An interesting point he made, which is something the Johnson's and Jon seem to have not grasped, and something that Shelby keeps repeating is about "innocent until proven guilty" and how innocent athletes get wrongly caught doping. What they're all missing/willfully ignoring is that every athlete competing at present is innocent - it's only when they fail a test that they're then guilty. The system isn't set up whereby at the point of returning an adverse analytical finding the athlete should still be "innocent until proven guilty" as in the court of law, at the point of a positive B-sample and ban the athlete has been proven to be guilty.
Maybe it speaks to wider society and how facts seem to mean less and less nowadays, but it's frustrating none-the-less that the expectation of innocence is there even after an athlete has effectively been pictured standing over a dead body holding a gun that's just been fired.
Ok but this is not criminal court.....she broke the rules of a sport and was banned...innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. They found a banned substance in her urine, the burden was on HER to explain how it got there. Just like how someone can get DQ'd for stepping off the track during a race. There's no "innocent until proven guilty" there either. They get DQ'd, can contest to get un-DQ'd, that's it...........
An interesting point he made, which is something the Johnson's and Jon seem to have not grasped, and something that Shelby keeps repeating is about "innocent until proven guilty" and how innocent athletes get wrongly caught doping. What they're all missing/willfully ignoring is that every athlete competing at present is innocent - it's only when they fail a test that they're then guilty. The system isn't set up whereby at the point of returning an adverse analytical finding the athlete should still be "innocent until proven guilty" as in the court of law, at the point of a positive B-sample and ban the athlete has been proven to be guilty.
Maybe it speaks to wider society and how facts seem to mean less and less nowadays, but it's frustrating none-the-less that the expectation of innocence is there even after an athlete has effectively been pictured standing over a dead body holding a gun that's just been fired.
Innocence of what; cheating or breaking strict liability?
The police (etc) decide if the holder of the gun should go to court but the courts assume innocence. Sort of the basis of western society for a good few centuries.
Breaking the rules of sport are not criminal offences so the principles of the criminal law do not apply - and nor should they. If the facts in a doping case establish a breach of the rules - such as a confirmed test - the onus properly falls on the athlete to show legitimate cause. Intent is not required to be proven by the anti-doping authorities because in almost all cases it would be impossible to do. No doper would ever be convicted. A confirmed test is therefore the bar the athlete has to get over.
Innocence of what; cheating or breaking strict liability?
The police (etc) decide if the holder of the gun should go to court but the courts assume innocence. Sort of the basis of western society for a good few centuries.
Breaking the rules of sport are not criminal offences so the principles of the criminal law do not apply - and nor should they. If the facts in a doping case establish a breach of the rules - such as a confirmed test - the onus properly falls on the athlete to show legitimate cause. Intent is not required to be proven by the anti-doping authorities because in almost all cases it would be impossible to do. No doper would ever be convicted. A confirmed test is therefore the bar the athlete has to get over.
So how many people who inadvertently break the rules get convicted.
An interesting point he made, which is something the Johnson's and Jon seem to have not grasped, and something that Shelby keeps repeating is about "innocent until proven guilty" and how innocent athletes get wrongly caught doping. What they're all missing/willfully ignoring is that every athlete competing at present is innocent - it's only when they fail a test that they're then guilty. The system isn't set up whereby at the point of returning an adverse analytical finding the athlete should still be "innocent until proven guilty" as in the court of law, at the point of a positive B-sample and ban the athlete has been proven to be guilty.
Maybe it speaks to wider society and how facts seem to mean less and less nowadays, but it's frustrating none-the-less that the expectation of innocence is there even after an athlete has effectively been pictured standing over a dead body holding a gun that's just been fired.
So; actor Baldwin is a murderer then?
Only intent makes a murderer - so, no - he isn't - but all a doper needs is to be full of nandrolone for which she has no credible excuse.
If you were caught driving a car under influence, but claim that your Powerade was spiked with alcohol it doesn't give you a free pass.
So anti doping laws is even more lenient than criminal law. It only requires you to find a plausible source of the drugs. Which Shelby failed at. Because its a lie.
An interesting point he made, which is something the Johnson's and Jon seem to have not grasped, and something that Shelby keeps repeating is about "innocent until proven guilty" and how innocent athletes get wrongly caught doping. What they're all missing/willfully ignoring is that every athlete competing at present is innocent - it's only when they fail a test that they're then guilty. The system isn't set up whereby at the point of returning an adverse analytical finding the athlete should still be "innocent until proven guilty" as in the court of law, at the point of a positive B-sample and ban the athlete has been proven to be guilty.
