The Railroading of Shelby Houlihan

That S.H. was at the food truck the day before the test and ordered something, presumably eating it, is or can be irrefutably demonstrated. From there, it's a stretch to say eating from the food truck caused her positive drug test. It's more than remotely possible, but has not shown to be certain or probable - which is why she lost her appeal. Can't see that changing unless telling new evidence comes to light or some significant testing/procedural technicality is found.

SeattleSilver wrote:

davies report wrote:

Not grasped have you?

She was asked for a reason and the food was the only thing that seemed possible. It is not a herring of any colour rather a consequence if strict liability.

OK, davies report, what are the doping police supposed to do with that reason? On one hand, they have a positive test for a banned substance. On the other hand they have 'I bought a beef burrito, but maybe they gave me a pork burrito by mistake. And maybe that pork burrito was tainted. And if I mistakenly got a pork burrito that was tainted, maybe that is the reason I tested positive. That only sounds marginally better than SH shrugging her shoulders and saying "I don't have a clue".

Do what the normal police would and the prosecution service.. No chance of getting a conviction of beyond reasonable doubt of cheating and drop the case or not even start it and get someone to tell the lab to stop wasting time.

And then prosecute the idiot that got strict liability mixed up with absolute liability and then do you for being as sharp as a beachball.

If you want to analogize to criminal law, the crime here is testing positive, and the doping police can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. If SH wants to argue mitigating circumstances, the burden is on her. And her attempt to do so is a sting of "maybes".

If doping police had to show a positive test and also overcome the burden of showing any proffered excuse (even those not backed with verifiable facts) was false, no doper would ever be busted. Everyone who wanted to take nando would just become a regular pork eater and save their receipts.

Indeed. Let me add that the suspect only needs to provide an explanation that is "more likely than not" (see Lawson) or believable based on "the balance of probabilities" (see the current CAS decision). That is not exactly a high burden.

Of course, claiming to have eaten beef burrito contimated with several ounces of rare, disgusting uncastrated pork offal was not believable at all. In fact, it was so unbelievable that even the arbitrator chosen by Nike said so.

Thus the doping was declared to have been intentional, justifying the full four year ban. Unanimously. Case closed.

you’re the biggest dope on these boards. stop acting like this is civil law. these are doping regulations agreed to by all athletes participating at this level.

ultimate you, as the athlete, are liable gor ehat you put into your body.

youve argued the stupidest points about this case that no one takes seriously, and you movibg the goalposts to another unrelated point shouldnt make anyone change their mind

unbelief wrote:

you’re the biggest dope on these boards. stop acting like this is civil law. these are doping regulations agreed to by all athletes participating at this level.

ultimate you, as the athlete, are liable gor ehat you put into your body.

youve argued the stupidest points about this case that no one takes seriously, and you movibg the goalposts to another unrelated point shouldnt make anyone change their mind

+1.

Some amount t of goal post shifting and mental gymnastics to justify Shelby’s DRUG CHEATING 💉🌮

id like to hear what doing case he thinks is legitimate rather than carry on incessantly with his inane BS

‘all meat is tainted’ ‘anti doping has an agenda’ — yeah clean competition. the same as BTC claims to care about

Barry Badrinath wrote:, she got caught cheating. A sample positive, B sample positive, and Court of Arbitration for Sport upholding a 4 year ban is about as clear cut as it gets. Brojos are even silent now that they have dug into the facts.

Agreed, doped to the gills and likely the whole team. My only obscure theory is that the whole team got busted and they broke a deal with Nike and Nike had to sacrifice someone, so they chose Houlihan who was already an outsider unwilling to wear the cheater shoes. They through her under the bus to save the ship. She is still guilty though in this thought line. Just my thoughts, not reality....well, maybe reality or maybe not.

Lead Foil Hat XX wrote:

Barry Badrinath wrote:, she got caught cheating. A sample positive, B sample positive, and Court of Arbitration for Sport upholding a 4 year ban is about as clear cut as it gets. Brojos are even silent now that they have dug into the facts.

Agreed, doped to the gills and likely the whole team. My only obscure theory is that the whole team got busted and they broke a deal with Nike and Nike had to sacrifice someone, so they chose Houlihan who was already an outsider unwilling to wear the cheater shoes. They through her under the bus to save the ship. She is still guilty though in this thought line. Just my thoughts, not reality....well, maybe reality or maybe not.

That's both obscure and ridiculous.

I still don’t get why Nike’s attorneys haven’t actually produced the evidence they say they have. Maybe the evidence will be in the CAS report so they’re holding off? It would be a shame if that report does not discuss the evidence or assess the veracity of that evidence, assuming it exists. Ideally, they should release what they can publicly.

If Houlihan has an actual receipt — electronic or otherwise — she should share it, if only to corroborate some part of this story we’re being asked to accept at face value.

