If an agency tested me and the result was positive, costing me four years of my professional career, endorsements, reputation damage, etc., I would have used the past four years wisely.
An innocent person would have been preparing a HUGE lawsuit against whatever testing agency is behind this.
Wouldn't care what people thought when I returned either. If I'm innocent.......I'm ANGRY. F the crowd. I'm coming back stronger to compete and prove my innocence when I sue their incompetent asses.
Extremely one-sided? The article says she lost her case, served her ban, lost her appeal, denied it, and the running community didn't believe her, while Lawson won his appeal. That seems a fairly balanced and accurate description of the background, without bogging down the article about her return to racing with unnecessary details.
Many of your damning facts aren't so much facts as opinions based on an incomplete set of facts. Neither the CAS, nor the "independent experts" confirmed what the source of the nandrolone was, or wasn't.
"fairly balanced and accurate description of the background" - if an extreme propagandist like you says that, it must be super extremely one-sided.
"without ... unnecessary details" - yes I know, you love ignoring the damning facts.
"Many of your damning facts aren't so much facts as opinions" - yes I know, you love calling facts - confirmed by all independent experts consulted so far - "opinions" or even myths.
And your following sentence has no connection to the previous, it's just your typical deflection attempt. FYI no one "confirmed" where Kiprop, Jeptoo or Kipserem got their EPO from either.
And another typical rekrunner, writing independent experts (and later fans) in quotation marks. Classic!
It only looks extreme from where you are standing, but the idea that athletes are "innocent until proven guilty" is not all that extreme, and no party nor "expert" nor "fan" has proved that she was guilty of intentionally doping.
I forgot to mention that the "experts" also rely on unproven assumptions to form their opinions. But opinions, even from "independent experts" are not facts.
Did Kiprop, Jeptoo, or Kipserem argue that the presence of EPO was unintentional? Establishing the most likely source is relevant only when trying to argue non-intent.
If an agency tested me and the result was positive, costing me four years of my professional career, endorsements, reputation damage, etc., I would have used the past four years wisely.
An innocent person would have been preparing a HUGE lawsuit against whatever testing agency is behind this.
Wouldn't care what people thought when I returned either. If I'm innocent.......I'm ANGRY. F the crowd. I'm coming back stronger to compete and prove my innocence when I sue their incompetent asses.
If an agency tested me and the result was positive, costing me four years of my professional career, endorsements, reputation damage, etc., I would have used the past four years wisely.
An innocent person would have been preparing a HUGE lawsuit against whatever testing agency is behind this.
Wouldn't care what people thought when I returned either. If I'm innocent.......I'm ANGRY. F the crowd. I'm coming back stronger to compete and prove my innocence when I sue their incompetent asses.
Unless it's a matter of human rights or some other fundamentally unlawful act or unenforceable rule, the courts generally decline to hear any suits for lack of jurisdiction, as courts favor, and the parties agreed, to settle disputes with arbitration.
Her problem was not with the test or the testing agency, as no one disputed the validity of the test result, but that the process then puts her completely on the defense, against a seasoned prosecution, and the athlete must finance the investigations, scientific tests, and legal support to attempt to meet certain burdens within a fixed time frame (i.e. before the Olympic Trials). What you are suggesting here is again placing an additional financial burden on the athlete, who recall, was suspended and banned, removing her primary source of income for the last 4 years. She would need to fund these new proposed efforts on a food delivery salary, or another gofundme.
Unless it's a matter of human rights or some other fundamentally unlawful act or unenforceable rule, the courts generally decline to hear any suits for lack of jurisdiction, as courts favor, and the parties agreed, to settle disputes with arbitration.
And yet, that drug cheat went all the way to the Supreme Court. Where she lost, of course. Poorly advised by her greedy lawyer, one could argue.
Unless it's a matter of human rights or some other fundamentally unlawful act or unenforceable rule, the courts generally decline to hear any suits for lack of jurisdiction, as courts favor, and the parties agreed, to settle disputes with arbitration.
