Ok, guess we aren't going to have a civil conversation. My understanding is that they only ruled that Shelby's team failed to provide sufficient evidence for the burrito defense. I think that in the ruling they even explicitly said that this does not mean that Shelby intentionally cheated. Can you quote the paper on the ruling that they released?
Edit: Never mind, I found it myself. You're correct. However, this is stupid. Per CAS, ADVR + failed defense = intentional ADVR. In reality, ADVR + failed defense = ADVR + failed defense.
Your "reality" is wrong. Since her defence failed that only left her as the author of her doping violation. There was no one else. Hence, on the basis of the balance of probabilities - which is the standard in civil courts - her violation was deemed intentional by CAS. It was the same process in a civil court that found OJ liable for the deaths of his girlfriend and lover. Are you going to dispute that as well?
But it isn't wrong. I think you're confused here. I never said that decision of the court to uphold the ban was wrong. What I said is that a positive test + failed defense does not necessarily imply intentional doping. Anyone with even the most basic capacity for reason will see that this is the case. I do not think you are in a position to comment on the intelligence of others, lol
"Since her defense failed that only left her as the author of her doping violation." This is a pretty egregious error in basic reasoning. It's even worse when you consider the incredibly lower prior odds of someone like Shelby doping, but I'm sure we would disagree strongly on those odds
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
My post wasn't about whether or not the court made the right decision. My post was about the oddity of people being convinced that Shelby intentionally cheated (the court did not rule on this) and is a psychopath. She didn't intentionally cheat, and therefore doesn't know the source of the nandrolone. The burrito was her best guess after a lot of thinking and investigating
Huh? “I’m not saying that’s all there is to it.” is in my post. And I didn’t say therefore that anyone has made the right decision. I implied that you jumped to the conclusion that “people … are so certain,” when Instead I felt somewhat more in line with what many are thinking — that we have sufficient trust in the decision to be skeptical of her excuse.
So I don’t know why you’re drawing the lines the way you are. But if you’re wondering why this doesn’t make much sense to you, I’m starting to see the outlines of a theory about that.
"I'm not saying that's all there is to it" doesn't negate the irrelevance of the surrounding sentences. I think feeling skeptical about the burrito defense is fine and perhaps justified, but failed burrito defense does not equate to Shelby intentionally doping and being a psycho liar. The "outline" comment you made was unnecessary and makes you seem particularly dumb given the irrelevance of your initial post and your failure to comprehend my response. My initial post has nothing to do with whether or not the burrito defense was a good one
Huh? “I’m not saying that’s all there is to it.” is in my post. And I didn’t say therefore that anyone has made the right decision. I implied that you jumped to the conclusion that “people … are so certain,” when Instead I felt somewhat more in line with what many are thinking — that we have sufficient trust in the decision to be skeptical of her excuse.
So I don’t know why you’re drawing the lines the way you are. But if you’re wondering why this doesn’t make much sense to you, I’m starting to see the outlines of a theory about that.
"I'm not saying that's all there is to it" doesn't negate the irrelevance of the surrounding sentences. I think feeling skeptical about the burrito defense is fine and perhaps justified, but failed burrito defense does not equate to Shelby intentionally doping and being a psycho liar. The "outline" comment you made was unnecessary and makes you seem particularly dumb given the irrelevance of your initial post and your failure to comprehend my response. My initial post has nothing to do with whether or not the burrito defense was a good one
JFC, man. My whole point is that you’re saying that the predominant view is something like about her “intentionally doping and being a psycho liar,” while I’m making the point, in effect, that of course you can find a bunch of people who think that but that (a) people who are skeptical of her argument don’t necessarily need to believe that, (b) if you’re really going to present that as the prevailing viewpoint, can you indicate why you think that, and (c) if you can’t provide evidence for point (b), the you really need a stronger answer for the more mild skepticism of those in (a).
She seems like a genuinely wonderful person. I've followed her for years. Even if you think it's unlikely a burrito was the cause of the positive test, why are you so sure that Shelby intentionally cheated? People here often claim that this is the case and that she's a legit psychopath who refuses to admit what she's done wrong. But if she were a psychopath, why does she have so many friends and people around her who say she's an incredible person? And if she wanted an advantage, why would she choose to dope but not wear super shoes? Looking for genuine convo here - I just don't understand how anyone can smear Shelby online. I'm a huge fan of hers.
The same reason some are so adamantly thinking she intentionally cheated is why I believe her. Scientifically if it's possible I'm not knocking her excuse. She even tried to do the hair test and never admitted to being guilty. That means something to me. Also there is the fact that she would have been ingesting it the most inefficient way.