Emphasis on *receipt*. A bank statement isn’t a receipt and would only establish a general timeline for when the purchase occurred (i.e. give or take a few days). Whether it’s a “paper” or “electronic” receipt isn’t really relevant. Lots of food trucks use Square, which can email or text customers an electronic copy of a receipt. I would be willing to bet that the truck (if it still exists; Nike has been vague on this point) could recall the receipt if requested and the customer was willing to help (by producing the payment method or other metadata to help them recall the transaction).

A competent smartphone user could pull up the GPS data they say they have (but also haven’t produced publicly) within a matter of minutes.

Why not release this stuff to, at a minimum, corroborate the place-and-time aspects of the alibi?

There’s also the polygraph and food testing that’s alleged to have taken place. I could understand why they’d be more hesitant to release those records without context. So let’s see the lowest hanging fruit. Otherwise, Nike/BTC is asking the fans to take them at their word, which I’m hesitant to do after months of them obscuring why Houlihan wasn’t racing in the first place.

Lead Foil Hat XX wrote:

Barry Badrinath wrote:, she got caught cheating. A sample positive, B sample positive, and Court of Arbitration for Sport upholding a 4 year ban is about as clear cut as it gets. Brojos are even silent now that they have dug into the facts.

Agreed, doped to the gills and likely the whole team. My only obscure theory is that the whole team got busted and they broke a deal with Nike and Nike had to sacrifice someone, so they chose Houlihan who was already an outsider unwilling to wear the cheater shoes. They through her under the bus to save the ship. She is still guilty though in this thought line. Just my thoughts, not reality....well, maybe reality or maybe not.

Look at the thread Wejo started. There are very likely other BTC team members who are doping, but there are also BTC team members who are clean. It’s not that hard to figure out who’s who.

davies report wrote:

Another giver of +1 wrote:

Intent doesn't matter. Rule 2.1.1 to paraphrase says the athlete is responsible for food and supplement intake and ensuing positive doping violation. The only thing controversial about the ban is the pi$sweak unbelievable excuse her team came up with and Shalane and Jerry never having heard of Nandrolone. That is most likely why the ban was 4 years and not 2.

Lack of intent means we destroy the lives of non cheats.Happy with that?

A doping violation is a simple thing. The athlete is found with an illegal substance in their body. Innocent athletes' lives aren't destroyed because they are never found with illegal substances in their bodies.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

davies report wrote:

Lack of intent means we destroy the lives of non cheats.Happy with that?

A doping violation is a simple thing. The athlete is found with an illegal substance in their body. Innocent athletes' lives aren't destroyed because they are never found with illegal substances in their bodies.

davies report wrote:

Another giver of +1 wrote:

A doping violation is a simple thing. The athlete is found with an illegal substance in their body. Innocent athletes' lives aren't destroyed because they are never found with illegal substances in their bodies.

You have not grasped this have you?’

Strict liability and zero tolerance mean that those who are not cheating get their lives destroyed.

Happy with that?

Define “life destroyed.”

If a lawyer or doctor is caught doing something unethical, they can be barred from practicing their profession legally.

If an NFL player is caught cheating, the commissioner can suspend or cut them.

If you sign a contract agreeing to the WADA Code, and you’re caught in violation of the WADA Code, WADA can ban you from events bound by the WADA Code.

All of these things are appealable, both in an private/institutional or civil law context. Some have different standards of proof than others. Houlihan isn’t being charged with a crime — if it were feasible to meet a criminal prosecution standard for dopers, the DOJ would go after them all for fraud.

This is fundamentally an employment dispute. Houlihan is a free individual without a criminal record who can pursue any legal employment she wants that doesn’t involve entry into an athletic competition regulated by WADA.

None of this is to say Houlihan doesn’t have rights, but her rights are never going to live up to the standards you’re wanting. No one wants innocent athletes kicked out of the sport while dopers continue to compete, but there wouldn’t be a *legal* issue with that being the outcome here.

Houlihan still has a chance at making one last legal argument. Let’s see if she can do it before deciding that the entire system is unjust.

You have no idea what you are talking about. About anything. Innocent athletes are not being penalised. Houlihan is not innocent. CAS said it was proven she doped. Her defence didn't wash. You are a mentally impaired fantasist.

Life destroyed in this context is clear.

Wada code forbids civil actions.

Contracts have to be fair and especially not the result of monopoly control.

Lawyers etc etc are not automatically banned for one digression or tiny tiny drug find based on strict liability.

Have you been taught Voltaire and Ben Franklin about guilty going free if innocent convicted.?

Problem is with strict liability .

Happy with a system that convicts non cheats are you?

I add that the only appeal is to Swiss Court on procedural matters .

davies report wrote:

davies report wrote:

You have not grasped this have you?’

Strict liability and zero tolerance mean that those who are not cheating get their lives destroyed.

Happy with that?

Strict liability means those who dope are found guilty. They can't argue the excuse they didn't intend to dope. If they can show a legitimate excuse, such as food contamination, they can get off. But remote possibilities are not a legitimate excuse. That is SH. No lives are destroyed by this system - but the cheaters are held to account. If their lives are "destroyed" it is as a consequence of their own actions. But your brain cells have clearly suffered as a result of all of this.