LMAO selective facts like the documented history of how the standard four-year came to be? Ok bud
It is only one factor in the considerations involving the length of a ban. If it was the only factor the ban would be confined to Olympic competition. It isn't. Furthermore, the 4 year ban still applies to athletes who don't qualify for Olympic competition. But look on it as a bonus, that a cheater may not get to go to "the greatest show on earth".
First is her incredible talent. Second is her determination, work ethic, and outlook. I've followed her pretty closely over her career. I'm an even bigger fan now seeing how she's handled this situation and continues to work so hard. I read a long article about Shelby many years ago and was an instant fan - I'll have to find it
I think this kind of comment would make a good generic defence of any doper: Ramzi, Kiprop, Ben Johnson, and any number of Kenyans. All fine people with a great work ethic.
LMAO selective facts like the documented history of how the standard four-year came to be? Ok bud
It is only one factor in the considerations involving the length of a ban. If it was the only factor the ban would be confined to Olympic competition. It isn't. Furthermore, the 4 year ban still applies to athletes who don't qualify for Olympic competition. But look on it as a bonus, that a cheater may not get to go to "the greatest show on earth".
I never said the Olympics were the only factor in a four-year ban. But I’ve proven it’s a huge factor.
The four-year penalty’s applicability to lower level athletes is irrelevant.
It is only one factor in the considerations involving the length of a ban. If it was the only factor the ban would be confined to Olympic competition. It isn't. Furthermore, the 4 year ban still applies to athletes who don't qualify for Olympic competition. But look on it as a bonus, that a cheater may not get to go to "the greatest show on earth".
I never said the Olympics were the only factor in a four-year ban. But I’ve proven it’s a huge factor.
The four-year penalty’s applicability to lower level athletes is irrelevant.
It isn't to those athletes. Which is the point. A 2 year ban is piffling, which is why it was lengthened.
Shelby disliked because her excuse was terrible and she doubled down on it to look good. She was and is a proven cheat. It also shows she’s a narcissist and deserves to be gone from the sport forever. Any coach or group that works with her next year should be ashamed of themselves.
I don’t why people talk bad about Shelby, maybe because the tests proved that she cheated and Let’s Run doesn’t like cheats, especially ones with weird excuses.
It isn't to those athletes. Which is the point. A 2 year ban is piffling, which is why it was lengthened.
I’ve already proven that the LaShawn Merritt case was the impetus for the change. It might as well be called the LaShawn Merritt rule.
It has been repeatedly shown to you that missing the Olympics is not the purpose of ban. It is nowhere specified in the rules. Not missing one Olympics or two. And nothing about the world champs. There are numerous instances where some athletes would miss the Olympics and others wouldn't, depending on when they were banned. You are obsessed with this Houlihan cheat.
I’ve already proven that the LaShawn Merritt case was the impetus for the change. It might as well be called the LaShawn Merritt rule.
It has been repeatedly shown to you that missing the Olympics is not the purpose of ban. It is nowhere specified in the rules. Not missing one Olympics or two. And nothing about the world champs. There are numerous instances where some athletes would miss the Olympics and others wouldn't, depending on when they were banned. You are obsessed with this Houlihan cheat.
I already told you it’s not specified in the rules due to legal concerns. Do you not know how to read?
It has been repeatedly shown to you that missing the Olympics is not the purpose of ban. It is nowhere specified in the rules. Not missing one Olympics or two. And nothing about the world champs. There are numerous instances where some athletes would miss the Olympics and others wouldn't, depending on when they were banned. You are obsessed with this Houlihan cheat.
I already told you it’s not specified in the rules due to legal concerns. Do you not know how to read?
But the rules are "legal" concerns. That's why they are adjudicated by a court. Beyond dim.
This post was edited 45 seconds after it was posted.
I already told you it’s not specified in the rules due to legal concerns. Do you not know how to read?
But the rules are "legal" concerns. That's why they are adjudicated by a court. Beyond dim.
What’s dim is your failure to grasp the simple reality that the only reason the Olympics aren’t mentioned in the rulebook is because of fear that it would get struck down in court, like what happened in the LaShawn Merritt case. Missing the Olympics was part of an early draft of the rule change, then after WADA consulted with their lawyers, they replaced it with a four-year ban intended to serve the same purpose. How many times do I have to repeat that documented fact to get you to understand?
But the rules are "legal" concerns. That's why they are adjudicated by a court. Beyond dim.
What’s dim is your failure to grasp the simple reality that the only reason the Olympics aren’t mentioned in the rulebook is because of fear that it would get struck down in court, like what happened in the LaShawn Merritt case. Missing the Olympics was part of an early draft of the rule change, then after WADA consulted with their lawyers, they replaced it with a four-year ban intended to serve the same purpose. How many times do I have to repeat that documented fact to get you to understand?