Maybe it speaks to wider society and how facts seem to mean less and less nowadays, but it's frustrating none-the-less that the expectation of innocence is there even after an athlete has effectively been pictured standing over a dead body holding a gun that's just been fired.
Ok but this is not criminal court.....she broke the rules of a sport and was banned...innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply. They found a banned substance in her urine, the burden was on HER to explain how it got there. Just like how someone can get DQ'd for stepping off the track during a race. There's no "innocent until proven guilty" there either. They get DQ'd, can contest to get un-DQ'd, that's it...........
The case has to be proven by the prosecution so it is still innocent until … etc.
An interesting point he made, which is something the Johnson's and Jon seem to have not grasped, and something that Shelby keeps repeating is about "innocent until proven guilty" and how innocent athletes get wrongly caught doping. What they're all missing/willfully ignoring is that every athlete competing at present is innocent - it's only when they fail a test that they're then guilty. The system isn't set up whereby at the point of returning an adverse analytical finding the athlete should still be "innocent until proven guilty" as in the court of law, at the point of a positive B-sample and ban the athlete has been proven to be guilty.
I’d say it’s not fundamentally different from a court of criminal law. A failed drug test is like law enforcement (= WADA’s random testing staff) nabbing someone who’s been seen publicly by many eyewitnesses pillaging a shop and stabbing the owner. Failed test B sample is like the camera recording that confirms it. Defendant is still only “allegedly” guilty of the crime even. The judge and jury are like the appeal process for failed testees. The athlete is still only provisionally suspended, like an allegedly guilty person being kept in jail even though they haven’t been proven guilty and sentenced yet, and could still clear their name. CAS and the Swiss federal court are like the supreme courts of the land and the limits of the appeal process in criminal court.
Breaking the rules of sport are not criminal offences so the principles of the criminal law do not apply - and nor should they. If the facts in a doping case establish a breach of the rules - such as a confirmed test - the onus properly falls on the athlete to show legitimate cause. Intent is not required to be proven by the anti-doping authorities because in almost all cases it would be impossible to do. No doper would ever be convicted. A confirmed test is therefore the bar the athlete has to get over.
So how many people who inadvertently break the rules get convicted.
What percentage would you find acceptable ?
I'll ask you - how many who inadvertently break the rules are convicted (in other words - how many innocent athletes are wrongly convicted)? Where is the statistic on that? Further, where is the proof they were innocent? Like Shelby. Sure.
I was shocked to see Emma was one of the first people to "like" SH's post. I'm also surprised at Shalane Flanagan's continued support of SH. What do these two well-respected athletes know that we don't know? I'm not ready to thrown in the towel on Shalane and Emma, I mean I own their cookbooks...Some clarity from them would be appreciated by their fans!
That is pretty interesting to me too because Emma and Joe were definitely two of the people who signed the Clean Sport Athlete Alliance that loudly protested when the USATF was considering letting Shelby run in the trials, and I definitely remember her talking about how difficult her year had been with her mom's situation--and the look she gave Courtney, who was chattering away about the "injustice" her friend Shelby was facing lol. It didn't seem like she would be giving away insta likes for Shelbo but maybe something changed.
This whole post is a bit self righteous. She doesn't respect the sport? What a load of crap. You got a whole lot of unnecessary anger aimed at someone who likely made an ethically bad choice and had her life upended and her dreams ruined. Frankly it is less offensive than so many things said every day on these message boards.
If you had to choose between a doping banned houlihan or the brojos for a friend, I'm taking houlihan as a friend, no contest.
This is an awkward apologist thing to say as well.
So how many people who inadvertently break the rules get convicted.
What percentage would you find acceptable ?
I'll ask you - how many who inadvertently break the rules are convicted (in other words - how many innocent athletes are wrongly convicted)? Where is the statistic on that? Further, where is the proof they were innocent? Like Shelby. Sure.
We don’t know that is the point! The rules don’t require that so we don’t know.
Innocence of what; cheating or breaking strict liability?
The police (etc) decide if the holder of the gun should go to court but the courts assume innocence. Sort of the basis of western society for a good few centuries.
Breaking the rules of sport are not criminal offences so the principles of the criminal law do not apply - and nor should they. If the facts in a doping case establish a breach of the rules - such as a confirmed test - the onus properly falls on the athlete to show legitimate cause. Intent is not required to be proven by the anti-doping authorities because in almost all cases it would be impossible to do. No doper would ever be convicted. A confirmed test is therefore the bar the athlete has to get over.