And yet, that drug cheat went all the way to the Supreme Court. Where she lost, of course. Poorly advised by her greedy lawyer, one could argue.
I wouldn't call her a "drug cheat" before someone has proven it to a standard stronger than presumption.
Technically, she went to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and the outcome was as I said it usually is. She brought procedural claims which the Tribunal pronounced were inadmissable, and to the extent they would be admissable, dismissed them on procedural grounds.
They did not rule on the merits.
Her lawyer advised her that it would be a long shot.
If an agency tested me and the result was positive, costing me four years of my professional career, endorsements, reputation damage, etc., I would have used the past four years wisely.
An innocent person would have been preparing a HUGE lawsuit against whatever testing agency is behind this.
Wouldn't care what people thought when I returned either. If I'm innocent.......I'm ANGRY. F the crowd. I'm coming back stronger to compete and prove my innocence when I sue their incompetent asses.
Unless it's a matter of human rights or some other fundamentally unlawful act or unenforceable rule, the courts generally decline to hear any suits for lack of jurisdiction, as courts favor, and the parties agreed, to settle disputes with arbitration.
Her problem was not with the test or the testing agency, as no one disputed the validity of the test result, but that the process then puts her completely on the defense, against a seasoned prosecution, and the athlete must finance the investigations, scientific tests, and legal support to attempt to meet certain burdens within a fixed time frame (i.e. before the Olympic Trials). What you are suggesting here is again placing an additional financial burden on the athlete, who recall, was suspended and banned, removing her primary source of income for the last 4 years. She would need to fund these new proposed efforts on a food delivery salary, or another gofundme.
rekrunner, it's absurd. you're asking the panel/public to presume she ordered a beef burrito but somehow ate a giant wild boar testical burrito even though it was so noticeably greasy she only had a few bites.
"FYI no one "confirmed" where Kiprop, Jeptoo or Kipserem got their EPO from either."
I wouldn't call her a "drug cheat" before someone has proven it to a standard stronger than presumption.
Technically, she went to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and the outcome was as I said it usually is. She brought procedural claims which the Tribunal pronounced were inadmissable, and to the extent they would be admissable, dismissed them on procedural grounds.
They did not rule on the merits.
Her lawyer advised her that it would be a long shot.
You too funny with your PR. I call people banned for intentional doping drug cheat, but you do you.
Technically and in reality she went to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (sometimes called "Swiss Federal Tribunal"). There she argued - obviously and predictably unsuccessfully - that she didn't get proper due process. What a waste of money, except for Shelby's lawyer. Of course AIU + WADA + WA + CAS did everything properly by the book and correctly. Even confirmed by the usually so critical long time USADA CEO Tygart.
The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (German: Bundesgericht, French: Tribunal fédéral, Italian: Tribunale federale, Romansh: ; sometimes the Swiss Federal Tribunal) is the supreme court of the Swiss Confederation and the...
I wouldn't call her a "drug cheat" before someone has proven it to a standard stronger than presumption.
Technically, she went to the Swiss Federal Tribunal, and the outcome was as I said it usually is. She brought procedural claims which the Tribunal pronounced were inadmissable, and to the extent they would be admissable, dismissed them on procedural grounds.
They did not rule on the merits.
Her lawyer advised her that it would be a long shot.
You too funny with your PR. I call people banned for intentional doping drug cheat, but you do you.
Technically and in reality she went to the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (sometimes called "Swiss Federal Tribunal"). There she argued - obviously and predictably unsuccessfully - that she didn't get proper due process. What a waste of money, except for Shelby's lawyer. Of course AIU + WADA + WA + CAS did everything properly by the book and correctly. Even confirmed by the usually so critical long time USADA CEO Tygart.
rekrunner, it's absurd. you're asking the panel/public to presume she ordered a beef burrito but somehow ate a giant wild boar testical burrito even though it was so noticeably greasy she only had a few bites.
