The Railroading of Shelby Houlihan

Strict liability solely relates to intent. Intent is not relevant here - and neither are Voltaire or Franklin, but you are too unbelievably f*ckng stupid to know that. Who are the "non-cheats" who are being convicted, you moron? Houlihan? Pathetic.

So who are "the innocent athletes being banned from the sport"? Who are the "innocent athletes temporarily barred" because they were appealing a doping sanction? For there to be a problem, there has to be a problem. There doesn't appear to be one.

The ones that have been caught be accidental use, contamination and sabotage or wada’s no peer reviewed science or early development science.

And.. the alternative is not no Doping Control but a better one with each case being tried in its merits of cheating .

Armstronglivs wrote:

davies report wrote:

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?

Strict liability solely relates to intent. Intent is not relevant here - and neither are Voltaire or Franklin, but you are too unbelievably f*ckng stupid to know that. Who are the "non-cheats" who are being convicted, you moron? Houlihan? Pathetic.

You are consistently one of limited brain power but I will help.Is Petal sitting comfortably?

Right! Intent should be what is central to determining cheats ; the rules are framed to make it such that non cheats are convicted.

See previous post re which non cheats are convicted and read USADA on contamination.

Now , you can get off the step for those intended for brains as sharp as beachballs as you are now saved.

Armstronglivs 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.

Exactly !!

They can’t argue that they did not intend to have banned drugs in them.

Thank you(.

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?

Read rule 2.1.1 again. When athletes sign up for the sport they agree to abide by the rules. Nobody is forcing them to do the sport. I'm happy that a doping cheater has been caught and look forward to further busts.

Another giver of +1 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?

Read rule 2.1.1 again. When athletes sign up for the sport they agree to abide by the rules. Nobody is forcing them to do the sport. I'm happy that a doping cheater has been caught and look forward to further busts.

I repeat that contract terms must be reasonable and fair.

Rule 2.1.1 is subject to civil and employment law and such is independent of what it says.In English law you can’t sign your statutory rights away.

The problem is that the rules catch those who don’t cheat.

You're delusional, man, living in a fantasy world. Cheaters win. They get ahead. The pork burrito thing is the cat ate my homework on steroids, literally. You believe it because you want too or because you lack minimal analytic skills, but not because it's even remotely plausible.

davies report wrote:

I repeat that contract terms must be reasonable and fair.

Rule 2.1.1 is subject to civil and employment law and such is independent of what it says.In English law you can’t sign your statutory rights away.

The problem is that the rules catch those who don’t cheat.

You are absolutely correct re contracts and statutory rights. however what is fair depends on your opinion of value. Fifa, ioc etc etc are all 'clubs' and they have 'membership criteria', represented as contracts when you join. you dont have to join the club - you only do if you believe it has value. Clearly, when you joined you believed the value was sufficient to justify the terms. So the contract was fair.

The only way out of this is to show that the contract caused you significant damage - then you can start the 'fair' argument again. But maybe the only damage is lack of membership of the club. Its your problem you have based your life on membership of a club. membership of a club is not a statutory rights.

this is why you have arbitration and no civil action. There is no 'presumed innocent' in club membership - that is criminal law.

fillivey wrote:

You're delusional, man, living in a fantasy world. Cheaters win. They get ahead. The pork burrito thing is the cat ate my homework on steroids, literally. You believe it because you want too or because you lack minimal analytic skills, but not because it's even remotely plausible.

+1

For the records, Houlihan didn't have to prove anything to get a reduced ban or even no ban. All she had to do was come up with a believable explanation of how the roid got into her system. Read some other CAS decisions, or the WADA rules. Look for the keywords used such as "more likely than not" etc. A rather low burden to overcome.

All CAS arbitrators, including the one that was hand-picked by Nike's lawyers, judged that she failed to do so. Therefore it was ruled to have been an intentional anti-doping rule violation, resulting in the full four years that she deserved.

Quite predictably so, because, come on, eating a beef burrito contaminated with several ounces of uncastrated boar offal? More likely than not, they had to practice for months to be able to say that with a straight face!

The best action taken by Houlihsn and her lawyer. Would be to identify the name of the truck so samples of their products can be tested. As nf clarify the source of their meat selection.

You just don't understand Shelby is banned because she has no proof she ate pig offal because she ordered carne asada this is the major difference between her and all the other tainted food cases she cannot prove that the food she ate definitely contained nandrolone and that is why she is banned and CAS rejected her appeal.

davies report wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So who are "the innocent athletes being banned from the sport"? Who are the "innocent athletes temporarily barred" because they were appealing a doping sanction? For there to be a problem, there has to be a problem. There doesn't appear to be one.

The ones that have been caught be accidental use, contamination and sabotage or wada’s no peer reviewed science or early development science.

And.. the alternative is not no Doping Control but a better one with each case being tried in its merits of cheating .

This is exactly what is already happening. Houlihan has had her day “in court” and will likely have another one yet. You just don’t like the results.

Not quite.

You wish to buy a product and you think the deal is fair ; the detail of the contract becomes clearer afterwards and can.be defined as unfair.

There is no arbitration in Doping cases.

The burden is on the Doping control to prove the case so on one significant level your are innocent until etc but when you look how the burden flips in Doping cases it becomes impossible to prove innocence.

For instance the assumption is that the lab has not made a mistake and the doc package constructed by the lab is all you get.

Yes, others are wrong that Houlihan has no civil recourse. She does. You can sue to argue that a contract is unfair and should not apply.

She is pursuing those options. CAS is an arbitrator that resolves civil disputes upon the mutual agreement of two parties. Houlihan and the AIU agreed to this and to the standards and processes that govern both anti-doping controls and the arbitration process.

CAS ruled against Houlihan. She lost. This was always a possibility. It’s not evidence of unfairness. It’s evidence of the system working.

Houlihan’s attorney says that CAS and the AIU got it wrong. They’re working on an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal to argue just that.

There are lots of civil proceedings here, Houlihan just isn’t winning them.

There was some speculation early on that Nike was looking for an injunction from an American court that would compel USATF to let Houlihan into the Trials. I haven’t seen any evidence that that actually occurred, but it would be interesting to see how an American court would apply the rules as it relates to domestic competition.

My suspicion is that they’d say no injunction because Houlihan hasn’t yet suffered an injury and therefore has no standing.

After the Trials, she could sue and say that USATF are unfairly keeping her out of competitions that are otherwise open to all. (She has no shot at arguing this for, say, the Pre Classic where obviously not every qualified athlete is allowed in.) USATF would say “our hands are tied because we are signed onto the WADA Code and report up to the U.S. Olympic Committee, which is bound by statute to enforce the WADA Code.”

Anyway, this would be an expensive way for Houlihan to lose in American court instead of a European appellate court, but the decision would be interesting to read.

I think daviesreport is SH’s lawyer

The curious incident of the dog in the night.

I have read in several places that Shelby was not alone when she bought the infamous burrito. Rather she was with friends / teammates etc. Have any of these individuals come forward and confirmed the burrito purchase and it's greasiness? I would seem to me that if her story was correct then these individuals would be lining up to go on record to support her. Having witnesses stating "It looked disgusting", "I told her to take it back", "She ate it anyway" would certainly help her case.

Their silence could mean:

She was alone when she bought the burrito and the presence of friends has morphed out of the ongoing discussions.

There were friends there and they saw nothing odd in the burrito and have no wish to perjure themselves.

unbelief wrote:

I think daviesreport is SH’s lawyer

May be better to go for the system rather than the impossible task of winning within.