wejo wrote:
totally valid wrote: LRCs position on Shelby since Day 1 has been "but she couldn't possibly...". It's the wrong approach if you actually care about a clean sport. As long as voices of note continue to hand convicted dopers a helping hand by treating their claims of innocence against all matters of fact, there will be always be an impetus to cheat. By defending the fundraiser, LRC is implicitly encouraging athletes to cheat, and to use the court of public opinion when they get caught.
That is not our position at all. Jon Gault has said he doesn' t think she knowingly doped.I am 100% open to the possibility and so is Jon.Just because you think her burrito story is nuts, doesn't mean she doesn't have a right to fund her defense, or that she knowingly doped.
Exactly. In the face of a positive test, and an extremely-detailed report outlining not only the clear fact that she was positive, but also how impossibly unlikely her defense was, the three of you land somewere between "it was an accident" and "she's probably innocent."
It flies in the face of anyone who's ever looked at a judicial case with any semblance of impartiality. you have zero reason to think it wasn't "knowingly", and yet you're "open to it" purely on her word, even after that word was dismantled ruthlessly by the report. And now you're going after the one group of athletes - which has some of the sport's biggest names - who are actively trying to fight against these attitudes.
I'll say it again: the reason dopers keep trying to get away with it is because they know rubes are going to defend them because they like them. It worked for Armstrong, and it's still working. And LRC is doing Houlihan's work for her by maintaining the editorial standard that she's anything but actually guilty of what's been proven. If I were that enabled and knew a major media resource was carrying my water, I'd keep up the facade too.