Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's going on with Shelby Houlihan? [can run in OT... back out]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

    Feelings aren't facts. Flanagan honestly feels Houlihan is innocent, but that doesn't make it true.
    Now I wonder what Flanagan thinks about her snide remark after Hasay bettered her time in Chicago.

    Comment


    • this thread now closed for a couple of hours

      Comment


      • It's a shame she was unable to run, because local Mexican food chain Burrito Boy was seeking to sponsor any event in which she took part.

        Comment


        • It's become clear that Houlihan and her team erred greatly in getting her case expedited through CAS. As the McNeal case shows she would have at least been able to run the Trials, likely make the team, and depending on the timing of a CAS decision perhaps even run the Games. Also with the extra time to collect evidence it's quite possible there may have been a different outcome.
          There are no strings on me

          Comment


          • Originally posted by guru View Post
            It's become clear that Houlihan and her team erred greatly in getting her case expedited through CAS. As the McNeal case shows she would have at least been able to run the Trials, likely make the team, and depending on the timing of a CAS decision perhaps even run the Games. Also with the extra time to collect evidence it's quite possible there may have been a different outcome.
            Yes, it is hard to understand their thinking on this. Their case was so full of holes especially the nandrolone denial that is hard to believe they thought they could have won. So racing through with the appeal wasn't a great idea. Pure arrogance I suppose....though the BTC Jaeger's and Quigley's surprising withdrawals just before the Trials perhaps "suggests" not everyone there was convinced.
            Last edited by Conor Dary; 06-21-2021, 07:32 PM.

            Comment


            • Quigley is no longer with BTC. Are you suggesting her departure has anything to do with this Houlihan situation?

              Comment


              • While the withdrawals of Jager and Quigley are surprising, I, too, have seen nothing that "suggests" anything connects the withdrawals to BTC's handling of the Houlihan affair.

                Comment


                • Great article by Robert Johnson of Let's Run (available on L-R) asking "16 Questions that Need to be Answered in the Shelby Houlihan Case".
                  He doesn't answer them, but they're directed at various people, including Shelby, Schumacher, her lawyer Greene, and various others!
                  And he doesn't conclude anything!

                  Based on these questions, and his stated doubts about her guilt, I remain strongly believing she'll be vindicated, and soon!
                  She won't be serving a 4 year ban!

                  I hope she sues the bastards who have ruined her career and her life---even if temporarily!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by aaronk View Post
                    Great article by Robert Johnson of Let's Run (available on L-R) asking "16 Questions that Need to be Answered in the Shelby Houlihan Case".
                    He doesn't answer them, but they're directed at various people, including Shelby, Schumacher, her lawyer Greene, and various others!
                    And he doesn't conclude anything!

                    Based on these questions, and his stated doubts about her guilt, I remain strongly believing she'll be vindicated, and soon!
                    She won't be serving a 4 year ban!

                    I hope she sues the bastards who have ruined her career and her life---even if temporarily!
                    Sues "them" for what? She had 2.5 times the allowable limit of a banned substance in her system! Something to the tune of 20 times the amount that some others who have provided documented proof of ingesting something accidentally from food. Her "team" has done some questionable things in trying to provide a defense. Her story had been vague and evolved. Give it a rest! There is a very high probability she is guilty and she had an adequate opportunity to present her case. I doubt you would believe it even if they had video proof of her injecting herself with a needle. Sometimes heroes prove to be anything but. Who is she going to sue? Should we just get a list of your favorite athletes and stop drug testing completely for any of them?
                    Last edited by odelltrclan; 06-23-2021, 04:18 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by aaronk View Post
                      Great article by Robert Johnson of Let's Run (available on L-R) asking "16 Questions that Need to be Answered in the Shelby Houlihan Case".
                      He doesn't answer them, but they're directed at various people, including Shelby, Schumacher, her lawyer Greene, and various others!
                      And he doesn't conclude anything!

                      Based on these questions, and his stated doubts about her guilt, I remain strongly believing she'll be vindicated, and soon!
                      She won't be serving a 4 year ban!

                      I hope she sues the bastards who have ruined her career and her life---even if temporarily!
                      Did he ask these two questions because they are the ones that count.

                      Did she have Nandrolone over the allowable limit? The answer is yes.

                      Did she present evidence conclusive to any thinking human as to an alternative source of the Nandrolone? The answer is no.

                      That is all.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by guru View Post
                        It's become clear that Houlihan and her team erred greatly in getting her case expedited through CAS. As the McNeal case shows she would have at least been able to run the Trials, likely make the team, and depending on the timing of a CAS decision perhaps even run the Games. Also with the extra time to collect evidence it's quite possible there may have been a different outcome.
                        I don't think that the McNeal case shows that at all. McNeal did NOT test positive for a banned substance, Houlihan did. So that's a very different situation.

                        McNeal's case involves a tampering charge, resulting from a "he said, she said" regarding a missed drug test in January, 2020. Missing a drug test, even while doing whatever exactly they consider "tampering" to be, still isn't the same as a confirmed positive drug test.

                        Houlihan had already been suspended since January, 2021. How many runners in history have been allowed to continue competing in events like the Olympic Trials and the Olympics after they have recently tested positive for a banned substance? Can't be many.

                        Even if Houlihan hadn't decided to skip the middle appeal step (the step before CAS), why would that organization in the middle give Houlihan a temporary injunction (basically suspending her suspension) in order for her to run in the Olympic Trials knowing that she had tested positive for a banned substance? Houlihan doesn't even have any evidence to support her, just a lot of maybe this happened, maybe that happened.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by RunningInCircles View Post

                          I don't think that the McNeal case shows that at all. McNeal did NOT test positive for a banned substance, Houlihan did. So that's a very different situation.

                          McNeal's case involves a tampering charge, resulting from a "he said, she said" regarding a missed drug test in January, 2020. Missing a drug test, even while doing whatever exactly they consider "tampering" to be, still isn't the same as a confirmed positive drug test.
                          Due to strict liability for having banned substances in your system, if you test positive, the case is proven by the testing body, simple. WADA recognises that there may be non-doping reasons why but the onus is then on the athlete to prove a non-doping reason, not on WADA to disprove their argument. Some can prove their case (Shubenkov), some can't (Houlihan).

                          As pointed out, McNeal did not have an adverse analytical finding, so is not automatically guilty like Houlihan. In McNeal's case, the onus remains on the testing agency to prove the case at each stage of the process.

                          As said, two very different situations.

                          Comment


                          • CAS releases its full decision on Houlihan. She gets 4 years.

                            Comment


                            • text of the CAS decision:

                              https://cdn.dmcl.biz/media/file/2164...AL+%281%29.pdf

                              Comment


                              • So, this is the end of the road? No further action possible to reverse this? Guess her career is over!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X