Say what you will about her. She served her time. So, let it go. I wish her well. Those lost years was the price she paid.
We merged two threads on the same subject into 1 and kept the title of the 1st one posted. The 2nd thread title was, “Whether you believe me or not, I’m coming back,” Shelby says. “I’ve served the time.”
Here is a link that should get you pass the paywall: https://www.wsj.com/sports/oly...
This definitely works: https://www.msn.com/en-us/spor...
-
1310
-
It's interesting that people care this much... she did the time whether or not she knowingly took a banned substance or not. It was in her system, she didn't have a viable contamination defense, therefore she took the ban... what else do people want?
I hope she wears a Burrito track shirt on the podium of the US championships.
128 -
Zenbyrdy wrote:
Say what you will about her. She served her time. So, let it go. I wish her well. Those lost years was the price she paid.
Honestly dude, before these latest "soundbites" from here that was sort of where I was too.
But now I'm almost certain, and I mean basically 100%, that she knew exactly what the "vitamins" she was taking, despite not being illegal themselves, would do for her (generate a performance enhancing substance in her body that was fine up to an arbitrary limit). You're trying to cheat the system. Now I care.
Which is exactly why she went with the idiotic burrito story. The "vitamins" or supplements, again while not being banned themselves, everybody knows beyond much reasonable doubt what they do for you. This wasn't bee pollen or magnesium powder okay. Everybody knows the intent when you are taking something that massively ramps up your testosterone/nandrolone etc production and has a "supplement fact" label that looks like this
Which also absolutely explains why she didn't just say what she was doing and take the 2 year ban which ended up costing her big time (2 more years plus an Olympic Games). It's because it was so wrong she had to come up with a story that if believed would completely absolve her guilt and any notion she was knowingly cheating.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.225 -
Giddy wrote:
It's interesting that people care this much... she did the time whether or not she knowingly took a banned substance or not. It was in her system, she didn't have a viable contamination defense, therefore she took the ban... what else do people want?
I hope she wears a Burrito track shirt on the podium of the US championships.
I'll tell you why. Because some people had their hopes and dreams in this brutally tough sport - hundreds of hours of legit work compromised and made ultimately irrelevant by people who cheated the system.
And she may have served her time - great. Shut your mouth and be humble - enough with the "I'm coming back, I've served the time" defiant BS. Then to go a step further and basically admit that she openly was insulting the intelligence of people with her burrito story - most people with a sense of pride and some gumption in life don't appreciate those sorts of things.
158 -
Giddy wrote:
It's interesting that people care this much... she did the time whether or not she knowingly took a banned substance or not. It was in her system, she didn't have a viable contamination defense, therefore she took the ban... what else do people want?
I hope she wears a Burrito track shirt on the podium of the US championships.
Personally, I don't like the double standard. Many here welcome her back, defend her, etc. I never recall any other US doper getting this kind of support. I wonder why?
147 -
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
Makes Paper wrote:
Thinking about this on a run recently, I concluded that presumably ridiculous excuses (like the burrito), are the direct result of presumed guilt, and putting the burden of proof of innocence on the athlete. The athlete is then put in a position of grasping at any possible excuse for the positive test, even if facially implausible, when they can't establish the more plausible one (e.g., if they no longer have a container of a supplement that may have been contaminated, or something like that).
The burrito excuse was a Hail Mary. Either a tainted supplement OR doping were always more likely, but she wouldn't admit the latter or have any proof of the former. At least we can put aside the burrito thing once and for all though.
This leads me to believe that every "tainted meat" excuse has been BS and is just the easiest way for lawyers to get an athlete out of a positive test.
I kind of thought that anyway. Definitely can't root for Jerrion Lawson, Ajee Wilson, or Erriyon Knighton and I certainly won't be rooting for Shelby Houlihan either.
And I'm still not going to roof for Elise Cranny or Courtney Frerichs (although, is she retired?) because they very vocally defended Shelby when they should have known she was in the wrong, which makes me think they are/were dopers too. Just look how jacked Cranny was in Tokyo! Doesn't at all look the same anymore....
