original liar soorer wrote:
Nothing to see here... wrote:
No thanks - I would sooner soil my pants than look at anything this convicted drug cheat says or does. Based on her "testimony" nothing she says can be believed other than by the brain dead hard-of-thinking.
Well; yet another that has not studied the rules nor the decision.
Go but some diapers.
Nike branded diaper with BTC logo .
mr65 wrote:
I know Shelby threads always devolve into this same argument, but can you explain how she wasn't cheating. She produced a positive test for a banned drug. How is this not cheating?
cheating: act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage
To determine cheating, the question becomes, did she act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage?
WA/AIU/CAS/WADA did not ask, nor answer that question.
casual obsever wrote:
Of course logic suggests that if you have no excuse for testing positive, that you doped on purpose.
This is not logic, but presumption.
rekrunner wrote:
mr65 wrote:
I know Shelby threads always devolve into this same argument, but can you explain how she wasn't cheating. She produced a positive test for a banned drug. How is this not cheating?
cheating: act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage
To determine cheating, the question becomes, did she act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage?
WA/AIU/CAS/WADA did not ask, nor answer that question.
If you were in charge, would Shelby be suspended? Or would you determine that because you could not read her mind, she should be reinstated?
casual obsever wrote:
mr65 wrote:I know Shelby threads always devolve into this same argument, but can you explain how she wasn't cheating. She produced a positive test for a banned drug. How is this not cheating?
LOL, yes, she was banned for intentional doping after testing positive.
Some people here (mostly the same two over and over again) always make a big deal that intent was presumed/deemed after her excuse was laughed out of town, not "proven", according to the Wada's wording.
Of course logic suggests that if you have no excuse for testing positive, that you doped on purpose.
But, trolls will be trolling, and doper apologists will be obfuscating.
She was not banned for intentional doping.
She was banned for having the substance in her.
She got no reduction in penalty because she could not convince of the contamination.
If she had remained silent on the possible source then rule 10 would never have come into play and there would be no “ deemed intentional” possible.
As for logic suggesting … well yes that would be true.
But if you read the rules it is utterly clear that intent is never a consideration when deciding guilt.
Mens rea and strict liability etc .
Thus they may or may not be cheats.
Violette wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
cheating: act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage
To determine cheating, the question becomes, did she act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage?
WA/AIU/CAS/WADA did not ask, nor answer that question.
If you were in charge, would Shelby be suspended? Or would you determine that because you could not read her mind, she should be reinstated?
Given the rules and strict liability I would have found her guilty.
But I would rather have intent decided upon or otherwise.Like murder/ manslaughter or ship lifting etc etc etc.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Of course logic suggests that if you have no excuse for testing positive, that you doped on purpose.
This is not logic, but presumption.
Correct…. and for those in doubt …. read the rules.
Big Willy. wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Well; yet another that has not studied the rules nor the decision.
Go but some diapers.
Nike branded diaper with BTC logo .
Still you must read the rules …… on branded clothes 😀
rekrunner wrote:
mr65 wrote:
I know Shelby threads always devolve into this same argument, but can you explain how she wasn't cheating. She produced a positive test for a banned drug. How is this not cheating?
cheating: act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage
To determine cheating, the question becomes, did she act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage?
WA/AIU/CAS/WADA did not ask, nor answer that question.
The entire press conference by BTC was based on explaining intent . Shalane " Shelby is a good person" , Jerry " I have never heard of Nando before " , SH " the food truck story " Nike Lawyer was explaining the process . Gault " had a beer with jerry , so he doesn't seem like a doping coach . Glad CAS didn't take this into account .
You’re telling the wrong people to read the rules.
Should have to Shelby and her coach to read the rules a year ago.
I never want to hear from a single American runner/media member who didn't speak up during the Shelby situation, speak up about another doper again.
So---Emma? Courtney? The next time a steeplechaser who beat you tests pos, keep your little sanctimonious posts to yourself.
That goes for all of the BTC. That goes for Shalane Flanagan who once dunked on Jordan Hasay because Jordan was COACHED by Salazar.
