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.""
Rekrunner you are an educated fool. You don’t have the intellectual horsepower to engage here. I have told you before I could be in bed with your wife and having sex and you would think there was an innocent explanation.
IF you were smarter Rekrunner you would realize what a sociopath does when being held accountable. They lie, they obfuscate, they insist on preposterous narratives, they try to charm until it fails, etc. You are easily hoodwinked UNLESS you are simply trolling, which is possible, because you don’t seem quite as stupid as you must be if you’re not trolling.
IF you were smarter Rekrunner you would realize what a sociopath does when being held accountable. They lie, they obfuscate, they insist on preposterous narratives, they try to charm until it fails, etc. You are easily hoodwinked UNLESS you are simply trolling, which is possible, because you don’t seem quite as stupid as you must be if you’re not trolling.
I've seen the behavior of people like Armstrong and Trump.
It sounds like you believe I was "hoodwinked" by things Houlihan or Houlihan's team have said. You are wrong again. ZERO for FIVE.
IF you were smarter Rekrunner you would realize what a sociopath does when being held accountable. They lie, they obfuscate, they insist on preposterous narratives, they try to charm until it fails, etc. You are easily hoodwinked UNLESS you are simply trolling, which is possible, because you don’t seem quite as stupid as you must be if you’re not trolling.
I've seen the behavior of people like Armstrong and Trump.
It sounds like you believe I was "hoodwinked" by things Houlihan or Houlihan's team have said. You are wrong again. ZERO for FIVE.
If you were smarter you would know that when you are being hoodwinked, by definition, you are not aware of it. The recalcitrance you exhibit as you head down the wrong path is interesting, as doubling down on dumb appears to be a hobby for you.
I've seen the behavior of people like Armstrong and Trump.
It sounds like you believe I was "hoodwinked" by things Houlihan or Houlihan's team have said. You are wrong again. ZERO for FIVE.
If you were smarter you would know that when you are being hoodwinked, by definition, you are not aware of it. The recalcitrance you exhibit as you head down the wrong path is interesting, as doubling down on dumb appears to be a hobby for you.
By that logic, you would be equally unaware that you were hoodwinked, simply doubling on dumb.
The sources for my statements and conclusions are clear statements in the CAS report, the WADA Code and related WADA TDs, supplemented by published research, including some from the AIU experts, and other authoritative publicly available information. Virtually none of it is from Houlihan or her team.
It is possible that these organizations and their experts are sociopathic and have hoodwinked me without my awareness.
If you were smarter you would know that when you are being hoodwinked, by definition, you are not aware of it. The recalcitrance you exhibit as you head down the wrong path is interesting, as doubling down on dumb appears to be a hobby for you.
By that logic, you would be equally unaware that you were hoodwinked, simply doubling on dumb.
The sources for my statements and conclusions are clear statements in the CAS report, the WADA Code and related WADA TDs, supplemented by published research, including some from the AIU experts, and other authoritative publicly available information. Virtually none of it is from Houlihan or her team.
It is possible that these organizations and their experts are sociopathic and have hoodwinked me without my awareness.
Who would be hoodwinking me and what would be their motive? Shelby has a clear and palpable motive to lie. Who else has a motive to lie? Her defenders of course. Who else? Please explain the other characters in this drama and their respective motives to lie.
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.""
"Blind, tone deaf, unfair, ivory tower demands" - well, there's an agenda. It's more accurately - let's give the benefit of the doubt to athletes who test positive but come up with an unsubstantiated excuse of "near to zero probability".
This post was edited 28 seconds after it was posted.
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.""
Rekrunner you are an educated fool. You don’t have the intellectual horsepower to engage here. I have told you before I could be in bed with your wife and having sex and you would think there was an innocent explanation.
That's because he says there is only a "presumption of intent" and no actual evidence. You just happen to be in bed with his wife.
This post was edited 34 seconds after it was posted.
If you were smarter you would know that when you are being hoodwinked, by definition, you are not aware of it. The recalcitrance you exhibit as you head down the wrong path is interesting, as doubling down on dumb appears to be a hobby for you.
By that logic, you would be equally unaware that you were hoodwinked, simply doubling on dumb.
The sources for my statements and conclusions are clear statements in the CAS report, the WADA Code and related WADA TDs, supplemented by published research, including some from the AIU experts, and other authoritative publicly available information. Virtually none of it is from Houlihan or her team.
It is possible that these organizations and their experts are sociopathic and have hoodwinked me without my awareness.