If it isn't in the rule book then it has no official standing or legal weight. Hence it is irrelevant to any doping decision.
However one whose user name insists on the innocence of a convicted doper is beyond the reach of facts or reason.
Of course the history of how and why the rule was developed is relevant because it establishes the intent of the rule. Shelby’s punishment of missing 2 Olympics goes against the intent of the rule.
Please try to stick with arguing against ideas and not making personal attacks. Your personal attacks are juvenile, unnecessary, and unbecoming. If you can’t engage in civil disagreement, go away.
Of course the history of how and why the rule was developed is relevant because it establishes the intent of the rule. Shelby’s punishment of missing 2 Olympics goes against the intent of the rule.
Please try to stick with arguing against ideas and not making personal attacks. Your personal attacks are juvenile, unnecessary, and unbecoming. If you can’t engage in civil disagreement, go away.
Real talk, chief — you are spending an inordinate amount of time defending a scumbag lowlife narcissist cheater. I can’t imagine a more pathetic way to spend my weekend.
Real talk, chief — you are spending an inordinate amount of time defending a scumbag lowlife narcissist cheater. I can’t imagine a more pathetic way to spend my weekend.
Real talk, you may be right, but the same thing can be said about most of the threads here and following sports in general. Ultimately who can run the fastest or who’s the best (insert sport) player or team isn’t all that important.
Even so, I do believe there’s merit to defending someone who faces an overly severe punishment, regardless of that person’s personality.
Of course the history of how and why the rule was developed is relevant because it establishes the intent of the rule. Shelby’s punishment of missing 2 Olympics goes against the intent of the rule.
Please try to stick with arguing against ideas and not making personal attacks. Your personal attacks are juvenile, unnecessary, and unbecoming. If you can’t engage in civil disagreement, go away.
It is part of civil disagreement to say your arguments are stupid - because they are. They show no real understanding of the antidoping process and are motivated by your partiality to a convicted doper. You start a thread on a false premise - that she is innocent - and then you continue to recite your mantra of an "elegant solution" - which is merely a failure to acknowledge her proven guilt and the legitimacy of the CAS penalty - despite the fact that no reasoning being here agrees with your obsession. You get what you deserve. As she did.
I didn’t start this thread. Griles did. The other thread with the elegant solution to her unfair punishment wasn’t based on a premise of innocence or guilt. In fact, I even commented in that thread that it wasn’t about that. Even if she is guilty, which she probably is, the punishment is unfair compared to the standard.
And no, I don’t deserve personal attacks, no matter how much you dislike my ideas. I have no qualms with you saying my idea is stupid. The issue is you saying/suggesting that I am stupid. There’s a big difference between criticizing an idea vs attacking a person. You really need to learn that difference. I’ve seen you attack many people on this board, and it’s not acceptable. Do better.
She seems like a genuinely wonderful person. I've followed her for years. Even if you think it's unlikely a burrito was the cause of the positive test, why are you so sure that Shelby intentionally cheated? People here often claim that this is the case and that she's a legit psychopath who refuses to admit what she's done wrong. But if she were a psychopath, why does she have so many friends and people around her who say she's an incredible person? And if she wanted an advantage, why would she choose to dope but not wear super shoes? Looking for genuine convo here - I just don't understand how anyone can smear Shelby online. I'm a huge fan of hers.
I think you are actually mistating what most people here believe. Its a spectrum. Most people believe she cheated, but not necessarily intentionally. Very few believe the burrito story because it makes no sense scientifically.
But she could have cheated unintentionally. Unintentional cheating still results in a ban. What is an example of unintentional cheating? For example taking a dodgy supplement that doesn't say explicitly that it contains any banned substance in the ingredients but actually does. Supplements are not food. You are absolutely responsible for even unintentional ingestion of banned substances through suplements.
I didn’t start this thread. Griles did. The other thread with the elegant solution to her unfair punishment wasn’t based on a premise of innocence or guilt. In fact, I even commented in that thread that it wasn’t about that. Even if she is guilty, which she probably is, the punishment is unfair compared to the standard.
And no, I don’t deserve personal attacks, no matter how much you dislike my ideas. I have no qualms with you saying my idea is stupid. The issue is you saying/suggesting that I am stupid. There’s a big difference between criticizing an idea vs attacking a person. You really need to learn that difference. I’ve seen you attack many people on this board, and it’s not acceptable. Do better.
If your arguments are stupid they lead to an easy inference.
But you just keep pushing the same thing, post after post, in every thread about Houlihan - which all follow from your username protesting her "innocence" - and virtually no one except the board's resident doping-denier sides with you. The CAS decision is only unfair if she was clearly innocent; she wasn't and so she was found guilty. You've dug yourself in and no one can persuade you out of your position. Yet you persuade no one of yours. You should call it a day.
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.