That goes for everyone who spoke out about Galen over the years, or made little sassy tweets about him, or about Sifan, or about...
and then were crickets when it came to Shelby, or worse made weak attempts to defend her or skirt around the issue.
and just to be clear. I think Sifan and Galen are dopers. BUT they never tested positive.
This was never about clean sport for any of you. It was about clearing the way for little ol' you to earn accolades in the sport. Once it became your friend, you folded like a house of cards.
SPEAK UP. Signing one petition the day before the trials isn't enough. You continue to like her posts. You continue to throw little supportive comments her way. You continue to believe her with NO EVIDENCE!
I'm not saying you need to troll. There is a way to be polite and refined about it. But show the fans were you stand once and for all about doping. That's important. Once and for all, show us that you don't believe her blatant lies, and that you think doping of all kinds is WRONG. Is it going to lose you friends? It sure will. Will it be better for the sport in the long run? it sure will.
[quote]banned means banned wrote:
You’re telling the wrong people to read the rules.
Should have to Shelby and her coach to read the rules a year ago.[/quote
And how would that have made any difference and how do we know they had not read them?
Ramsey Chef wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
cheating: act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage
To determine cheating, the question becomes, did she act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage?
WA/AIU/CAS/WADA did not ask, nor answer that question.
The entire press conference by BTC was based on explaining intent . Shalane " Shelby is a good person" , Jerry " I have never heard of Nando before " , SH " the food truck story " Nike Lawyer was explaining the process . Gault " had a beer with jerry , so he doesn't seem like a doping coach . Glad CAS didn't take this into account .
Still not bothered to read the rules for the decision.
Guilt is not to be determined by intent.
Ramsey Chef wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
cheating: act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage
To determine cheating, the question becomes, did she act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage?
WA/AIU/CAS/WADA did not ask, nor answer that question.
The entire press conference by BTC was based on explaining intent . Shalane " Shelby is a good person" , Jerry " I have never heard of Nando before " , SH " the food truck story " Nike Lawyer was explaining the process . Gault " had a beer with jerry , so he doesn't seem like a doping coach . Glad CAS didn't take this into account .
While the press conference apparently triggered many emotions, none of this allows an uninformed public to conclude cheating.
The unformed public don’t understand that intent/ cheating/ mens rea are excluded as any consideration of guilt.
The rules explicitly state this.
However for shoplifting, the opposite is the case.
original liar soorer wrote:
Violette wrote:
If you were in charge, would Shelby be suspended? Or would you determine that because you could not read her mind, she should be reinstated?
Given the rules and strict liability I would have found her guilty.
But I would rather have intent decided upon or otherwise.Like murder/ manslaughter or ship lifting etc etc etc.
OK so how are going to prove intent? Would you rather prove intent in statutory rape also? To what end? In terms of sentencing or in this case, suspension mitigation? What kind of intent? The intent to eat the burrito or take the tainted supplement? Shelby will only admit to eating the burrito, like eating the apple in there Garden of Eden. Why do you think she ate the burrito? Would not all athletes then deny deny deny knowledge if intent is important?
Violette wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Given the rules and strict liability I would have found her guilty.
But I would rather have intent decided upon or otherwise.Like murder/ manslaughter or ship lifting etc etc etc.
OK so how are going to prove intent? Would you rather prove intent in statutory rape also? To what end? In terms of sentencing or in this case, suspension mitigation? What kind of intent? The intent to eat the burrito or take the tainted supplement? Shelby will only admit to eating the burrito, like eating the apple in there Garden of Eden. Why do you think she ate the burrito? Would not all athletes then deny deny deny knowledge if intent is important?
Your last sentence. Yes most would deny knowledge if intent was needed. But that has been the situation in normal jurisprudence from shoplifting to murder.
You may say, as WADA says the cost of proving intent would be too great. This may well be the case but the opposite must be the case that intent/ cheating can only be a presumption by the public as the panel does not adjudicate cheating.
Doping is cheating. Cheating is breaking the rules to gain advantage. That's what doping is. If an athlete has doped they have therefore also cheated. Intent doesn't need to be proven if it is shown the athlete doped (as Houlihan had). They doped; they therefore cheated. The only way they didn't commit a doping offence is if it was accidental. If that is ruled out, they doped. Like Houlihan.
