I always laugh when reading some of these idiotic posts from people who either don't understand what their talking about, or are just STUPID. As someone who has been involved with the sport for a "very long time" at all levels, the PED discussion isn't complicated. I've always contended that you must look at the situation objectively, using ONLY the determined proven evidence and facts available. We all know there's PED abuse in the sport, no argument there. There are measures in place to minimize and or eliminate PED use through various drug testing protocols, in addition to these protocols, there is a process in place that allows every athlete to challenge, refute, and or appeal an accusation. There are also various consequences in place to reprimand and or punish those who violate the established ban of PED use. In the case of Shelby Houlihan, she was found guilty through these set protocols and processes, and subsequently given a 4 year ban of which she served. That being said, Shelby has done her time and is 100% eligible to compete without compromise...CASE CLOSED!!! However, in the court of public opinion which is subjective, there are people who still believe she didn't violate the PED usage ban, which is totally fine, they can believe what they want. Unfortunately, their argument and opinion are mute, and hold zero merit. Bottom line is that Shelby tested positive for a banned substance (no argument), and will FOREVER be known as someone who used a PED for whatever reason, thus gaining an unfair advantage over her competitors...CASE CLOSED!!!
Quit chasing your tail and accept the facts and decision that was made.
I always find it stupid to speak in terms of PEDs, when WADA bans many non-PEDs and doesn't ban all PEDs (e.g. caffeine).
You should note that WADA doesn't ban endogenous nandrolone, and the endogenous/exogenous source was never determined with any certainty. The arguments for exogenous nandrolone wasn't really made, and isn't a very strong one. It's also questionable whether she ever gained any unfair advantage over any of her competitors.
Your distortions notwithstanding: nandrolone, an anabolic steroid, is a PED, and that her nandrolone was exogenous was determined with very very high certainty.
Last but not least, it should be obvious, even to you, that intentional doping is cheating. Fact: Houlihan was banned for intentional doping.
I see a significant amount of conversation that is still redirected at the cheating scandal garbage. As they say in the movie the Green Mile “Shelby is good with the house she paid what was owed” drop it. However, with today’s technology the shoes and everything people are running faster than ever. I speak for those of us who ran in the generation right before the technology boom we are just angry that we never got a change to strap on a pair of rockets and race in them. I am not going to even argue that my 4:04 Mile PR would easily be at least worth a 3:59, and my 29:05 10,000m PR would easily be at least in the playing field of 28:20 because I almost guarantee it would. The reality is I did not get a chance to try out this technology. However, in regard to Shelby leave her alone with the cheating crap if she did it she did it if she did not she did not regardless she completed the obligations of the ban and needs to be left alone and allowed to race and enjoy her running in peace.
It's also not quite correct to call her a "convicted drugs cheat" -- WADA doesn't use the term "cheat", nor did the CAS.
Neither WADA, nor CAS, govern the language we can use.
Certainly everyone has the ability to use language to express many things which are not correct. The point here is not to govern your language, but to assess its correctness.
It is the CAS who "convicted" her, according to the WADA Code, and they did not "convict" her of being a "drug cheat".
She never cheated that is #1. #2 is that short trail races can be quite competitive nowadays.
I always laugh when reading some of these idiotic posts from people who either don't understand what their talking about, or are just STUPID. As someone who has been involved with the sport for a "very long time" at all levels, the PED discussion isn't complicated. I've always contended that you must look at the situation objectively, using ONLY the determined proven evidence and facts available. We all know there's PED abuse in the sport, no argument there. There are measures in place to minimize and or eliminate PED use through various drug testing protocols, in addition to these protocols, there is a process in place that allows every athlete to challenge, refute, and or appeal an accusation. There are also various consequences in place to reprimand and or punish those who violate the established ban of PED use. In the case of Shelby Houlihan, she was found guilty through these set protocols and processes, and subsequently given a 4 year ban of which she served. That being said, Shelby has done her time and is 100% eligible to compete without compromise...CASE CLOSED!!! However, in the court of public opinion which is subjective, there are people who still believe she didn't violate the PED usage ban, which is totally fine, they can believe what they want. Unfortunately, their argument and opinion are mute, and hold zero merit. Bottom line is that Shelby tested positive for a banned substance (no argument), and will FOREVER be known as someone who used a PED for whatever reason, thus gaining an unfair advantage over her competitors...CASE CLOSED!!!
