Paragraph 119 does nothing to undo or reverse this minority opinion.
All your wall of text, including the above statement, is based on your wishful non sequitur fallacy that one panelist originally thought there was no ARDV - no, that was never said or implied. That panelist only disagreed that the ARDV was properly reported, no more, no less. Therefore that panelist did not change their mind when agreeing at the end that an ARDV was committed. Stop blaming others based on your obvious fallacies.
And your disagreeing with "119. The Panel finds that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature."
does nothing to revert that unanimous decision.
The rest is your typical mixture of falsehoods and distractions. Obviously, because you are spinning again instead of quoting, and making up stuff based on your spin, such "conflicting testimony before the CAS".
At least you finally admit that Shelburrito was banned for intentional doping - whether or not you consider it as a "very strong finding" doesn't really matter that much. All your trolling me because I used the equivalency of "intentional doper" = "drug cheat" was a waste of my time. Well done, I must say, but I am glad this is over now. Take care.
The burrito story that Foolagain ('s presumptuous lawyer) concocted was unbelievably idiotic. Must be is very strong, as in, there is no other way. Anywho, back on topic: Not Even Close
I was just told that "deemed intent" was a unanimous decision.
On the question of "intent", it is the word "deemed" that renders the whole finding weak.
"There is no other way" just means what I said -- the CAS's hands were tied by a WADA Code that tilts the balance against accused athletes with a series of a handful of presumptions.
It is the research of Prof. Ayotte, and the oral testimony of Prof. McGlone which gives believability to the story of nandrolone from pork ingestion during the pandemic.
At least you finally admit that Shelburrito was banned for intentional doping - whether or not you consider it as a "very strong finding" doesn't really matter that much. All your trolling me because I used the equivalency of "intentional doper" = "drug cheat" was a waste of my time. Well done, I must say, but I am glad this is over now. Take care.
You keep choosing to waste your time with me. "Drug cheat" is an emotional retelling of what the CAS said they found.
I never contested that she was banned as if she were an intentional doper. But the CAS clearly explained, without any spin, how much the presumption of doping, and the presumption of intent, played important roles in their findings.
My questions have always been about what can be reliably concluded from the process in the WADA Code since 2015, i.e.: 1) whether a majority CAS finding of "doping", necessarily based on several presumptions, is strong enough argument to establish that she probably doped; and 2) whether a CAS finding of "intent", necessarily based on a presumption of "intent", is a strong enough argument to establish that she probably doped intentionally.
The WADA Code permits the anti-doping organizations a handful of procedural shortcuts, favoring saving time and money over ensuring any resulting findings can be considered reliably accurate and truthful. Finality was considered more important than robust accuracy.
All your wall of text, including the above statement, is based on your wishful non sequitur fallacy that one panelist originally thought there was no ARDV - no, that was never said or implied. That panelist only disagreed that the ARDV was properly reported, no more, no less. Therefore that panelist did not change their mind when agreeing at the end that an ARDV was committed. Stop blaming others based on your obvious fallacies.
And your disagreeing with "119. The Panel finds that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature."
does nothing to revert that unanimous decision.
The rest is your typical mixture of falsehoods and distractions. Obviously, because you are spinning again instead of quoting, and making up stuff based on your spin, such "conflicting testimony before the CAS".
ARDV? Anti-rule doping violation?
We don't know if the minority CAS panelist had issues with the AAFs or the ADRVs or both -- only that they did not agree with the majority finding about the strength of Houlihan's rebuttals before they ruled based on several presumptions.
The question here is how reliable can we consider any of the CAS findings to be, when the supporting evidence, when it exists at all, is unreliable.
In the case of 119, both of the "experts" for WA/AIU gave me several reasons to doubt the correctness of the CAS finding.
Your baseless allegations of spinning and falsehoods and distractions do not increase the reliability of any of the CAS decisions.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
The burrito story that Foolagain ('s presumptuous lawyer) concocted was unbelievably idiotic. Must be is very strong, as in, there is no other way. Anywho, back on topic: Not Even Close
I was just told that "deemed intent" was a unanimous decision.
On the question of "intent", it is the word "deemed" that renders the whole finding weak.
"There is no other way" just means what I said -- the CAS's hands were tied by a WADA Code that tilts the balance against accused athletes with a series of a handful of presumptions.
It is the research of Prof. Ayotte, and the oral testimony of Prof. McGlone which gives believability to the story of nandrolone from pork ingestion during the pandemic.
It does not matter if a pork burrito could possibly have nandrolone in it when she didn't eat a pork burrito. You can continue to pick out little single words that aren't robust enough for your liking but it will not pull the dope out of her system.
It does not matter if a pork burrito could possibly have nandrolone in it when she didn't eat a pork burrito. You can continue to pick out little single words that aren't robust enough for your liking but it will not pull the dope out of her system.
Who proved she didn't eat a burrito containing pork offal? All of the eye witnesses says her burrito was uncharacteristically greasy for a carne asada burrito.
Who says the nandrolone got in her system? The thing about oral ingestion of steroids is that most of it is filtered out on first pass, not ever getting into the system.
It does not matter if a pork burrito could possibly have nandrolone in it when she didn't eat a pork burrito. You can continue to pick out little single words that aren't robust enough for your liking but it will not pull the dope out of her system.
Who proved she didn't eat a burrito containing pork offal? All of the eye witnesses says her burrito was uncharacteristically greasy for a carne asada burrito.
Who says the nandrolone got in her system? The thing about oral ingestion of steroids is that most of it is filtered out on first pass, not ever getting into the system.
If nandrolone was found in her urine sample is that not part of her "system"? Someone else's?
