Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • Sovietvest
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • philipo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sovietvest
    commented on 's reply
    Due to the expedited CAS hearing I referred to earlier, Houlihan essentially agreed to a single hearing with no further appeal.

  • larkim
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • philipo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • philipo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • trickstat
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • Sovietvest
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sovietvest
    commented on 's reply
    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.

  • larkim
    commented on 's reply
    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?

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

  • Occasional Hope
    replied
    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.)

    Leave a comment:


  • larkim
    commented on 's reply
    First time I've agreed with Goucher!

  • alfie
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • LuckySpikes
    commented on 's reply
    ... With some persuasion from the Athletics Integrity Unit it seems - https://twitter.com/aiu_athletics/st...65231825739776
Working...
X