Maybe, Just Maybe, She's Guilty

If you're confused by the Shelby Houlihan situation and how was handled by USA Track & Field, you're not alone.  Just days after Houlihan very publicly announced that she had received a four-year doping ban and blamed it on a burrito, she was listed on the start list for both the 1500 meters and 5000 meters at Olympic Trials.

Predictably, there was a considerable amount of blow back when the start lists were posted and her name appeared.  A group of self-proclaimed "clean" athletes posted a letter on social media asking why she was being allowed to compete and demanding she be withdrawn (more on that in a minute).

USATF offered an "explanation" that basically amounted to they were waiting for the official paperwork to come through.  Once they got the paperwork (which must've been sent in the middle of the night in Switzerland), Houlihan's name was removed.  However, there are also articles implying that it was actually the USOPC who forced the issue, reminding USATF that, as a member of WADA, they're bound by WADA's decision.  I'm not sure which is true, but I have a feeling there's some truth to both versions.

Meanwhile, Brianna McNeal, the defending Olympic champion in the women's 100 meter hurdles, was allowed to compete at Trials while her appeal is pending.  McNeal wasn't just allowed to compete.  She made the team!  Her spot is conditional depending on how her appeal goes, and the CAS has said that they'll have a final decision on McNeal's case before the Olympics.  But the point remains.  She's suspended, but was still allowed to compete at Trials and potentially in Tokyo.

Of course, the situations are different.  Houlihan actually failed a test, while McNeal did not.  Her violation is a whereabouts failure (the same thing that cost Christian Coleman his Olympic shot), and her appeal is based on confusion regarding the dates of her missed tests.  If it's upheld, this will be McNeal's second whereabouts suspension (she missed the 2017 World Championships because of the first one), and it will keep her out of both the Tokyo and Paris Olympics, as well as next year's World Championships at Hayward Field.

In the case of McNeal, the CAS agreed that she should be allowed to compete pending her appeal because it was cause "irreparable harm" if her appeal was successful.  Basically, they didn't want to deny her her only chance at making the Olympic team, just in case.  With Houlihan, however, there's no doubt.  She won't get an appeal (at least not before the Olympics), so it would've been inappropriate for her to run at Trials for a spot that she wasn't even eligible to accept...while also potentially denying someone else that spot.

All of that sounds pretty reasonable.  But that hasn't stopped Houlihan's supporters from claiming that she's "totally innocent" and "definitely not a doper."  Even though these are many of the same people who do consider McNeal (and Christian Coleman) a "doper," even though WADA has made it clear both times she's been suspended that she wasn't being accused of taking any banned substances.

Prominent Olympic journalist Alan Abrahamson called out all of these Houlihan apologists pretty harshly for their double standard.  His argument that the people in Houlihan's corner now are the same ones who think every Russian is "dirty" and are quick to question the legitimacy of any new record or the results of somebody who came seemingly out of the blue, with "he/she must be doping" being the common refrain.  (In fairness, sometimes they are, but how many times is that unfair assumption automatically the first thing anyone thinks?)

Abrahamson also made a very good (and often unspoken point) in another post.  The whole argument about why Shelby Houlihan "couldn't possibly" be guilty of the doping violation she's accused of is because she's the stereotypical white girl distance runner, and the white girl distance runners are the clean ones!  That's why all the outrage was directed at WADA this time.  How dare they accuse innocent little Shelby?!  They must be out to get her!

Except there's one problem with that argument, Houlihan's defense is pretty weak.  She tested positive for nandrolone, one of the most common anabolic steroids.  Both Houlihan and her coach, Jerry Schumacher, claimed to not even know what nandrolone is!  How is that even possible?  As a world-class athlete who's subject to random drug testing 365 days a year, she should know what substances are on the banned list.  And nandrolone has been on the list for a while now.  Not knowing what it is isn't just a display of ignorance.  It's a display of stupidity.

It's true that some athletes have been able to prove that they unwittingly ingested nandrolone from contaminated meat, and had suspensions reduced or completely dismissed as a result.  So, Houlihan also tried the contaminated meat defense.  It must've been something in the pork burrito she ate the day before the test!  Problem is, according to her lawyer, she had a steak burrito.  How did the contaminated pork get into the steak burrito then?

Also, sorry, but the whole "I love running" defense rings hollow too.  No one doubts that Shelby Houlihan loves running.  She likely wouldn't have made it her chosen profession otherwise.  That's not really the point!  That's also not the issue here.  You can love your sport and still take a banned substance (either intentionally or not...it really doesn't matter)!  Does anyone think Lance Armstrong doesn't love cycling or Alex Rodriguez doesn't love baseball?

And, forgive me for saying this, but it's entirely possible that Shelby Houlihan actually is guilty.  Everyone proclaims their innocence in public and vows to fight.  Then the facts come out and it's a different story.  The bottom line is she failed a test, her explanation for that failed test wasn't accepted, and she was suspended as a result.  That suspension may or may not be reduced or overturned on appeal.  Judging by the publicly-available facts of the case, though, it seems unlikely any appeal would be successful.

So, as confusing as the situations regarding Shelby Houlihan and Brianna McNeal may be, it actually makes sense why McNeal was allowed to compete at Trials while Houlihan wasn't.  McNeal has an active appeal and the presumption of innocence.  The newly-suspended Houlihan doesn't have that presumption.  She has the failed test to prove it.