Quit chasing your tail and accept the facts and decision that was made.
Your distortions notwithstanding: nandrolone, an anabolic steroid, is a PED, and that her nandrolone was exogenous was determined with very very high certainty.
Last but not least, it should be obvious, even to you, that intentional doping is cheating. Fact: Houlihan was banned for intentional doping.
Whether nandrolone is a PED is irrelevant, as the WADA Code (through its TD) expressly permits the presence of endogenous nandrolone regardless.
No matter how many times people say or want to believe otherwise, the source was not determined at all, let alone determined to be exogenous with any certainty.
The CAS effectively ruled, "not more probably than not", which is far far less than "exogenous was determined with very very high certainty".
The thing that is not obvious to me is whether the CAS banning an athlete for intentional doping as permitted by the WADA Code actually means the athlete intentionally doped. These are not the same thing.
And if it is all the same to you, then why object to saying what the CAS said in their own words?
I see a significant amount of conversation that is still redirected at the cheating scandal garbage. As they say in the movie the Green Mile “Shelby is good with the house she paid what was owed” drop it. However, with today’s technology the shoes and everything people are running faster than ever. I speak for those of us who ran in the generation right before the technology boom we are just angry that we never got a change to strap on a pair of rockets and race in them. I am not going to even argue that my 4:04 Mile PR would easily be at least worth a 3:59, and my 29:05 10,000m PR would easily be at least in the playing field of 28:20 because I almost guarantee it would. The reality is I did not get a chance to try out this technology. However, in regard to Shelby leave her alone with the cheating crap if she did it she did it if she did not she did not regardless she completed the obligations of the ban and needs to be left alone and allowed to race and enjoy her running in peace.
That’s ridiculous to think that if you had used the new shoes, you would have run 3:59 instead of 4:04. No one has broken the 1500m and mile world records, much less run 3:22. You didn’t say when you ran, but if someone ran 3:45 in your era, with your estimate of the effects of new new shoe technology, they could’ve run 3:40. The 10000m record has been improved by 6 seconds and not 45.
if you had had had access to the new shoes, your PR would be 4:04.
Your distortions notwithstanding: nandrolone, an anabolic steroid, is a PED, and that her nandrolone was exogenous was determined with very very high certainty.
Last but not least, it should be obvious, even to you, that intentional doping is cheating. Fact: Houlihan was banned for intentional doping.
Whether nandrolone is a PED is irrelevant, as the WADA Code (through its TD) expressly permits the presence of endogenous nandrolone regardless.
No matter how many times people say or want to believe otherwise, the source was not determined at all, let alone determined to be exogenous with any certainty.
The CAS effectively ruled, "not more probably than not", which is far far less than "exogenous was determined with very very high certainty".
The thing that is not obvious to me is whether the CAS banning an athlete for intentional doping as permitted by the WADA Code actually means the athlete intentionally doped. These are not the same thing.
And if it is all the same to you, then why object to saying what the CAS said in their own words?
If it's irrelevant whether nandrolone is a PED, why did you start complaining about the allegedly misleading use of the term PED? Just for the fun of it?
The source was determined to be exogenous, with super high certainty, when CAS figured, in an unanimous decision, that carbon isotope ratio was not "consistent" - yes that's exactly what CAS said in their own words - with the only possible/alleged endogenous source. Whether it was from Amazon or her team doctor or boyfriend or neighbor is irrelevant for that conclusion.
In addition (!), CAS ruled several times, not just once, again each time in an unanimous decision, that other additional facts were either "improbable" or even "highly improbable" to have come from the ridiculous boar burrito.
No, CAS did not ever just say "not more probably than not"! Why don't YOU stick to the facts for a change, using the exact words CAS used, instead of childishly insisting that one mustn't call an intentional doper a drug cheat, right after distorting the CAS findings?
Further, why did you start this argument again? Do you still not know the basic facts?