ruppaholic wrote:
How is this even legal. I would sooner light my money on fire than see any of it go to this fund. She should be behind bars and be responsible for repaying all of her sponsors.
Obviously Nike does not care if its athletes dope. They are of to the win at all costs mentality.
pavement88 wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Exactly , not cheating .
Just breaking the rules of sport in a way that warrants a 4 year ban, gotcha.
You are correct but not cheating.
liar soorer wrote:
pavement88 wrote:
She was found to have significantly elevated levels of a PED in her urine and could not offer a realistic explanation. Is that what you mean?
Exactly , not cheating .
shelby is a lying drug cheat.
sue me.
Raddison wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
If Nike won't pay them, why would anyone else?
I think this is the nub of the situation. Nowhere on her web page does she mention Nike, or their confidence she is innocent, or their continuing support of her etc. etc. Reading between the lines it looks like Nike have cut her adrift and she has lost all their funding. This is probably an attempt to replace that funding through crowd sourcing.
Which then raises the question, if she does raise $300K how much of that will go towards legal fees and how much will go towards maintaining her lifestyle as a professional athlete for the next three years?
Yes, I'm guessing Nike's contracts are pretty good for Nike....either a clause re: doping or just a blanket "you can be released at any time for any reason or no reason."
pupil3142 wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Exactly , not cheating .
shelby is a lying drug cheat.
sue me.
She is not a cheat.
Sue me!
thoughts and prayers wrote:
Lol
Twoggles blog is cited as supporting evidence…they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Yeah, in all honesty, she needs a better team (lawyer, strategist, PR). That the site mentions boar offal is, uhh, awful—JV level stuff.
liar soorer polluting another discussion thread.
Devil's advocate: could she be innocent?
On her GoFundMe she explains that the positive result might come from meat she ate the previous night. Is that at all possible?
One thing I find suspect is this though:
She was not even aware what Nandrolone was.
For a professional athlete, that doesn't seem likely.
DumDumSum wrote:
thoughts and prayers wrote:
Lol
Twoggles blog is cited as supporting evidence…they really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Yeah, in all honesty, she needs a better team (lawyer, strategist, PR). That the site mentions boar offal is, uhh, awful—JV level stuff.
Problem is that with the strict liability rule and the flipped burden where she had to prove where a drug came from a month after a test then no lawyers stand a chance.
And, I repeat, the only grounds for appeal are procedural and I just can’t see what they may be.
$3,800 so far. This is absurd. Lol
People not only suck but they're stupid AF.
dullard wrote:
liar soorer polluting another discussion thread.
No just explaining why there may be enough to support her. How is that polluting?
Rather helpful.
return to index wrote:
Devil's advocate: could she be innocent?
On her GoFundMe she explains that the positive result might come from meat she ate the previous night. Is that at all possible?
One thing I find suspect is this though:
She was not even aware what Nandrolone was.
For a professional athlete, that doesn't seem likely.
No. There is no feasible explainarion for the amount of the substance that was found in her system getting in there by accident.
No one with even a 3rd grade education could believe her intake of the banned substance was anything other than an intentional attempt at gaining an unfair advantage. There is no other explainarion regardless if what she and trolls here say.
return to index wrote:
Devil's advocate: could she be innocent?
On her GoFundMe she explains that the positive result might come from meat she ate the previous night. Is that at all possible?
One thing I find suspect is this though:
She was not even aware what Nandrolone was.
For a professional athlete, that doesn't seem likely.
You have a far higher view on the education of runners than many might.
kow992928288ii wrote:
return to index wrote:
Devil's advocate: could she be innocent?
On her GoFundMe she explains that the positive result might come from meat she ate the previous night. Is that at all possible?
One thing I find suspect is this though:
She was not even aware what Nandrolone was.
For a professional athlete, that doesn't seem likely.
No. There is no feasible explainarion for the amount of the substance that was found in her system getting in there by accident.
No one with even a 3rd grade education could believe her intake of the banned substance was anything other than an intentional attempt at gaining an unfair advantage. There is no other explainarion regardless if what she and trolls here say.
However not convicted for cheating.
And you assume something strange by saying “ her intake”. Such was never tested.
liar soorer wrote:
kow992928288ii wrote:
No. There is no feasible explainarion for the amount of the substance that was found in her system getting in there by accident.
No one with even a 3rd grade education could believe her intake of the banned substance was anything other than an intentional attempt at gaining an unfair advantage. There is no other explainarion regardless if what she and trolls here say.
However not convicted for cheating.
And you assume something strange by saying “ her intake”. Such was never tested.
I would add that a 3rd grader would find it impossible to think that a regularity tested athlete would take the easy to test Nandrolone. One of the SARS , yes but not Deca.
liar soorer wrote:
Problem is that with the strict liability rule and the flipped burden where she had to prove where a drug came from a month after a test then no lawyers stand a chance.
And, I repeat, the only grounds for appeal are procedural and I just can’t see what they may be.
Do you believe that in order for a person to be convicted with drunk driving (even where they kill other people) that the police must prove that the alcohol got into the drivers system voluntarily? How do you propose they do that? That would be ridiculous and no justice system anywhere requires that.
It is not strict liability. They proved she had the drugs in her body, at that point she could have escaped penalty if she was able to prove it got there accidentally. She was not able to do that. She told a story which was incapable of belief on the facts. Shelby fans, on the other hand, are willing to believe the earth is flat if it means she didn't do it and do not care for facts, just the result they want to believe.
Drunk drivers have the same option; they can escape penalty if they can prove they were drugged and did not voluntarily get intoxicated.
So is Jonathan Gault donating? He thinks shelbo is innocent.
liar soorer wrote:
DumDumSum wrote:
Yeah, in all honesty, she needs a better team (lawyer, strategist, PR). That the site mentions boar offal is, uhh, awful—JV level stuff.
Problem is that with the strict liability rule and the flipped burden where she had to prove where a drug came from a month after a test then no lawyers stand a chance.
And, I repeat, the only grounds for appeal are procedural and I just can’t see what they may be.
In terms of overturning the ban, yeah, there's very little to no chance. But although the Nike $$ is likely gone forever, if she wants a running career in 4 years (I mean, everyone just accepted Gatlin back and she could maybe run the marathon), then she needs a better story and better messaging now: the CAS person is biased and made mistakes, the burrito defense was dumb but it was Nike's or BTC's idea, she never knowingly took nandrolone but it could have been A,B,C.... As a PR gimmick, I'm not sure this website and defense fund is a bad idea—but it does look like she's doing it very sloppily, which I think reflects it's an amateur effort at this point.
BTC recently had 20,000 prize money they could have donated as a show of support…but didn’t.
She's a cheat. Intention is not required to be outside of the rules of play and thus cheating. Same as if you went off course where it wasn't clear where to turn and wound up cutting the course. Intentionally or not, her values were found to be outside the allowable range within the rules of the sport. That stuff was in her, no matter whether she intended for it to be there. Being outside the rules certainly is cheating, even if you didn't realize that you were outside the rules.