsubstantiated speculation that seeks to exonerate a convicted doper. Nothing more. You're a joke.
This is tossed salad. A higher intellectual standard serves to reject unsubstantiated speculation based on faith and fallacy.
He and many others have very good reason to exonerate Shelby Houlihan. Presumption is not a good marker for a four year ban.
An unbiased committee would have labeled it an atypical finding.
Many of us understand what it is to be cheated against firsthand as a distance runner, from having people beat us who actually cheated (although such people are few and far between in American distance running). I don’t understand what it is to be vilified based on presumption, nor will I ever have to go through what Shelby has because of CAS’ unwillingness to explore that they could have been wrong. Basically every one of us would agree that an innocent athlete being vilified is far worse than a dishonest one never getting caught.
This whole thing since the initial ruling in June of 2021 has been based on presumption.
Right now we are seeing a lot of runners in their thirties with contracts not being renewed.
Rachel Schneider just announced but Emily Infeld is out at Nike after an impressive career.
Making smart business decisions ahead of 2028 is important but signing Shelby will not be a smart choice for anyone. If Nike re-signs her I will be convinced they were covering for her this whole time.