The doping cheater SH should be in prison, and should have to repay all the money she stole. Those other runners are obviously also doping cheaters and they support her actions.
The doping cheater SH should be in prison, and should have to repay all the money she stole. Those other runners are obviously also doping cheaters and they support her actions.
doping convictions are much easier to get than criminal convictions. to get an actual criminal conviction (presumably for possession of a controlled substance and some type of fraud) they would have to prove intent and that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with a unanimous jury. it is never going to happen.
they would have to find evidence of premeditated planning of doping and efforts to conceal it from the public and other competitors. then the prosecutors would have to refute any and all potential alternative theories. not worth the effort when there are actual crimes to prosecute.
AIU and CAS had to do none of that. the positive test was sufficient to ban her and any effort to appeal places the burden of proof on the athlete. Shelby couldn't prove she didn't purposely consume the nandrolone, she fought it to the end rather than admit fault for a shorter ban. either shelby is a liar (because she was taking banned PEDs), or she's a victim (accidental exposure), but it is possible she is both.
The doping cheater SH should be in prison, and should have to repay all the money she stole. Those other runners are obviously also doping cheaters and they support her actions.
doping convictions are much easier to get than criminal convictions. to get an actual criminal conviction (presumably for possession of a controlled substance and some type of fraud) they would have to prove intent and that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with a unanimous jury. it is never going to happen.
they would have to find evidence of premeditated planning of doping and efforts to conceal it from the public and other competitors. then the prosecutors would have to refute any and all potential alternative theories. not worth the effort when there are actual crimes to prosecute.
AIU and CAS had to do none of that. the positive test was sufficient to ban her and any effort to appeal places the burden of proof on the athlete. Shelby couldn't prove she didn't purposely consume the nandrolone, she fought it to the end rather than admit fault for a shorter ban. either shelby is a liar (because she was taking banned PEDs), or she's a victim (accidental exposure), but it is possible she is both.
She had the intent to defraud when she took the dope, she had premeditation every time she opened those pill bottles and filled those syringes, she tried to conceal her actions and lied about them after she was caught. Her theft is an actual crime and she is not a victim in any sense.
The doping cheater SH should be in prison, and should have to repay all the money she stole. Those other runners are obviously also doping cheaters and they support her actions.
doping convictions are much easier to get than criminal convictions. to get an actual criminal conviction (presumably for possession of a controlled substance and some type of fraud) they would have to prove intent and that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with a unanimous jury. it is never going to happen.
they would have to find evidence of premeditated planning of doping and efforts to conceal it from the public and other competitors. then the prosecutors would have to refute any and all potential alternative theories. not worth the effort when there are actual crimes to prosecute.
AIU and CAS had to do none of that. the positive test was sufficient to ban her and any effort to appeal places the burden of proof on the athlete. Shelby couldn't prove she didn't purposely consume the nandrolone, she fought it to the end rather than admit fault for a shorter ban. either shelby is a liar (because she was taking banned PEDs), or she's a victim (accidental exposure), but it is possible she is both.
I don’t see how she could create reasonable doubt were it to be a criminal court. The positive test she failed is like leaving DNA at the crime scene and her intent was to run faster. What am I missing?
The most obvious explanation is they believe Shelby didn't intentionally dope.
End of discussion. They and her have never wavered in that belief. I applaud loyalty.
As I said in a previous post, I don't care who she vacations with.
But I've always been baffled by the Brojo's complete lack of critical thinking when it comes to this specific doping case.
To me the most obvious explanation is actually that they were probably doing the same things she was and knows they'd be on the chopping block if she wanted to come out with the truth, or they feel guilty that they're getting away with it, or convinced themselves that whatever they're doing is not reallllllly doping and therefore she's innocent. Because if she's guilty, they'd be guilty too.
With that being said if Wejo is right here, that's fine too, but it's strange again that he threw in he "applaud's loyalty".
I understand the loyalty. I don't know that I applaud it.
The loyalty came at the expense of Gabriela Stafford and other runners who were uncomfortable being around a convicted doper all the time, and it came at the price of their own reputations. It also came at cost to the sport. Undermining the doping system is enormously detrimental to clean athletes. They are doing that by sticking by her. Not by going on vacation with her--but by sticking by her.
doping convictions are much easier to get than criminal convictions. to get an actual criminal conviction (presumably for possession of a controlled substance and some type of fraud) they would have to prove intent and that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with a unanimous jury. it is never going to happen.
they would have to find evidence of premeditated planning of doping and efforts to conceal it from the public and other competitors. then the prosecutors would have to refute any and all potential alternative theories. not worth the effort when there are actual crimes to prosecute.
AIU and CAS had to do none of that. the positive test was sufficient to ban her and any effort to appeal places the burden of proof on the athlete. Shelby couldn't prove she didn't purposely consume the nandrolone, she fought it to the end rather than admit fault for a shorter ban. either shelby is a liar (because she was taking banned PEDs), or she's a victim (accidental exposure), but it is possible she is both.
She had the intent to defraud when she took the dope, she had premeditation every time she opened those pill bottles and filled those syringes, she tried to conceal her actions and lied about them after she was caught. Her theft is an actual crime and she is not a victim in any sense.