How can you possibly consider yourself someone who knows anything about this sort of thing and yet post what you posted? Shelby has no chance of running under 30. Could she at one time? Yes possibly she could. That ship has sailed and yet you cannot even understand this, which renders all of your takes questionable.
.....
Dude
Shut up I have more knowledge and experience at competitive track and field in my thumb than you have in your entire body. I'm past sick and tired of couch potato trolls getting on this message board disputing reputable and knowledgeable former athletes. Keep living in your fantasy world. Shelby has just as much chance at the 10000 AR as Monson or Kelati.
But you disappeared after having been wrong. This is not a good look.
The receipt tells us what she ordered and paid for, and doesn't prove what she ate.
The drug test is consistent with ingestion of endogenous nandrolone from an intact boar offal burrito.
Both of your "proofs" are ambiguous.
Just to remind everyone:
The TD to the WADA Lab says the WADA Lab must "demonstrate ... that the 19-NA is not of endogenous origin" and explicitly enumerates that intact boar offal consumption is considered "endogenous" origin. The WADA Lab must do this before reporting, and in order to report, the AAF, before WA charges Houlihan with the ADRV, and before any burden is placed on Houlihan to establish the source, and before any rebuttal of Houlihan's rebuttal. The only tool the TD provides to the WADA Lab is for them to do more testing.
The TD doesn't permit the WADA Lab to consider plausibility or likelihoods or nor alter the athlete's claim (see Prof. Ayotte's 4 points at the end of 73, and also point 8). And it appears to forbid the use of the CIR test to determine the orgin, in cases when consumption of intact boar offal is "invoked" by the athlete (see 71 and also the WADA TD). This makes sense because that is known to confound the test and lead to false positives.
Reading the 4 corners of the WADA TD in combination with the 4 corners of the CAS report, I think the WADA Lab failed to meet their initial burden and failed to stay within the 4 corners of the WADA TD, and reported the AAF based on departures and deviations from the WADA TD.
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
If nandrolone was found in her urine sample is that not part of her "system"? Someone else's?
Thank you Dr. Armstronglivs for such a brilliant question.
"First Pass Effect" is sometimes referred to as "presystemic metabolism".
From Wikipedia:
The first pass effect (FPE), also known as first-pass metabolism (FPM) or presystemic metabolism, is a phenomenon of drug metabolism at a specific location in the body which leads to a reduction in the concentration of the active drug before it reaches the site of action or systemic circulation.[1][2] [1] Rowland, Malcolm (January 1972). "Influence of route of administration on drug availability". Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 61 (1): 70–74. doi:10.1002/jps.2600610111. ISSN 0022-3549. PMID 5019220. [2]Pond, Susan M.; Tozer, Thomas N. (January 1984). "First-Pass Elimination". Clinical Pharmacokinetics. 9 (1): 1–25. doi:10.2165/00003088-198409010-00001. ISSN 0312-5963. PMID 6362950. S2CID 28006040.
I think the WADA Lab failed to meet their initial burden and failed to stay within the 4 corners of the WADA TD, and reported the AAF based on departures and deviations from the WADA TD.
I think the WADA Lab failed to meet their initial burden and failed to stay within the 4 corners of the WADA TD, and reported the AAF based on departures and deviations from the WADA TD.
Well, it doesn't matter what you think.
Apparently it matters to a lot of people, judging by the number of posters who respond to me, attempting to persuade me that my thinking is wrong.
Regardless of my thoughts, what makes things matter is how well they are supported by real world evidence and observations, rather than fallacies and myths and in this case, presumed conclusions.
It does not matter if a pork burrito could possibly have nandrolone in it when she didn't eat a pork burrito. You can continue to pick out little single words that aren't robust enough for your liking but it will not pull the dope out of her system.
Who proved she didn't eat a burrito containing pork offal? All of the eye witnesses says her burrito was uncharacteristically greasy for a carne asada burrito.
Who says the nandrolone got in her system? The thing about oral ingestion of steroids is that most of it is filtered out on first pass, not ever getting into the system.
a) Her receipt.
b) You, among many other people, by admitting that not all "is filtered out on first pass".
Who proved she didn't eat a burrito containing pork offal? All of the eye witnesses says her burrito was uncharacteristically greasy for a carne asada burrito.
Who says the nandrolone got in her system? The thing about oral ingestion of steroids is that most of it is filtered out on first pass, not ever getting into the system.
a) Her receipt.
b) You, among many other people, by admitting that not all "is filtered out on first pass".
Two outrageously stupid questions.
If we are being honest, these are two outrageously stupid answers.
a) Her receipt is not proof of what she was actually served nor what she actually ate. Witness testimony of an uncharacteristically greasy burrito suggests that the receipt is wrong. This witness testimony is unrebutted.
b) If you want to use my words, maybe some negligible amount, surely far less than 2 ng/ml, may have gotten into her system. The WADA threshold for starting an investigation is 2 ng/ml, and in some cases 15 ng/ml is considered WADA legal. Curiously, when athletes use Norethisterone, it is impossible to report an AAF under the WADA TD, regardless of concentration or CIR.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Classic goalpost moving. The question was "Who says the nandrolone got in her system?", not "Who says enough nandrolone to trigger an investigation got in her system?".
Also, show your math. Based on what do you claim "maybe some negligible amount, surely far less than 2 ng/ml, may have gotten into her system"?
Also, why "maybe"? Didn't you just admit that some nandrolone made it into her system? Backpedalling much?
By the by, receipts are commonly accepted as proof for what one ate. Here the witnesses of a party-in-dispute provided no evidence. Finally "greasy" is neither proof for offal, nor does it disprove beef.