None of what was offered satisfied the balance of probabilities, which is the test used and how most factual disputes are resolved - such as did we land on the moon, did the Titanic really sink, etc. In fact the express evidence was of "near to zero probability", which is an accurate summation of the credibility of your arguments for suggesting Houlihan is "innocent".
It’s August, so why bring up the springtime Jewish holiday of Passover, the story of the telling of the Exodus? And what would Passover in any way have to do with yet another column about Shelby Houlihan? Because one of the k...
By that logic, you would be equally unaware that you were hoodwinked, simply doubling on dumb.
The sources for my statements and conclusions are clear statements in the CAS report, the WADA Code and related WADA TDs, supplemented by published research, including some from the AIU experts, and other authoritative publicly available information. Virtually none of it is from Houlihan or her team.
It is possible that these organizations and their experts are sociopathic and have hoodwinked me without my awareness.
Who would be hoodwinking me and what would be their motive? Shelby has a clear and palpable motive to lie. Who else has a motive to lie? Her defenders of course. Who else? Please explain the other characters in this drama and their respective motives to lie.
A better question is, who is motivated to give athletes like Houlihan the benefit of the doubt? According to WADA's website, WADA was established to protect athletes.
Both experts Prof. Ayotte and and Prof. McGlone have a motive to present one-sided arguments for the AIU -- they were selected and hired for that.
Prof. Ayotte has a motive to defend her expert status, after her embarrassment in the Jarrod Lawson case, and the reputation of her lab which performed and interpreted and reported the tests. She is conflicted and should have recused herself to preserve both her integrity and WADA Labs.
Prof. McGlone has a motivation to protect his expert status, leading him to dismiss or discount the impacts of the pandemic supply issues on his expert opinion likelihoods.
The AIU has a motive to appear tough and convict more athletes, to repair their reputation after the IAAF/Russia scandal.
WADA and anti-doping organizations all have a motive to increase the number of convictions, as 1-2% positive tests makes it appear ineffective for all the money governments are pouring into it.
If we assume, as some do, that the CAS Panelists are biased by who selected them rather than objectively neutral, the one chosen by the AIU has a motive to side against the athlete.
One of the CAS panelists helped write the WADA Code and has a motive to promote a positive appearance of the WADA and the Code.
The CAS itself is incestuously intertwined with WADA and the IOC, raising questions about its independence.
Journalists and bloggers and shock pundits worldwide have a motive to fabricate and perpetuate false scandals.
Ignorant fans who have bought into decades of doping performance myths have long term emotional investments into many of the myths and have lost their objectivity.
This sh#** again?? I’ve never seen a banned athlete get so much airtime and attention. That article is just stupid, pandering nonsense. Who is pulling the strings? How does a banned athlete get her own article in a national newspaper? The Washington Post has fallen far far below what it once was.
None of what was offered satisfied the balance of probabilities, which is the test used and how most factual disputes are resolved - such as did we land on the moon, did the Titanic really sink, etc. In fact the express evidence was of "near to zero probability", which is an accurate summation of the credibility of your arguments for suggesting Houlihan is "innocent".
You fundamentally misunderstand what "near zero" represents. The general probability across a whole population is not the same as the specific probability of the smallest sample of one. Houlihan was not selected at random from the population.
By analogy, a person has a "near-zero" 1 in 15,000 probabity of ever being struck by lightning in their lifetime. Yet each year in the US, 300 people are struck by lightning. It would be ridiculous to conclude they were not struck by lightning on the balance of probability.
I am never talking about resolving factual disputes with an imperfect and artifically restricted process laden with presumptions, except to say it is imperfect and subjective and presuming. Creating rules to artificially resolve disputes by popular subjective vote is not a robust way to establish facts.
I was furious at the article still talking about the burrito after it came out it’s was simply a strategy from the lawyers and then finally, in the last paragraph she admits she doesn’t even know if the burrito happened. She just needed an excuse as to why she tested positive.
unreal. Glad she’s dealing with it and will be back but she flat out had nandrolone in her system. Any African with that and we crucify. Won’t make any exceptions for Shelby.
Yeah, but no one deserves to miss 2 Olympics. The arbtitration should consider that. It was a timing fluke that the Olympics were in 21 and 24
That argument assumes that Shelby Houlihan has some sort of press agent who is working to get her in the press. She likely also saw the risks if the story wasn't agreeable to her. If you think of it from the reporters' perspective, this is just a really good story.
I've worked in journalism for years, and there are publicity hounds but they're not all like that
