Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

bad gamble wrote:

Not a lawyer, but I think many have lost sight of the legal framework Shelby was dealing with and what her options. Doping is strict liability, which means that it's guilty unless proven innocent. Sentencing is different depending on intent/other factors but ultimately you need to prove that either a) your test result is somehow wrong, b) that the substance in your sample got there in a way that you could not reasonably foresee. So her choices (regardless of whether they are true) were:

1. admit to doping, get the maximum sentence.

2. prove definitively that her sample was tampered with or that testing was not done/interpreted correctly, get off.

3. demonstrate that she somehow ingested nandrolone from an "unforeseeable" source such as meat, tainted prescription medication, kissing a prostitute etc. Get off or get reduced sentence depending on circumstances.

4. claim that she consumed some kind of tainted supplement. Get reduced sentence.

5. claim she has absolutely no idea how it got there. Get maximum sentence.

Back in early 2021, Shelby had two choices (2,3) that would enable her to compete at the 2021 Olympics. Proving the lab messed up is difficult or impossible since they have a lot of documentation and experts. Claiming an unforeseeable source gives you more options, but the burden of proof is still difficult. But, it has worked in the past for athletes I alluded to in the examples. The tainted supplement argument would be more likely to succeed; OTC supplements are so commonly tainted that even if they couldn't get a positive test on any of the batches she had, it's easy enough to believe it:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hundreds-of-dietary-supplements-are-tainted-with-prescription-drugs/

But, claiming this would mean she would miss the Olympics since it would likely get her a 2 year ban. So she want "all in" with the only argument that would maybe let her compete at the Olympics if successful. The cost was that if she lost, she'd miss 2 Olympics. This was a bad gamble.

The reason Nike and BTC are not backing her financially (we presume) is that they know it's a lost cause. It isn't about whether they believe her or not, it's that legally speaking there's not much to go on to appeal a second time. They laid out all their cards, which were pretty weak - non-scientific (hair analysis, lie detector test), and character references from friends (???).

Personally, I think she was either microdosing w/ bad timing/dosing or consumed a tainted supplement. If it is truly the tainted supplement thing, my sympathy for her wore out a while ago because of the BS about the burrito.

bad gamble wrote:

Not a lawyer, but I think many have lost sight of the legal framework Shelby was dealing with and what her options. Doping is strict liability, which means that it's guilty unless proven innocent. Sentencing is different depending on intent/other factors but ultimately you need to prove that either a) your test result is somehow wrong, b) that the substance in your sample got there in a way that you could not reasonably foresee. So her choices (regardless of whether they are true) were:

1. admit to doping, get the maximum sentence.

2. prove definitively that her sample was tampered with or that testing was not done/interpreted correctly, get off.

3. demonstrate that she somehow ingested nandrolone from an "unforeseeable" source such as meat, tainted prescription medication, kissing a prostitute etc. Get off or get reduced sentence depending on circumstances.

4. claim that she consumed some kind of tainted supplement. Get reduced sentence.

5. claim she has absolutely no idea how it got there. Get maximum sentence.

Back in early 2021, Shelby had two choices (2,3) that would enable her to compete at the 2021 Olympics. Proving the lab messed up is difficult or impossible since they have a lot of documentation and experts. Claiming an unforeseeable source gives you more options, but the burden of proof is still difficult. But, it has worked in the past for athletes I alluded to in the examples. The tainted supplement argument would be more likely to succeed; OTC supplements are so commonly tainted that even if they couldn't get a positive test on any of the batches she had, it's easy enough to believe it:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hundreds-of-dietary-supplements-are-tainted-with-prescription-drugs/

But, claiming this would mean she would miss the Olympics since it would likely get her a 2 year ban. So she want "all in" with the only argument that would maybe let her compete at the Olympics if successful. The cost was that if she lost, she'd miss 2 Olympics. This was a bad gamble.

The reason Nike and BTC are not backing her financially (we presume) is that they know it's a lost cause. It isn't about whether they believe her or not, it's that legally speaking there's not much to go on to appeal a second time. They laid out all their cards, which were pretty weak - non-scientific (hair analysis, lie detector test), and character references from friends (???).

Personally, I think she was either microdosing w/ bad timing/dosing or consumed a tainted supplement. If it is truly the tainted supplement thing, my sympathy for her wore out a while ago because of the BS about the burrito.

bad gamble wrote:

Not a lawyer, but I think many have lost sight of the legal framework Shelby was dealing with and what her options. Doping is strict liability, which means that it's guilty unless proven innocent. Sentencing is different depending on intent/other factors but ultimately you need to prove that either a) your test result is somehow wrong, b) that the substance in your sample got there in a way that you could not reasonably foresee. So her choices (regardless of whether they are true) were:

1. admit to doping, get the maximum sentence.

2. prove definitively that her sample was tampered with or that testing was not done/interpreted correctly, get off.

3. demonstrate that she somehow ingested nandrolone from an "unforeseeable" source such as meat, tainted prescription medication, kissing a prostitute etc. Get off or get reduced sentence depending on circumstances.

4. claim that she consumed some kind of tainted supplement. Get reduced sentence.

5. claim she has absolutely no idea how it got there. Get maximum sentence.

