Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HUGE NEWS! Shelby Houlihan doping positive - Banned for 4 years!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by LuckySpikes View Post

    If there were no other BTC athletes competing I would say that's a great idea. However, if they refused to race, Cranny & S Johnson in the 1500 wouldn't refuse and neither would the 4 BTC athletes in the 5000. So, by refusing they wouldn't be forcing USATF to run the races without Houlihan, they'd just be giving all those BTC athletes a completely free ride on to the team.

    Should they refuse to race regardless? That's tough if you're in the form of your life and an Olympic place is on the line! I know, principles 'n all that but still ...
    Dont you guys understand. To Americans you are only guilty if you don't get found out, or grimy little lawyers fail you.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by larkim View Post
      The massive levels of nadrolone compared to the trace elements that would be present if the boar excuse was even valid make it a nonsense that anyone considers that to be a legitimate excuse. And that seems to be what CAS have concluded. If this was a ban imposed by USADA before appeal I'd have some thought that her defence might hold water prior to a CAS appeal, but I can't see how anyone can take a press conference display as compelling when CAS have already dismissed her spurious defence.

      It's an utter disgrace that she'll be on the start at the trials, the other athletes should refuse to race.
      Absolutely. Must remember to make no further comments on anything the Yanks achieve in Track and Field. Makes me feel sick.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by trickstat View Post

        I agree that talk of trace amounts in this context is misleading as many people would probably have these as a result of a relatively normal diet.
        Glad to read Soviets comments which only go to prove that Americans are only interested in being clean in so far as you don't get found out when you do cheat.. A shit nation with no integrity are making the usual cynical nationalist clap trap to excuse Houilihan. Do those shits think we have forgotten the endless list of sprinters and 400m Americans who cheated to success??
        Why did Houlihans cheating even go the CAS appeal; was it because they believed after the other scandals of the American meat eaters that she would be found not guilty. But they were wrong.
        The greatest disgrace for me is that Coe, WA, WADA and CAS have said nowt.

        Comment


        • Laps
          Laps commented
          Editing a comment
          It isn't any sort of disgrace that Coe, WA, or WADA haven't told you what they are saying to USTAF behind the scenes.
          The rules will be set down about the whether athletes can compete during an appeals process. I have no idea what they are but I would be confident that WA will demand that the rules be adhered to. Unfortunately lawyers and appeals processes are part of the world we live in.

      • #34
        A letter signed by some high profile US athletes stating that they're "saddened and angered" by Houlihan being allowed to compete at US trials and calling on USATF to reverse their decision. Coburn, Bartoletta, Cain, Goucher, Huddle & Sisson probably the most well known names.

        https://mobile.twitter.com/CleanSpor...66744698425344

        Comment


        • LuckySpikes
          LuckySpikes commented
          Editing a comment
          Good on them!

        • larkim
          larkim commented
          Editing a comment
          First time I've agreed with Goucher!

      • #35
        AHA! The US Olympic Committee has seen sense, overridden the USATF and said Houlihan cannot compete at the Trials - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports...se/7739717002/

        Comment


        • LuckySpikes
          LuckySpikes commented
          Editing a comment
          ... With some persuasion from the Athletics Integrity Unit it seems - https://twitter.com/aiu_athletics/st...65231825739776

        • trickstat
          trickstat commented
          Editing a comment
          What was odd that the USATF took this stance without there being a court injunction in the works. If she had run there would have been the threat of suspension for the others in the race. While I suspect, in the circumstances of it being the US trials, WA wouldn't go through with it, that wouldn't be very pleasant for them.

      • #36
        Was somewhat bemused by the apparent willingness of the US authorities to allow her to run the trial , as her appeal had been already rejected by CAS , if I understand correctly. Sure , her lawyers will no doubt keep trying - as is their right ; but letting her compete while under official suspension really would have been a finger up to all the rules of International sports and surely a bit much for even the USA...Glad to hear sense has prevailed , whatever pressure was needed. Perhaps someone showed them Philipo's posts ☺

        As to her guilt or innocence : I have no idea as only she herself could actually know for certain if she were truly clean. But the rather far fetched Burrito story and the claim that neither she nor her experienced coach had ever heard of Nandrolone do not suggest a strong case for benefit of doubt. I'd imagine if the positive was a case of accidental ingestion it would be more likely to be due to a contaminated supplement. They've apparently not sought to put that forward anyway - and one must note even if it were so a ban would still apply.

