Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

Beppu wrote:

Jeff Albertson wrote:

I take a multivitamin along with an iron supplement every day to synthetically raise certain vitamin levels in my body. I use compression socks to synthetically increase blood flow to my lower leg muscles during workouts and races.

Do I have no moral compass?

Boosting your testosterone synthetically is EXACTLY the same. The only reason you and others are opposed to it is because “iT’s On ThE bAnNeD LiSt.”

Morally, there is nothing wrong with using science to improve performance. “Sportsmanship” is made up and changes every generation.

The definition of what a "drug" is is actually quite clear. Drugs are vitamins are different. Drugs and clothing are different. Boosting your testosterone synthetically is not the same as boosting your iron. One is a supplement, one is a drug.

Wada does not with drugs as such.

What might be a drug in one society is a supplement in an other society.

So the definition of a drug in not quite clear; it is a social construct.

Doper Queen wrote:

dumbassMF wrote:

Tempting to donate $5 just to troll her with a comment...

Was thinking exactly the same except more like 0.50 cents

Yeah, I tried $1 before posting yesterday, but it says the minimum is $5.

I was going to comment that I think she is guilty as sin, but I loved seeing her doped up legs charging down the home stretch past her clean competitors...

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You've just confirmed that you don't know what cheating is unless someone official tells you. You have no moral compass of sportsmanship of your own.

You have confirmed that you do not have the intelligence to begin to grasp the point.

Are oxygen tents or training at altitude cheating ?

Is jumping health waiting lists to get an operation that your rivals do not have any chance of ever getting cheating?

What is cheating, you have been asked a score of times but have just replied with excrement based vile vile insults.Indeed such vile excrement insults to all that disagreed with you.

You really have quite a thing about excrement - it turns up in virtually all of your posts.

As you continue to demand a definition for cheating what that demonstrates unequivocally is that you don't know what it is.

Jeff Albertson wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You've just confirmed that you don't know what cheating is unless someone official tells you. You have no moral compass of sportsmanship of your own.

I take a multivitamin along with an iron supplement every day to synthetically raise certain vitamin levels in my body. I use compression socks to synthetically increase blood flow to my lower leg muscles during workouts and races.

Do I have no moral compass?

Boosting your testosterone synthetically is EXACTLY the same. The only reason you and others are opposed to it is because “iT’s On ThE bAnNeD LiSt.”

Morally, there is nothing wrong with using science to improve performance. “Sportsmanship” is made up and changes every generation.

If there is "nothing morally wrong with using science to improve performance" there would be no objection to performance enhancing drugs, and they would not be banned. They are - and so science can be morally wrong. Yet training and technological advances are not banned. The issue is not the use of science as such but science used improperly or unfairly.

Sportsmanship is a code that evolves from an understanding, that sports should be played fairly. It is from that understanding that rules and codes of conduct evolve. Implicit within it is the understanding that competitors should not seek to gain an advantage over other competitors that those competitors would not have - or would not choose to avail themselves of for reasons of sportsmanship - other than the advantages conferred by talent, training and technique.

Joe Mama wrote:

She posted on IG about the sport needing radical reform bc clean athletes are being sacrificed to catch all the dirty athletes. So it has me wondering, who are the other clean athletes, if any, that are being sacrificed?

The Bernard Lagat fiasco in 2003 immediately comes to mind. He was able to hire a technical expert to prove his innocence, but others haven't been so lucky.

WADA et al. really don't give a sh*t if they destroy people's careers and lives, because nobody in WADA or the governing bodies pays any consequences for doing so.

Taro wrote:

Joe Mama wrote:

She posted on IG about the sport needing radical reform bc clean athletes are being sacrificed to catch all the dirty athletes. So it has me wondering, who are the other clean athletes, if any, that are being sacrificed?

The Bernard Lagat fiasco in 2003 immediately comes to mind. He was able to hire a technical expert to prove his innocence, but others haven't been so lucky.

WADA et al. really don't give a sh*t if they destroy people's careers and lives, because nobody in WADA or the governing bodies pays any consequences for doing so.

Search USADA and no fault convictions and also wada about food contamination.

Yes ; sportsmanship is a social construct and differs from time to time and place to place.

Thus artificial and not an essential construct nor part of any absolute morality.

At one point you could not be coached as such was unnatural advantage and then you could not earn any money.

You have the cart before the horse. Drugs banned as dangerous having been banned then there use was against the rules and thus cheating.

I invited you to go on a course of jurisprudence and you replied that you were qualified in law.

I now invited you to take a course in moral philosophy; I now expect that you will inform me that you hold a Chair in Existentialism at Stanford.

Or a farming doctorate to justify your previous foul mouthed animal excrement insults to many other posters.

Joe Mama wrote:

She posted on IG about the sport needing radical reform bc clean athletes are being sacrificed to catch all the dirty athletes. So it has me wondering, who are the other clean athletes, if any, that are being sacrificed?

Diane Modahl was banned in 1994 and proved her innocence in 1996.