Injecting nandrolone (“filled those syringes”) and opening those pill bottle(s)- accusing chronic use- would have shown up in a hair sample, which it did not. Just an example of this runaway narrative that you’ve got yourself convinced of and all twisted up about.
We can both agree that nandrolone showed up in her urine, however. Personally, I think she was sabotaged by another athlete. I’ve felt that from the beginning.
The most obvious explanation is they believe Shelby didn't intentionally dope.
End of discussion. They and her have never wavered in that belief. I applaud loyalty.
As I said in a previous post, I don't care who she vacations with.
But I've always been baffled by the Brojo's complete lack of critical thinking when it comes to this specific doping case.
To me the most obvious explanation is actually that they were probably doing the same things she was and knows they'd be on the chopping block if she wanted to come out with the truth, or they feel guilty that they're getting away with it, or convinced themselves that whatever they're doing is not reallllllly doping and therefore she's innocent. Because if she's guilty, they'd be guilty too.
With that being said if Wejo is right here, that's fine too, but it's strange again that he threw in he "applaud's loyalty".
I understand the loyalty. I don't know that I applaud it.
The loyalty came at the expense of Gabriela Stafford and other runners who were uncomfortable being around a convicted doper all the time, and it came at the price of their own reputations. It also came at cost to the sport. Undermining the doping system is enormously detrimental to clean athletes. They are doing that by sticking by her. Not by going on vacation with her--but by sticking by her.
What do you expect form two brothers who make a living running a website dedicated to running?
The doping cheater SH should be in prison, and should have to repay all the money she stole. Those other runners are obviously also doping cheaters and they support her actions.
Cheating is a mental illness. Look at the 60 minutes interview with Marion Jones.
It is extremely naive to believe that Shelby's friends and training partners on the team (including the one who ran that 5000m time trial with her), were not doing the exact same things she was doing. Shelby took the fall for the team.
Kara Goucher didn't fall for the Burrito nonsense either.
But generally, athletes rarely condemn their colleagues. Which American sprinter condemned Gay and Gatlin? Who condemned Cherono or Kipserem or Rutto or Kiprop?
Likewise, which cyclists condemned Armstrong, Pantani or Ullrich?
The silence is typical.
Athletes are not always quiet.
Paula Radcliffe and Hayley Tullet held up a sign "EPO cheats out".
Usain Bolt said Gay should have been kicked out of the sport rather than getting a reduced ban.
Des Linden spoke against Ritzenheim (who didn't dope) joining Hanson-Brooks for his association with Salazar.
Jenny Simpson cast a shadow on all Oregon Project athletes who chose to work under the dark cloud of Salazar.
Scott Fauble agreed, saying in a tweet that they should all be "persona non grata in the wider running community".
Shalane, Des, and Amy Cragg said when they finished Rio, they felt like runners ahead of them doped, and knew they finished higher.
Laura Muir expressed her own sour grapes and gave Genzebe Dibaba the silent treatment for her association with a coach who was never charged with anti-doping violations, and subsequently cleared of criminal charges.
Christophe "Mr. Clean" Bassons and Greg Lemond famously spoke out against Armstrong in 1999. Despite the chilling effect, and the omerta, many athletes spoke out against doping in the cycling peloton.
Paula Radcliffe and Hayley Tullet held up a sign "EPO cheats out".
Usain Bolt said Gay should have been kicked out of the sport rather than getting a reduced ban.
Des Linden spoke against Ritzenheim (who didn't dope) joining Hanson-Brooks for his association with Salazar.
Jenny Simpson cast a shadow on all Oregon Project athletes who chose to work under the dark cloud of Salazar.
Scott Fauble agreed, saying in a tweet that they should all be "persona non grata in the wider running community".
Shalane, Des, and Amy Cragg said when they finished Rio, they felt like runners ahead of them doped, and knew they finished higher.
Laura Muir expressed her own sour grapes and gave Genzebe Dibaba the silent treatment for her association with a coach who was never charged with anti-doping violations, and subsequently cleared of criminal charges.
Christophe "Mr. Clean" Bassons and Greg Lemond famously spoke out against Armstrong in 1999. Despite the chilling effect, and the omerta, many athletes spoke out against doping in the cycling peloton.
Nice selection. Yes, athletes are not always quiet. In conclusion, your answer to all this:
"But generally, athletes rarely condemn their colleagues. Which American sprinter condemned Gay and Gatlin? Who condemned Cherono or Kipserem or Rutto or Kiprop? Likewise, which cyclists condemned Armstrong, Pantani or Ullrich?"
was: two cyclists. Even you will have to agree now that the silence is typical, not deafening.
Nice selection. Yes, athletes are not always quiet. In conclusion, your answer to all this:
"But generally, athletes rarely condemn their colleagues. Which American sprinter condemned Gay and Gatlin? Who condemned Cherono or Kipserem or Rutto or Kiprop? Likewise, which cyclists condemned Armstrong, Pantani or Ullrich?"
was: two cyclists. Even you will have to agree now that the silence is typical, not deafening.
The question was too limited and the sample size too small to be able to generally conclude what is "typical".
Here's another question. How many athletes and coaches have stepped up as character witnesses for any of these athletes?
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.