        I've long ago given up "judging" athletes who fail tests. It is something we all find near impossible to separate from our personal biases ; and as observers we are not really in a position to make a very informed conclusion. I am content to simply accept strict liability and leave it to the courts. Far from perfect , of course. But better than no rules at all.

        And yes there are of course performances I take with a degree of scepticism and athletes I rather expect might one day fall foul of the law. But not being omnipotent I will just have to hope for karma to strike eventually where needed...

        Comment


        • MysteryBrick
          MysteryBrick commented
          Editing a comment
          Alfie, that's much too level-headed a response for this forum...

      • #37
        One interesting thing about this case is how hushed up it all was - we never heard a thing until the CAS had made their final ruling. Normally you hear before any appeals, eg Brianna McNeal's case is well reported and she has a CAS appeal in the works. (She is being allowed to compete at the US trials pending heir decision.)

        Comment


        • larkim
          larkim commented
          Editing a comment
          Yes, I'd wondered about that too. Normally the NADO issues the first stage ban (or provisional suspension) and then the road to CAS is played out in public. Makes you wonder if there are other athletes out there "popped" and still competing whilst a CAS hearing is pending. Did SH compete between the initial finding and the CAS outcome, or did she just hide away behind some "not ready to compete yet" or "focussed on being sharp for the Trials" etc etc?

        • Sovietvest
          Sovietvest commented
          Editing a comment
          AIU provisionally suspended her in Jan. She could not compete. She then entered a limbo period when AIU didn’t charge her. She was going to miss the Trials so her lawyer petitioned for her case to be expedited via CAS. If I understand correctly that means one hearing and no chance to appeal, except to the Swiss Courts.

      • #38
        Originally posted by larkim View Post
        The massive levels of nadrolone compared to the trace elements that would be present if the boar excuse was even valid make it a nonsense that anyone considers that to be a legitimate excuse.
        I think this is the nub of the case. Her team have stated that the level of nandrolone was consistent with eating pig offal 10 hours before a test. I’ve read here and elsewhere that you would need to eat 300g. So either they are saying she ate that quantity - patently nonsense - or the figure we are all reading of 300g is wrong (incorrect scientific data on the web wouldn’t be a rare event). I hope CAS give their full ruling ASAP and address this definitively.

        Comment


        • #39
          Thank you Alfie. I've said my piece and salute my fellow posters,people of integrity and fairnes Glad to see Molly Seidel also knows the damage done by the corrupt UsaTf, USADA.

          Comment


          • #40
            Originally posted by Occasional Hope View Post
            One interesting thing about this case is how hushed up it all was - we never heard a thing until the CAS had made their final ruling. Normally you hear before any appeals, eg Brianna McNeal's case is well reported and she has a CAS appeal in the works. (She is being allowed to compete at the US trials pending heir decision.)
            my thoughts also.

            Comment


            • larkim
              larkim commented
              Editing a comment
              I wonder if the nature of the offence (tampering) makes this more reasonable. e.g. if there is a finding of fact that athlete A has steroid B in their body, strict liability means they are done for. But whilst tampering etc might in the end be a far more serious offence, there is always the potential that the appeal will be upheld and the athlete's physicality etc will be untainted (in theory) by the fact that they were accused and acquitted of something.

            • Sovietvest
              Sovietvest commented
              Editing a comment
              Due to the expedited CAS hearing I referred to earlier, Houlihan essentially agreed to a single hearing with no further appeal.

          • #41
            What an excellent article on the Houlihan doping shame by a USA Today reporter, setting out why the illegal attempt by the USA to trash the rules they entered into, is a shame on their athletics authorities. Well worth reading.
            Why should i believe a single athletic achievement by their athletes who might be trying to engineer a way through the rules they entered into as set out as part of the anti doping structure. The American hypocrisy is breathtaking and as pointed out, any athlete could spend their career appealing somewhere or other whilst continuing to take part.
            Is the act attempted by the Americans ignorance, stupidity or cynicism or a combination of the three?.
            Last edited by philipo; 19-06-21, 15:19.

            Comment


            • #42
              Whilst for me the jury is out as to whether SH went rogue and doped, I believe her team sincerely believe in her. How they've conducted themselves subsequently is, rather than hypocrisy or cynicism, a case of self righteousness indignation and fury + belief in US exceptionalism + ignorance of the rest of the world + arrogance + privilege = truly appalling behaviour that undermines them and the sport they profess to love.

              Comment

              Working...
              X