Herein lies the problem. If we want to get serious about lessening doping, dopers also should also be subjected to civil penalties and even criminal investigation and prosecution. If a pro receives money in exchange for performance, then doping is a criminal act. The rigors of the investigations and the severity of the penalties need to be increased. I’m not saying that doping by oneself necessarily be a class A felony, but it should be acknowledged as a crime with true fraud and real victims.
If you were caught driving a car under influence, but claim that your Powerade was spiked with alcohol it doesn't give you a free pass.
So anti doping laws is even more lenient than criminal law. It only requires you to find a plausible source of the drugs. Which Shelby failed at. Because its a lie.
Wrong ; the burden is on the police to disprove the “ excuse” !
An interesting point he made, which is something the Johnson's and Jon seem to have not grasped, and something that Shelby keeps repeating is about "innocent until proven guilty" and how innocent athletes get wrongly caught doping. What they're all missing/willfully ignoring is that every athlete competing at present is innocent - it's only when they fail a test that they're then guilty. The system isn't set up whereby at the point of returning an adverse analytical finding the athlete should still be "innocent until proven guilty" as in the court of law, at the point of a positive B-sample and ban the athlete has been proven to be guilty.
I’d say it’s not fundamentally different from a court of criminal law. A failed drug test is like law enforcement (= WADA’s random testing staff) nabbing someone who’s been seen publicly by many eyewitnesses pillaging a shop and stabbing the owner. Failed test B sample is like the camera recording that confirms it. Defendant is still only “allegedly” guilty of the crime even. The judge and jury are like the appeal process for failed testees. The athlete is still only provisionally suspended, like an allegedly guilty person being kept in jail even though they haven’t been proven guilty and sentenced yet, and could still clear their name. CAS and the Swiss federal court are like the supreme courts of the land and the limits of the appeal process in criminal court.
It is fundamentally different from a court of criminal law. A breach of the doping rules is breaking the rules governing sports. It isn't a crime that earns the sanctions of the criminal law. That is why the burden of proof is not the same as in a criminal case.
The only thing it has in common with the criminal court process is that the grounds for the offence have to be established (to the satisfaction of those adjudicating) and the authorities have to adhere to their prescribed procedures. The process is thus open to appeal to a court - but not in the criminal jurisdiction. The similarities may be there but the difference is crucial. It is a misunderstanding of this process to see that it is either the same as the criminal law process - or that it should be. Houlihan broke certain rules governing her participation in sport; she is not a criminal (and correspondingly cannot argue she should have been tried through the criminal law process). She has been kicked out of the club for 4 years, like a member who broke the club's rules.
Breaking the rules of sport are not criminal offences so the principles of the criminal law do not apply - and nor should they. If the facts in a doping case establish a breach of the rules - such as a confirmed test - the onus properly falls on the athlete to show legitimate cause. Intent is not required to be proven by the anti-doping authorities because in almost all cases it would be impossible to do. No doper would ever be convicted. A confirmed test is therefore the bar the athlete has to get over.
Herein lies the problem. If we want to get serious about lessening doping, dopers also should also be subjected to civil penalties and even criminal investigation and prosecution. If a pro receives money in exchange for performance, then doping is a criminal act. The rigors of the investigations and the severity of the penalties need to be increased. I’m not saying that doping by oneself necessarily be a class A felony, but it should be acknowledged as a crime with true fraud and real victims.
Wada have fought this as the burdens of proof and evidence and lack of clarity as to what a related compound is are too great.
Wada applies to multi millions in each country and not just professionals ( please define).
I'll ask you - how many who inadvertently break the rules are convicted (in other words - how many innocent athletes are wrongly convicted)? Where is the statistic on that? Further, where is the proof they were innocent? Like Shelby. Sure.
We don’t know that is the point! The rules don’t require that so we don’t know.
Usada have pointed to a big number.
So what % would you find ok?
That isn't the point. Not unless you can show incontrovertible cases of wrongful conviction. You can't.
If you were caught driving a car under influence, but claim that your Powerade was spiked with alcohol it doesn't give you a free pass.
So anti doping laws is even more lenient than criminal law. It only requires you to find a plausible source of the drugs. Which Shelby failed at. Because its a lie.
Wrong ; the burden is on the police to disprove the “ excuse” !
It isn't. But, as usual, liar soorer, you are waffling about that you know nothing of. Which you will now do for the next 50 pages.