"FYI no one "confirmed" where Kiprop, Jeptoo or Kipserem got their EPO from either."
I'm not asking you or the panel or the public to presume anything. There was witness testimony that carne asada burritos are dry, and that she received an extremely greasy burrito.
Regarding confirming the source, the claim was that "independent experts" "confirmed that the drug wasn't in the burrito", rather than speculating and expressing their own personal opinions (or worse the speculated personal opinions of others).
No. A drug cheat is someone who got caught and had results nullified retroactively because they had cheated. She got caught amd was proactively suspended before she may have cheated.
She was caught with drugs in her urine, by drug testing.
If this isn't the very definition of a drug cheat, nothing is.
(Ben Johnson was still denying it four years after 1988, too, by the way.)
That's actually not true. Canada's government conducted an inquiry into drug use in 1989 and Johnson admitted he had used drugs. He did, however, state that the drug he tested positive for a drug that he was not taking and tested negative for those he was taking. Charlie Francis said the same thing.
I wouldn't call her a "drug cheat" before someone has proven it
She was caught with drugs in her urine, by drug testing.
If this isn't the very definition of a drug cheat, nothing is.
(Ben Johnson was still denying it four years after 1988, too, by the way.)
"drug cheat" isn't well defined. It's not a term WADA uses.
But according to WADA's TD on Nandrolone, the amount of "drugs in her urine" can be endogenous, i.e. not cheating. Accurately determining this necessarily requires identifying the source -- something that was never done.
She was caught with drugs in her urine, by drug testing.
If this isn't the very definition of a drug cheat, nothing is.
(Ben Johnson was still denying it four years after 1988, too, by the way.)
"drug cheat" isn't well defined. It's not a term WADA uses.
But according to WADA's TD on Nandrolone, the amount of "drugs in her urine" can be endogenous, i.e. not cheating. Accurately determining this necessarily requires identifying the source -- something that was never done.
LOL. Still at it, I see. And again, your last sentence is utter nonsense (the rest is deflection) - WADA has determined that it was exogenous, confirmed by AIU, confirmed by WA, confirmed by CAS, confirmed by all independent experts consulted to date.
"drug cheat" isn't well defined. It's not a term WADA uses.
But according to WADA's TD on Nandrolone, the amount of "drugs in her urine" can be endogenous, i.e. not cheating. Accurately determining this necessarily requires identifying the source -- something that was never done.
LOL. Still at it, I see. And again, your last sentence is utter nonsense (the rest is deflection) - WADA has determined that it was exogenous, confirmed by AIU, confirmed by WA, confirmed by CAS, confirmed by all independent experts consulted to date.
So, i.e., cheating.
WADA was not a party to the dispute.
"Determining" and "confirming" is not "proving".
In any case, you are wrong. What was "determined" and "confirmed" was that it was "consistent with exogenous origin", and also that it could be "pseudo-endogenous".
No one established that the nandrolone was of exogenous origin.
The answer is revealed in point 76 of the decision, which says the following (again, I’ve highlighted in bold the key facts): “The Panel notes that a GC/IRMS analysis was performed on the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples. The Athlete’s A-Sample delta-delta values were 3.8 (i.e. -23 for 19-NA and -19.3 for pregnanediol) and the B-Sample delta-delta values were 3.8 (i.e. -23 for 19-NA and -19.2 for pregnanediol). In brief, the Athlete’s delta-delta values were far out of range with that of human endogenous urinary steroids referred to in TD2021NA”.
....
the delta-delta-13C was different enough that they could rule out endogenous formation
...
the GC/IRMS result was used to conclude that the 19-NA in her urine was not endogenous
Super clear, even you should get it now: the nandro was not endogenous. That was ruled out.
Checkmate - go to bed, it's past midnight in France or where ever you are.
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.