Are there examples of athletes who continued to insist they were innocent and appeal their ban for years afterwards and were unable to prove their innocence? Houlihan might have nothing to lose if she only spends the gofundme money, but if that isn't enough, she might use some of her own money. What does she have to gain if she isn't innocent?

She didn't prove her innocence; she simply won the appeal in 1995 because of an alleged lab screw up (that the first panel didn't accept).

BBC 1994:

Independent 1995:

No such arguments are being made by Shelburrito - she just blamed the burrito.

Well hypothetically she could win an appeal without being innocent (but she already lost her appeal).

Lawson for example won his appeal. Was he innocent? CAS ruled that his roids were "more likely than not" from eating beef; no proof was provided that the roids were in the beef.

The question answered by the Modahl case was to illustrate a false positive; it was not Intended to relate to SH.

But you knew that!

casual obsever wrote:She didn't prove her innocence

I misspoke. You can't prove innocence; you can only be found guilty or not guilty and she was found not guilty.

Are you implying that Modahl was actually guilty, but somehow immediately knew there was a screw-up in the lab, so she would have a good chance of successfully appealing, despite her guilt?

Her legal fees were approximately £500,000. I find it hard to believe someone would spend so much money protesting their innocence if they were guilty. Do you know of any athletes who made similar legal challenges, at enormous cost, and weren't successful? If there are no examples and only examples of athletes protesting their innocence who are eventually found not guilty, that would lead me to take the claims of those protesting their innocence seriously.

Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:

casual obsever wrote:She didn't prove her innocence

I misspoke. You can't prove innocence; you can only be found guilty or not guilty and she was found not guilty.

Are you implying that Modahl was actually guilty, but somehow immediately knew there was a screw-up in the lab, so she would have a good chance of successfully appealing, despite her guilt?

Her legal fees were approximately £500,000. I find it hard to believe someone would spend so much money protesting their innocence if they were guilty. Do you know of any athletes who made similar legal challenges, at enormous cost, and weren't successful? If there are no examples and only examples of athletes protesting their innocence who are eventually found not guilty, that would lead me to take the claims of those protesting their innocence seriously.

Source for your £500,000 claim? How much did she pay vs Nike/BTC?...

ghat man wrote:

Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:

I misspoke. You can't prove innocence; you can only be found guilty or not guilty and she was found not guilty.

Are you implying that Modahl was actually guilty, but somehow immediately knew there was a screw-up in the lab, so she would have a good chance of successfully appealing, despite her guilt?

Her legal fees were approximately £500,000. I find it hard to believe someone would spend so much money protesting their innocence if they were guilty. Do you know of any athletes who made similar legal challenges, at enormous cost, and weren't successful? If there are no examples and only examples of athletes protesting their innocence who are eventually found not guilty, that would lead me to take the claims of those protesting their innocence seriously.

Source for your £500,000 claim? How much did she pay vs Nike/BTC?...

You have got the ladies mixed up.

Anarcho-Bidenist wrote:

Are you implying that Modahl was actually guilty, but somehow immediately knew there was a screw-up in the lab, so she would have a good chance of successfully appealing, despite her guilt?

Not at all. The lab screw up was already known before the first panel met. That panel however, as cited above, did not accept the lack of refrigeration as a possible reason for the high testo concentration.

She then logically and successfully appealed, because there was a good chance of success, yes.

I have no idea whether Modahl was actually guilty. My point is that guilty and innocent people alike appeal first instance decisions.

Well known examples for the guilty ones - who lost their appeal to CAS - include Coleman and Houlihan and Jeptoo and Salazar, to name a few.

Winning a case on a procedural technicality isn't proving your innocence.

Track athletes need to act like LeBron or Tom Brady. They are professional athletes and need to vet any food sources, have their own chefs, and know the entire history of what they eat.

kow992928288ii wrote:

Winning a case on a procedural technicality isn't proving your innocence.

Track athletes need to act like LeBron or Tom Brady. They are professional athletes and need to vet any food sources, have their own chefs, and know the entire history of what they eat.

Wada or IOC changed the procedures to ensure that this procedural technicality did not occur again.

ie the procedures gave false positives.

Most on Wada testing are amateurs and earn nothing let alone the multi millions of LeBron et al . Who by the way are not Wada tested.

Do read prior to posting.

Distance runners…distance running followers in general are notoriously cheap…frugal if you will.

Goal of 300k?

Team Houlihan did not think this through.

Go Sweden wrote:

Distance runners…distance running followers in general are notoriously cheap…frugal if you will.

Goal of 300k?

Team Houlihan did not think this through.

that applies to everything they’ve done from the moment she got popped. They couldn’t have screwed this up better if they tried.

the gofundme page is a really bad look for someone whose reputation is already three quarters of the way down the toilet.

Go Sweden wrote:

Distance runners…distance running followers in general are notoriously cheap…frugal if you will.

Goal of 300k?

Team Houlihan did not think this through.

Also, that attorney of hers was NOT worth that much. He royally screwed up the statements and they had HOW long to prepare? I have zero idea how that guy is the "go to" in the field.