Not going to root for any athlete still willing to be coached by Jerry either for the same reason.
Going to forever root for Gabriella Debues-Stafford for standing up to this BS.
2310 -
Giddy wrote:
It's interesting that people care this much... she did the time whether or not she knowingly took a banned substance or not. It was in her system, she didn't have a viable contamination defense, therefore she took the ban... what else do people want?
I hope she wears a Burrito track shirt on the podium of the US championships.
She could have "taken the ban" and only gotten 2 years. She fought it AND lied, and served 4 years instead and cost the USA one of their best distance runners at the 2024 Olympics. Selfish a-hole behavior.
123 -
Porked burrito wrote:
After clicking on the article, immediately hit ESCAPE button. That will freeze the paywall from coming up.
40 -
rocky mtns wrote:
Giddy wrote:
It's interesting that people care this much... she did the time whether or not she knowingly took a banned substance or not. It was in her system, she didn't have a viable contamination defense, therefore she took the ban... what else do people want?
I hope she wears a Burrito track shirt on the podium of the US championships.
Personally, I don't like the double standard. Many here welcome her back, defend her, etc. I never recall any other US doper getting this kind of support. I wonder why?
I guess this is what I don't get... defend her from what? She was banned for 4 years, no one doubts she had the stuff in her system. All of the hoopla and anger is around peoples need for "accountability", as if there's some honor in it that would restore her reputation. It'll never be good enough... especially for the Let's Run right wing of running.
If you believe her, great... you aren't going to change someone else's mind. If you think she is guilty... you got what you wanted, she was banned for 4 years. All these threads debating her character is just kind of a waste of time.
It'll follow her forever, no matter what. Is it as bad as LaShawn Merritt and his "erectile disfunction" medication? I don't think so, he failed at least 3 tests... but it's as funny.
43 -
Detective P wrote:
It's clear that somebody doesn't want a public exoneration of Shelby. The motive is not clear. I'll respect differing opinions but not opposition to facts, reason, and putting out misinformation.
That's definitely the case. The response to your post makes that obvious.
36 -
twoggle wrote:
details details wrote:
You left out the word and in the GDS quote; doing so changes the meaning.
“Regardless of the perceived fairness or unfairness of a doping ban, it is an inappropriate response to call for the end of strict liability and to exploit so-called gray areas in the World Anti-Doping Code,” DeBues-Stafford said in an email to the Journal.
Also, Houlihan didn’t say that the burrito defense was ridiculous, she said that she understands that it came off as (perceived as) ridiculous. It’s a reminder to always go to the source rather than a summary.
To summarize… she said the burrito defense was ridiculous, however the truth is it was a Mexican pizza from Taco Bell, but when WADA wanted to test them, unfortunately the food had been taken off the menu.
15 -
It's all in the other thread about her not wearing super shoes. If you were more civil maybe I'd put more effort into this thread, but you have a toxic tone. This is a complicated subject with many possibilities. The facts are out there, and curious people can look at the other thread. The Jarrion Lawson case is a big deal despite your efforts to make people dismiss it. Professor Ayotte was not truthful about data from her own lab. Major red flag.
112 -
Detective P wrote:
It's all in the other thread about her not wearing super shoes. If you were more civil maybe I'd put more effort into this thread, but you have a toxic tone. This is a complicated subject with many possibilities. The facts are out there, and curious people can look at the other thread. The Jarrion Lawson case is a big deal despite your efforts to make people dismiss it. Professor Ayotte was not truthful about data from her own lab. Major red flag.
So you made it all up. And you have no idea how Ayotte could have created a positive tests out of nowhere.
That's what I thought. Major red flag.
Finally, to use rekrunner's argument: CAS never said that she wasn't truthful. That's only coming from the other party in dispute.
72 -
rekrunner wrote:
CAS readerer wrote:
That's what you said in your 2500 troll posts about the burrito? Hahahahaha
And FYI, CAS said it would have to be a combination of improbable and highly improbable scenarios, plus that the carbon isotope ratio was not consistent with the burrito story. "it was possible" - what a typical rekrunner'esque summary.
