Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

okay so some ways to summarize this right now:

1. it didn't come from a burrito: even Shelby is admitting her pos test wasn't 100% certainty.

So where did it come from?

2. Shelby needs to get a job before she asks people for their money. And in all seriousness, how exactly is she paying her bills right now? is nike still sponsoring her? is she employed by them? doesn't look like it which is why she needs to crowdfund in the first place. But she's a college educated woman and she should be qualified to work in some entry level job before she asks others for their hard earned cash.

3. The website seems like a lot of junk science and we still don't know who twoggle is which honestly makes her look even more sketch.

4. her a sample and b sample is positive for nandrolone and she lost the CAS appeal.

I bet Shelby will get prosecuted for wire fraud like Floyd Landis did for soliciting donations while telling lies about never doping:

https://www.espn.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8297769/floyd-landis-avoid-jail-donors-get-reimbursed

Shadow Lurker wrote:

I just donated $51. Eat my butthole.

Sounds offal to me.

Not a summary, just your views and not without factual error.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Shadow Lurker wrote:

I just donated $51. Eat my butthole.

Sounds offal to me.

First thing said of merit.

Please accept my appreciation.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You.

Evasive answer! And one that mangles the English language.

Do try again.

What is a doping apologist?[/quote]

You.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What "vile abuse" - that she is a doper? What else is an "intentional ADRV", as determined by CAS? Obviously 2+2 is beyond you.

I have read the rules ; you refuse.

It hasn't helped you to understand them. Obviously you haven't read the CAS decision - you know, the part where it says "the Panel found she committed an intentional ADRV".

liar soorer wrote:

Webull 2.0 wrote:

Perhaps she should get a real job like the rest of us. Pay your own bills since you are an able person. Looks like Nike is not helping her. Shame on her for not telling the truth.

Deemed a highly credible witness.

Whose excuse was not accepted and was found to have committed an intentional ADRV.

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

Tell Shelby, she might.

Shadow Lurker wrote:

I just donated $51. Eat my butthole.

Yes, Shelby might. But only if it contains nandrolone.

Probably she knows all of BTC and Shalane’s reputation is at stake if it’s admitted to, and is trying to contain the damage. She took provably synthetic nandrolone, that’s all there is to it. Either she has to claim her friends and coaches did it to her without her knowing or she has to fess up, but irregardless she is a cheater.

Her cocktail of drug use was obvious.Im surprised she didnt get popped for epo as well as steroids,because im pretty sure she was on both.Almost all top tier runners in middle and long distances are on epo,with many on steroids as well.

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

Tell Shelby, she might.

Shadow Lurker wrote:

I just donated $51. Eat my butthole.

post of the year candidate.

and can all the shelby apologists please stop losing arguments to armstronglivs. I have difficulties in agreeing with so many of his posts in one thread.

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

I have read the rules ; you refuse.

It hasn't helped you to understand them. Obviously you haven't read the CAS decision - you know, the part where it says "the Panel found she committed an intentional ADRV".

And I have read the rules which said such comment is limited to a very short and narrow section of the rules.

But when asked to read about it you issued the most vile series of excrement based insults which you then cascaded on all who supported me.

The basic principle of the rules is that they don’t rule on intent. No mens rea.

jeff tallon wrote:

Her cocktail of drug use was obvious.Im surprised she didnt get popped for epo as well as steroids,because im pretty sure she was on both.Almost all top tier runners in middle and long distances are on epo,with many on steroids as well.

Obvious?

On what basis?

Explain?

Armstronglivs wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Evasive answer! And one that mangles the English language.

Do try again.

What is a doping apologist?

You.[/quote]

Marvellous!

Now try again.

Please define the term “ doping apologist”.

You have been asked this a dozen times.

On other occasions you have responded with vile excrement based insults which should have got you banned. And such insults to many others.

Irregardless of wether she is innocent or guilty if Nike “believes” in her innocence why can’t they pay legal fees? Instead u r asking Mr and Mrs Blue Collar worker to donate hard earned Benjamin’s? Is she employed? I have a son in College, I am 56 would like to retire in 9 to 11 years. If I am going to contribute money it will be to a charity not a world class athlete trying to subsidize their legal expenses

BowermanBRO wrote:

Anyone see this?

https://the-harrier.com/blogs/pros/should-you-donate-to-support-shelby-houlihan

This is great and continues to point out the Nike hypocrisy. Even if you are a Shelby fan/supporter, this should make you think twice before shelling out $250 on a pair of shoes that will last 100 miles.

I still can't get over the Michigan ekiden money situation.

Either separate yourselves publicly from Shelby or fully support her. Keeping her on the public roster and sending positive Instagram vibes is a dumb look.

FWIW, the Asics metaspeed shoes are just as good as Nike supershoes.

liar soorer wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It hasn't helped you to understand them. Obviously you haven't read the CAS decision - you know, the part where it says "the Panel found she committed an intentional ADRV".

And I have read the rules which said such comment is limited to a very short and narrow section of the rules.

But when asked to read about it you issued the most vile series of excrement based insults which you then cascaded on all who supported me.

The basic principle of the rules is that they don’t rule on intent. No mens rea.

You are wrong on this very basic point. What you are confused by is on whom the onus of proof lies. Unlike a criminal court, where the onus falls on the prosecution (because of the presumption of innocence) the onus in a doping case falls on the athlete to dispel the presumption of intent. Intent exists unless the athlete can plausibly show otherwise. The reason for this is quite simple: a banned substance doesn't just find its way into an athlete's body; it must have a cause. Unless the athlete can show they were not at fault or negligent they must be the cause. If they are the cause then their actions are intended. That is what the presumption of intent is based on.

Hence the doping authorities don't set out to prove intent. They don't have to. Because the athlete is responsible for what is in their body intent is a given unless or until the athlete can show some other cause than their own actions. Houlihan was unable to do that so she was deemed to be responsible for the presence of nandrolone in her body. No accidental cause was accepted which left her as the agent of her violation of the rules. Arriving at that conclusion, CAS found the violation was necessarily intentional.

pupil3142 wrote:

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

Tell Shelby, she might.

post of the year candidate.

and can all the shelby apologists please stop losing arguments to armstronglivs. I have difficulties in agreeing with so many of his posts in one thread.

I have difficulties agreeing with so many of my posts as well.