Cheating can be any flouting of the rules to gain advantage; doping is only one form of cheating. WADA doesn't use the term because it is implicit in the offence. It wouldn't be an offence unless it was a form of cheating. It is merely the form that involves taking banned drugs. That it is possibly also harmful to your health wouldn't be enough for a ban, because doing things that are harmful to your health, like smoking, drinking alcohol and partying all night long, aren't banned.
Violette wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
cheating: act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage
To determine cheating, the question becomes, did she act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage?
WA/AIU/CAS/WADA did not ask, nor answer that question.
If you were in charge, would Shelby be suspended? Or would you determine that because you could not read her mind, she should be reinstated?
Interesting question -- what would I do if I were in charge? This is long, but the short answer is I would reform the rules, in a direction suggested by USADA Anti-Doping Chief Travis Tygart, and driven by a strong athlete representation.
My interest is bigger than Houlihan. My most important comments on this topic have been directed at the level of justice currently enabled under the WADA Code, rather than the specific individual case of Houlihan.
In the interest of justice for athletes, and the lack of data regarding the source of the banned substance, WADA rules already foresee calling her test result an ATF, and triggering the path of collecting more evidence in order to build a solid case, before bringing any charges and making them public. The current rules are ambiguous and inconsistently applied, depending significantly on the will of the ADA or ADO in question, and the make-up of the adjudication panel.
Were I in charge, the rules would be more clear, with more refinement and graduation, and would permit a case by case evaluation and determination of guilt and appropriate sanction proportional to the merits of the evidence, the detected amounts, and other proven facts. Such changes to the Code should come, not from me, an outsider in both sport and anti-doping, but from a stronger athlete lobby -- those with the only skin in the game, and those whom WADA are committed to protecting.
In the intellectual realm of math, and science, and the legal realm of law, assertions have to be proved to a minimum standard, and the value of such assertions is proportional to the extent they have been proved (not to mention the validity of the underlying assumptions). The latest iteration of the WADA Code has eliminated the most difficult burdens for ADAs and ADOs, allowing them to prosecute and adjudicate according to lower standards. This will result in more prosecutions, but of lower quality and merit.
If you have read any of my previous posts on this topic in many threads over the last 6 months, you will no doubt recall many references to the 27 cases prosecuted by USADA, followed by examples of the US Anti-doping chief (the guy who brought down Armstrong and Salazar) speaking against the injustice towards athletes as a direct result of recent changes to the WADA code that automatically railroad athletes to 4-year bans, by default, when evidence is lacking. All of these arguments can be applied to Houlihan.
And you will no doubt recall the case of Simon Getzmann, who, by fortune alone, still had an unused sample of a prescribed WADA-legal pain-killer for testing, and therefore was able to clear his name, ableit only after serving a more than 1-year suspension, and at a personal cost of more than 10,000 Euros, and having it still count as his "first offense". Under the WADA Code, clearing your name through proving no fault of negligence of your own, after a 1-year suspension, and associated loss of income, at a personal cost of 10,000 Euros for lawyers and lab testing, yet still counting as a first strike, is considered good luck, and among the best possible outcomes.
What happens to athletes no longer in possession of something they ingested 1 month earlier? What chance do they have of meeting this burden on the balance of probability? The current WADA Code makes no distinction between a one-time finding of ~5 ng/ml, and, for example, the case of CJ Hunter, with 2000 ng/ml. Both would get a 4-year ban for intentional doping.
To add insult to injury, the "convicted" athletes are then subject to the court of public opinion, by "fans", armchair "scientists" and "lawyers", "journalistic pundits", etc., generally lacking subject matter knowledge and expertise, who attempt to interpret the facts of the case under rules which do not require the evidence to meet a minimum intellectual or legal burden, looking to reinforce their beliefs and justify new labels like "cheater", and "fraudster", and "liar", going above and beyond what WADA permits, and what the WA/AIU/CAS alleged, presumed, or found.
WADA's objective is to protect the athletes -- it doesn't seem too much to ask to protect them from unjust prosecution enabled by WADA.
WADA is like the CDC or just about any business. Money can and will influence their decisions. Obviously Shelby didn't offer them anything.