The CAS said many other things based on the incomplete evidence, and a set of unproven assumptions. They did not say that any other source was more likely than the original claim of offal in a burrito.
Seriously? Why would CAS say a different source was more likely? That’s not their job. It also overlooks the obvious implication of their decision: they think she doped. That would be the source.
111 -
Bob Sack wrote:
Giddy wrote:
It's interesting that people care this much... she did the time whether or not she knowingly took a banned substance or not. It was in her system, she didn't have a viable contamination defense, therefore she took the ban... what else do people want?
I hope she wears a Burrito track shirt on the podium of the US championships.
She could have "taken the ban" and only gotten 2 years. She fought it AND lied, and served 4 years instead and cost the USA one of their best distance runners at the 2024 Olympics. Selfish a-hole behavior.
Wouldn’t it have been reduced to three years, and not two, had she not fought the ban?
40 -
We need to catch all doors. I hope someone is working on an anti-doping version of a CGM. If you have a device that is literally testing your blood in real time for all banned substances in any amount it would go a long way to getting the cheaters out of the sport.
10 -
facts v rumors wrote:
Detective P wrote:
It's all in the other thread about her not wearing super shoes. If you were more civil maybe I'd put more effort into this thread, but you have a toxic tone. This is a complicated subject with many possibilities. The facts are out there, and curious people can look at the other thread. The Jarrion Lawson case is a big deal despite your efforts to make people dismiss it. Professor Ayotte was not truthful about data from her own lab. Major red flag.
So you made it all up. And you have no idea how Ayotte could have created a positive tests out of nowhere.
That's what I thought. Major red flag.
Finally, to use rekrunner's argument: CAS never said that she wasn't truthful. That's only coming from the other party in dispute.
I agree that the CAS determined that Ayotte presented false testimony in the Lawson case, but did not evaluate the reasons for the false testimony. It could, of course, been outright lying on Ayotte's part. It could have been a sign of suffering from memory loss. It could be that some "neutral" WADA lab directors (working a 2nd job as a prosecution witness) will do and say whatever they have to win their case as evidenced here:
It could be that she spent years making similar errors or perhaps it was just a one-time innocent mistake. We'll never know for certain because she didn't have to go to a CAS hearing and show proof that she wasn't lying.
Once she saw that Houlihan had the same legal team that forced her to show earlier false testimony, she should have completely stepped down from the case. She did not do so and it was her lab that made the key decision related to the disputed testing procedure. Not only did she not recuse herself from the case and continue to pretend to be a neutral arbiter of the facts, but she subsequently became a prosecution witness.
It is particularly important to note that when independent scientists publish information showing that a WADA lab manipulated evidence in several ways to win a case, WADA didn't start an investigation, but instead, they threatened the publication by secretly trying to pressure lab equipment advertisers of the publication:https://web.archive.org/web/20160117020833/https://www.labtimes.org/epaper/LT_15_06.pdf
(Go to page 3)
The person who authored the letter (as a representative of all WADA labs) and pressured the publication's advertisers is still a WADA lab director and participates in WADA Working Groups.
Since there are no consequences for unethical behavior, now witnesses a free manipulate data for hearings, mis-represent scientific findings, provide irrelevent information, and constantly speculate without making it clear that there is no data to back up their speculation. A few weeks ago, I referenced two podcasts where runners were beginning to mistrust anti-doping organizations. Over the long run, the loss in trust will continue unless they make major changes. As I have said before, the real doping apologists are those who ignore the serious ethical problems at WADA and continue to determine dopers by "witch-hunt" tactics. That will inevitably lead to more ethical problems, more witch hunts and loss of trust.This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.46 -
Shelby is just so lovable though.
21 -
So f— tired of this cheater.
82 -
She received her result 30 days after. After 3 months of nothing from WADA, nothing but silence, she forced them to respond by forgoing the trial and going to the tribunal in order to get allowed to race in the US trials in June. From Dec to June, WADA purposely did nothing to force her team to use this avenue.
20
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.