No one has learned anything in the last year that wasn't already known. But for those who cling to their delusions about her "possible" innocence or the "unfairness" of the system nothing can shake that.
Innocence of what?
Breaking the rules( which you have not bothered to read yet) or cheating?
And now the NANDOS have come out and said it all needs a shake up to ensure fairness.
And I note you are still insulting after your last ban.How many warning until a life ban?
Which liar and cheat is that then; CAS never convicted SH of such.
Must be your imagination.
CAS convicted her of intentional doping (read the decision, or rekrunner's post on the previous page - which is cheating.
She also denied her doping - which is lying.
Cheating would be acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage -- the CAS report doesn't established these necessary elements. Her violations were "deemed" intentional, meaning she is being sanctioned like a "cheat", and being treated like a "cheat" by many fans, despite no showing of any dishonest or unfair actions in order to gain an advantage.
She denied cheating, or that the source was a nandrolone product -- there is simply no way to tell from the CAS report if that is actually a lie.
Got it. In your opinion, she is "only" deemed to be a cheat and liar.
Do you get it? None of this is my opinion.
Words like "cheat" and "liar" have real-world definitions that are not subject to opinion, and in this case, although WADA redefines terms like "doping" and "intentional", they did not redefine "cheat" or "liar".
The CAS "deemed" the violations to be intentional for the expressly sole purpose of deciding the length of the sanction.
But the CAS did not deem she was a "cheat" or a "liar", although many fans did.
Got it. In your opinion, she is "only" deemed to be a cheat and liar.
Do you get it? None of this is my opinion.
Words like "cheat" and "liar" have real-world definitions that are not subject to opinion, and in this case, although WADA redefines terms like "doping" and "intentional", they did not redefine "cheat" or "liar".
The CAS "deemed" the violations to be intentional for the expressly sole purpose of deciding the length of the sanction.
But the CAS did not deem she was a "cheat" or a "liar", although many fans did.
What a bunch of semantic BS -- and I say that as a lawyer. This is like saying someone who was convicted of homicide is not a murderer because "murder" isn't a term used in the jurisdiction.
CAS convicted her of intentional doping (read the decision, or rekrunner's post on the previous page - which is cheating.
She also denied her doping - which is lying.
Cheating would be acting dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage -- the CAS report doesn't established these necessary elements. Her violations were "deemed" intentional, meaning she is being sanctioned like a "cheat", and being treated like a "cheat" by many fans, despite no showing of any dishonest or unfair actions in order to gain an advantage.
She denied cheating, or that the source was a nandrolone product -- there is simply no way to tell from the CAS report if that is actually a lie.
The presence of a banned substance in her body for which she could produce no acceptable excuse shows she cheated. That's what doping is. But not to a doping apologist.
Words like "cheat" and "liar" have real-world definitions that are not subject to opinion, and in this case, although WADA redefines terms like "doping" and "intentional", they did not redefine "cheat" or "liar".
The CAS "deemed" the violations to be intentional for the expressly sole purpose of deciding the length of the sanction.
But the CAS did not deem she was a "cheat" or a "liar", although many fans did.
What a bunch of semantic BS -- and I say that as a lawyer. This is like saying someone who was convicted of homicide is not a murderer because "murder" isn't a term used in the jurisdiction.
You can now expect more semantic bs on the distinction between "homicide" and "murder". Shelby isn't a "doper" because CAS doesn't use the term, while it meanwhile convicts her of a doping offence - and an intentional offence at that.
the language from the AIU is more severe, accusatory and explicit (as told to us by the CAS) that "the Athlete has committed an intentional ADRV".
In a refreshing change, here you are finally accepting the fact that she committed an intentional ADRV, i.e. doped on purpose with nandrolone (ignoring your little semantic deceits).
the language from the AIU is more severe, accusatory and explicit (as told to us by the CAS) that "the Athlete has committed an intentional ADRV".
In a refreshing change, here you are finally accepting the fact that she committed an intentional ADRV, i.e. doped on purpose with nandrolone (ignoring your little semantic deceits).
That is what he doesn't accept. She is "possibly" innocent (but not probably innocent, according to CAS) and had the "bad luck" to be unable to produce the contaminated burrito (which experts rated as being of "near-zero" likelihood as the cause of her positive test) and her offence wasn't really "intentional" because CAS didn't have to prove it - she simply failed to rebut the presumption. As most dopers fail to do - "glowing", as they do, with a banned drug. Like she was.
Got it. Dopers like her, Kiprop, Gatlin, Gay, Kiptum etc etc didn't dope intentionally because CAS didn't have to prove it and are therefore not cheats, just "dopers". Well in his eyes anyway. That is some "impressive" bs.
In a refreshing change, here you are finally accepting the fact that she committed an intentional ADRV, i.e. doped on purpose with nandrolone (ignoring your little semantic deceits).
That is what he doesn't accept. She is "possibly" innocent (but not probably innocent, according to CAS) and had the "bad luck" to be unable to produce the contaminated burrito (which experts rated as being of "near-zero" likelihood as the cause of her positive test) and her offence wasn't really "intentional" because CAS didn't have to prove it - she simply failed to rebut the presumption. As most dopers fail to do - "glowing", as they do, with a banned drug. Like she was.
Not once have you referred to any element of that WADA code.Thus all your thoughts should be dismissed as if issued by a schoolchild.Just as all have laughed at you saying that the bladder is part of the digestive system.
Got it. Dopers like her, Kiprop, Gatlin, Gay, Kiptum etc etc didn't dope intentionally because CAS didn't have to prove it and are therefore not cheats, just "dopers". Well in his eyes anyway. That is some "impressive" bs.
What a bunch of semantic BS -- and I say that as a lawyer. This is like saying someone who was convicted of homicide is not a murderer because "murder" isn't a term used in the jurisdiction.
You can now expect more semantic bs on the distinction between "homicide" and "murder". Shelby isn't a "doper" because CAS doesn't use the term, while it meanwhile convicts her of a doping offence - and an intentional offence at that.
Cas did not not use the term because the rules explicitly excluded it.