The same week that she had got banned. I was eating at a restaurant with my uncle and they brought him the completely wrong order and he ate it. A ton of our livestock is chemically enhanced anyway. There's people that don't even think the meat is real at Taco Bell lol. Free shelby
"I'm not saying that's all there is to it" doesn't negate the irrelevance of the surrounding sentences. I think feeling skeptical about the burrito defense is fine and perhaps justified, but failed burrito defense does not equate to Shelby intentionally doping and being a psycho liar. The "outline" comment you made was unnecessary and makes you seem particularly dumb given the irrelevance of your initial post and your failure to comprehend my response. My initial post has nothing to do with whether or not the burrito defense was a good one
JFC, man. My whole point is that you’re saying that the predominant view is something like about her “intentionally doping and being a psycho liar,” while I’m making the point, in effect, that of course you can find a bunch of people who think that but that (a) people who are skeptical of her argument don’t necessarily need to believe that, (b) if you’re really going to present that as the prevailing viewpoint, can you indicate why you think that, and (c) if you can’t provide evidence for point (b), the you really need a stronger answer for the more mild skepticism of those in (a).
I think that because of the dozens of comments I've seen on here expressing that view. Go look at any Shelby thread and see for yourself. I'm also skeptical of the burrito defense, but I'm not the slightest bit skeptical of Shelby when she says that she never intentionally doped.
I think that because of the dozens of comments I've seen on here expressing that view. Go look at any Shelby thread and see for yourself. I'm also skeptical of the burrito defense, but I'm not the slightest bit skeptical of Shelby when she says that she never intentionally doped.
Gotcha. I hadn’t realized your “why are people here so certain …” was on par with “why are Americans so interested in QAnon?” My bad. Thanks for clarifying.
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information and its mental toll. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, and values in the enviro...
Uhh.. maybe because Shelby's situation is relatively unique? Or maybe because it's easier to learn more about a person who speaks fluent English and does frequent interviews? This seems pretty obvious.
nothing obvious about it. kenyans speak fluent english, you just don't obsess over them the way you do someone who looks like you or has the same word on the front of their passport.
Look at the photos of her and her team mates, very clearly they were all doping. She got the dosing wrong and got caught and then made up an excuse to make it seem plausible.
All members of the group should have been banned from competing for 25 years
Uhh.. maybe because Shelby's situation is relatively unique? Or maybe because it's easier to learn more about a person who speaks fluent English and does frequent interviews? This seems pretty obvious.
nothing obvious about it. kenyans speak fluent english, you just don't obsess over them the way you do someone who looks like you or has the same word on the front of their passport.
Yeah this just isn't true. I'm a huge fan of Chebet and Kipyegon. Stop making this a weird race thing when it isn't
The court did rule on it. It held she committed an intentional ADRV. Why do you morons never acquaint yourselves with the facts in the legal processes?
Oh the irony. The facts of the "legal" process are that an arbitration panel upheld a codified-in-2015 presumption of intent, for the exclusive purpose of determining a 4-year sanction, as it found Houlihan was unable to establish the source (a strongly suggested prequisite to establishing non-intent) on the balance of probability.
The arbitration panel finding is more accurately described as a finding of "probably-not not-intentional based on the limited and incomplete evidence before us".
Once I ran to you (I ran) Now I run from you This tainted burrito you’ve given I give you all a boy could give you Take my tears and that’s not nearly all Tainted burrito (oh-oh-oh-oh) Tainted burrito Don’t touch me, please I cannot stand the way you tease I love you though you hurt me so Now I’m gonna pack my things and go Tainted burrito (oh-oh-oh-oh) Tainted burrito oh-oh-oh-oh) Tainted burrito oh-oh-oh-oh) Tainted burrito (oh-oh-oh-oh) Touch me, baby, tainted burrito Touch me, baby, tainted burrito Tainted burrito (oh-oh-oh-oh) Tainted burrito (oh-oh-oh-oh) Tainted burrito
The court did rule on it. It held she committed an intentional ADRV. Why do you morons never acquaint yourselves with the facts in the legal processes?
Oh the irony. The facts of the "legal" process are that an arbitration panel upheld a codified-in-2015 presumption of intent, for the exclusive purpose of determining a 4-year sanction, as it found Houlihan was unable to establish the source (a strongly suggested prequisite to establishing non-intent) on the balance of probability.
The arbitration panel finding is more accurately described as a finding of "probably-not not-intentional based on the limited and incomplete evidence before us".
Well rekrunner...if you can't trust CAS...then who can you trust?
I want to believe that Shelby didn't intentionally dope. And I believed that with Armstrong & Marion Jones - and look where that got me! 🙄
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.