avonaioen wrote:
I have truly never seen someone who has been banned for doping treated with such kid gloves. Ever. Not with any of the cyclists, not with Marion, Gatlin, not with the Russians, Kenyans, Ethiopians.....anyone.
It's honestly fascinating to watch, and wild to see what people come up with to defend her.
Can you imagine when Ruth Jebet tested positive, instead of calling her a cheater, we waxed poetic about "presence , not taking" and "improbable not impossible"?
All of it is semantics. Take emotion out of it and ask yourself why it hurts so much to call Shelby a doper when literally anyone else who found themselves in that position would be labeled a doper immediately. So what changed?
I don’t know — since 2015, USADA’s Tygart has helped 27 athletes achieve “no fault” sanctions — I’d say these athletes got treated with kid gloves, while Houlihan got double-gloved.
What changed? One thing is that the WADA Code changed in 2015 to place a much heavier burden on the athlete. Another is the TD for Nandrolone changed in 2021 warning WADA labs to treat potential pork ingestion differently when testing for Nandrolone and reporting results.
The facts for Ruth Jebet are more damning. Ruth Jebet was found with both an abnormal ABP profile and EPO in her urine, and she admitted getting shots to explain the source of the EPO. EPO is not known to be accidentally ingested endogenously in publicly available food. Similarly, the facts for cyclists, Marion, Gatlin, and the Russians are all more damning.
I think it is not just Houlihan. With regard to Kenyans, over 14 years, 49 Kenyans were sanctioned for nandrolone. Maybe they were all railroaded to a full ban too. Kenya is a country that largely does not castrate its pigs. How many of these 49 were unjustly sanctioned?
If you don’t want to look at Houlihan, look at the case of Simon Getzmann. He was able to successfully prove “not intentional”, and he still served more than 1 year suspension, and spent more than 10,000 Euros in scientific testing and legal fees. And it still counts as his first violation. He cleared his name, at the great expense of time and money and inability to compete, and yet we can still call him a one-time “doper”.
If Getzmann had consumed all of his legally produced and prescribed WADA-legal pain-killers, he would have suffered the same fate as Houlihan, being unable to prove the source to a panel on the balance of probability.
Something is seriously wrong with this justice system created to protect clean and diligent athletes. Most athletes, like surely many of the 49 Kenyans above, cannot always afford lawyers and scientific testing to clear their names.
For all this talk about the finding of “intentional”, the CAS promised to provide us the “grounds” for their findings, yet where are the grounds in the report for any finding of “intentional”? The WADA code refers “intentional” as meaning athletes engaging in conduct meeting certain conditions. Did the CAS show that their finding of “intentional” meets all of the conditions in WADA’s meaning? Where in the CAS report can we find what conduct Houlihan was found to have engaged in? Eating a burrito? Should she have known that eating a greasy pork burrito was risky, and she manifestly disregarded that risk? That is un-rebutted athlete conduct that can be found in the CAS report.