I don't see many posts discussing the polygraph test she claims to have taken. I would love to see the questions, answers, and results from that. I highly doubt she's been trained to falsely pass a polygraph test, which means the questions and how she answered them would be instrumental in my judgement of guilt or innocence. I understand that polygraphs aren't admissible in court etc. and don't count as evidence, but being willing to even take one is a point in the innocent column.
Freedom is a path seldom walked by the multitudes wrote:
Guys what's so hard to understand. She ate a burrito that had tons of steroids in it. She's completely innocent. Just happen to eat a burrito with tons of steroids in it right before she took the test. It was just bad luck. The fact that she is absolutely ripped, and is setting records, and just happened to test positive for steroid use, is all a coincidence that came about because she ate a burrito. Seriously what don't you understand
Like the crazy Maniacs who thought OJ Simpson was guilty just because Mark Fuhrman was racist. Don't you understand that all that evidence materialized because Mark Fuhrman had a history of using bad words. The blood in the truck and the blood at the scene oh, and the blood in OJ's house, and the Bloody glove, and the fact that his shoe prints were at the crime scene, and the fact that they saw him going back into the house with a bag and a cat burglar outfit and they were sounds of someone climbing over the fence, is all just because Mark Fuhrman was a racist
If the glove doesn't fit, you must disregard the mountains of evidence, and acquit
LOL!
ck3237 wrote:
Who's not guilty?
At this point, I am very curious how many clean competitors exist.
Seems like a fake sport.
GUILTY
AS CHARGED
Boom goes the dynamite wrote:
I don't see many posts discussing the polygraph test she claims to have taken. I would love to see the questions, answers, and results from that. I highly doubt she's been trained to falsely pass a polygraph test, which means the questions and how she answered them would be instrumental in my judgement of guilt or innocence. I understand that polygraphs aren't admissible in court etc. and don't count as evidence, but being willing to even take one is a point in the innocent column.
You don't need to be trained to pass a polygraph. It's a hugely unreliable reading if someone is lying. There is research showing it's actually fooled by 1 in 5 in tests and that humans are actually suspected to be more easily fooled outside control conditions when people have important causes and personal reasons to lie.
Neither athlete nor coach had ever heard of nandrolone. What planet had they been living on?
Harambe wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:
I'm also eager to see which laboratory was used, which experts testified in the case, and who was on the CAS panel.
Can you name any previous cases? Interested in reading up on this.
I was very surprised when I saw that the first response to my comment was Christiane Ayotte, the director of Canada's WADA-accredited lab and a prolific author and speaker on the subject. It led to a spirited discussion among posters who seemed quite familiar with questions about how to interpret nandrolone levels.[/quote]
Thank you. Very interesting -- the same lady whom Lawson was able to escape his ban by (partially) attacking her credibility.[/quote]
Yes. And though she's obviously very knowledgeable about the subject, my impression is that she has been invested in a certain position in these cases for a very long time. I just noticed, from the heading of a more recent thread, that she and her lab were involved here, which didn't surprise me. When I mentioned earlier that I wanted to see which lab and experts were involved in this case, I was most specifically interested in whether she and her lab were involved.
Boom goes the dynamite wrote:
I don't see many posts discussing the polygraph test she claims to have taken. I would love to see the questions, answers, and results from that. I highly doubt she's been trained to falsely pass a polygraph test, which means the questions and how she answered them would be instrumental in my judgement of guilt or innocence. I understand that polygraphs aren't admissible in court etc. and don't count as evidence, but being willing to even take one is a point in the innocent column.
Polygraphs aren't admissible in court because psychopaths commonly pass them, as they don't demonstrate an elevated heart rate or other symptoms when lying.
Not Guilty
looki wrote:
ck3237 wrote:
Who's not guilty?
At this point, I am very curious how many clean competitors exist.
Seems like a fake sport.
There are plenty of clean competitors, you just don’t notice them because they are running normal (still impressive) times and the dopers are breaking records and winning. It’s truly sad.
She's just been eating burritos for years is all. She had no idea!!! #Freethebean
Guilty. Trust the science.
What are we supposed to believe if other athletes come close to her times in the run up to or following the games? Especially those who haven't achieved them yet?
Suspicious, and worth further investigation.
1. Her test showed the the banned substance at 5 ng/ml
2. The science says that men eating 310 grams of the right kind of pork can test within the range of 3.5-7.5 ng/ml. Granted, she may not need to consume that much because of being lighter.
3. She said she ordered one kind of burrito but may have accidentally consumed the tainted pork burrito. How much pork could plausibly been in that one pork burrito? Half a pound? Did she eat more than one? If she pulled the wrong burrito out of the bag and bit into it and just decided to finish it, wouldn't she have been more careful about the next burrito? That's a lot of coincidences. Coincidences do happen, however.
4. And then, coincidentally, the test happens 10 hours after the burrito bungle. We're straining credulity, but still on the outer edges of Murphy's law of plausibility.
5. She apparently provided hair samples that shows no buildup of the banned substance, suggesting that she was not a long term user (or can this be faked or masked by microdosing? idk).
Apparently the testing authorities could have chosen to give the benefit of the doubt and continued the investigation, but instead decided that the evidence was conclusive enough to end her career. I might be wrong about that.
I'm not an expert, so maybe I'm missing something, but based on this evidence, I don't see this as conclusive.
And that's what bothers me. I think her burrito alibi provides reasonable doubt. But I don't know what the standard of judgement is supposed to be in these cases.
Two Guilty
My wife is a pharmacist and she says it’s stupidity to blame it on a burrito.
Not guilty
They had to prove their case on the balance of probabilities, which is a lower threshold than beyond reasonable doubt. More likely than not. 51%. Pigs not flying.
The CAS grounds should make for fun reading when they drop. Should hopefully put and end to this offal episode...
Guilty
I say guilty. The polygraph test gives me a smidgeon of doubt but they are highly unreliable and who knows what questions were asked or how many times she took it, etc. not enough to change my opinion.
I'm torn. Her progression seemed somewhat suspicious, as does her, Shalane and Jerry saying they've never even heard of nandrolone. Really?
However, almost all of her BTC teammates and coaches immediately and passionately defend her publicly on IG. Do I think Schweizer, Cranny, Fraser, Infeld, Sinclaire Johnson, Chris Derrick, etc. are dopers and covering for her? Absolutely not.
I can't make a judgment until I hear the other non BTC side of the story. 4 year bans are serious punishment-if her 4 year ban was upheld after appeal, she's probably not innocent.