Back in early 2021, Shelby had two choices (2,3) that would enable her to compete at the 2021 Olympics. Proving the lab messed up is difficult or impossible since they have a lot of documentation and experts. Claiming an unforeseeable source gives you more options, but the burden of proof is still difficult. But, it has worked in the past for athletes I alluded to in the examples. The tainted supplement argument would be more likely to succeed; OTC supplements are so commonly tainted that even if they couldn't get a positive test on any of the batches she had, it's easy enough to believe it:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hundreds-of-dietary-supplements-are-tainted-with-prescription-drugs/

But, claiming this would mean she would miss the Olympics since it would likely get her a 2 year ban. So she want "all in" with the only argument that would maybe let her compete at the Olympics if successful. The cost was that if she lost, she'd miss 2 Olympics. This was a bad gamble.

The reason Nike and BTC are not backing her financially (we presume) is that they know it's a lost cause. It isn't about whether they believe her or not, it's that legally speaking there's not much to go on to appeal a second time. They laid out all their cards, which were pretty weak - non-scientific (hair analysis, lie detector test), and character references from friends (???).

Personally, I think she was either microdosing w/ bad timing/dosing or consumed a tainted supplement. If it is truly the tainted supplement thing, my sympathy for her wore out a while ago because of the BS about the burrito.

bad gamble wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I agree with the vast majority of your post.

However I have more sympathy with her over the burrito .I agree it does not stack up esp given what Ayotte had to say but it would have been “ any port in a storm”.

I note Tyson Fury created havoc with this defence.

Last part was my opinion, others are free to disagree with that ;).

My sympathy wore out because I felt that she (and her simps) presented the case dishonestly to make her look more like a victim of injustice than she actually was/is. They played a big PR game, getting out of the docket first with half-truths.

Inbedded in the way she presented her story was some racism ("authentic Mexican") and misinformation/fearmongering about eating meat. I saw quite a few elites express genuine concern about eating/maybe bringing their own food everywhere from now on, which is ridiculous if you're in the US or any other rich western country that has strict agricultural standards. The authentic Mexican part is especially hilarious as there are many cuisine styles in Northern Europe that rely very heavily on offal meat (eg. tripe, haggis, sausage), but no one is worried about those or where they source their meat from.

bad gamble wrote:

1. admit to doping, get the maximum sentence.

2. prove definitively that her sample was tampered with or that testing was not done/interpreted correctly, get off.

3. demonstrate that she somehow ingested nandrolone from an "unforeseeable" source such as meat, tainted prescription medication, kissing a prostitute etc. Get off or get reduced sentence depending on circumstances.

4. claim that she consumed some kind of tainted supplement. Get reduced sentence.

5. claim she has absolutely no idea how it got there. Get maximum sentence.

Most of these products were marketed for sexual enhancement (353 [45.5%]), weight loss (317 [40.9%]), or muscle building (92 [11.9%]), with 157 adulterated products (20.2%) containing more than 1 unapproved ingredient.

Adulteration with active pharmaceutical ingredients does not happen by accident

casual obsever wrote:

bad gamble wrote:

1. admit to doping, get the maximum sentence.

2. prove definitively that her sample was tampered with or that testing was not done/interpreted correctly, get off.

3. demonstrate that she somehow ingested nandrolone from an "unforeseeable" source such as meat, tainted prescription medication, kissing a prostitute etc. Get off or get reduced sentence depending on circumstances.

4. claim that she consumed some kind of tainted supplement. Get reduced sentence.

5. claim she has absolutely no idea how it got there. Get maximum sentence.

Not sure where 4. is common from. In that hypothetical scenario, it would either be a supplement with banned ingredients (4 year ban) or without (likely no ban, see Martinez for example).

Also let's not forget that vitamins and calcium - her alleged supplements - do not come "contaminated" with steroids.

That's why she had to go with the ridiculo beef burrito story, somehow containing stomach offal with kidneys from a mature cryptorchid that didn't come from a commercial farm.

In that context, read the actual scientific article that all these newspapers keep citing about contaminated supplements:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2706496

See for example

Most of these products were marketed for sexual enhancement (353 [45.5%]), weight loss (317 [40.9%]), or muscle building (92 [11.9%]), with 157 adulterated products (20.2%) containing more than 1 unapproved ingredient.

and

Adulteration with active pharmaceutical ingredients does not happen by accident

Last but not least, she could have gotten a reduced ban by turning whistle blower (see Gay for example), but unfortunately she decided against that.

casual obsever wrote:

bad gamble wrote:

1. admit to doping, get the maximum sentence.

2. prove definitively that her sample was tampered with or that testing was not done/interpreted correctly, get off.

3. demonstrate that she somehow ingested nandrolone from an "unforeseeable" source such as meat, tainted prescription medication, kissing a prostitute etc. Get off or get reduced sentence depending on circumstances.

4. claim that she consumed some kind of tainted supplement. Get reduced sentence.

5. claim she has absolutely no idea how it got there. Get maximum sentence.

Not sure where 4. is common from. In that hypothetical scenario, it would either be a supplement with banned ingredients (4 year ban) or without (likely no ban, see Martinez for example).

Also let's not forget that vitamins and calcium - her alleged supplements - do not come "contaminated" with steroids.

That's why she had to go with the ridiculo beef burrito story, somehow containing stomach offal with kidneys from a mature cryptorchid that didn't come from a commercial farm.

In that context, read the actual scientific article that all these newspapers keep citing about contaminated supplements:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2706496

See for example

Most of these products were marketed for sexual enhancement (353 [45.5%]), weight loss (317 [40.9%]), or muscle building (92 [11.9%]), with 157 adulterated products (20.2%) containing more than 1 unapproved ingredient.

and

Adulteration with active pharmaceutical ingredients does not happen by accident

Last but not least, she could have gotten a reduced ban by turning whistle blower (see Gay for example), but unfortunately she decided against that.