Cheated probably for years, and saw herself zoom up to the top. Took down the world silver medalist in 2018 causing everyone to just accept that Jenny was old now and would not longer win, took apart American records and won 11 US Titles, all the while babbling about how much she loved! running! and that's why she just wanted to come back and win so many titles.
Was notoriously unraced, had unusual progression, ran a time trial in 14:23 though no American woman had ever come close to such a time before.
All of her lies seem so ridiculous now. "I was undertrained!" (we established she was a D1 collegiate runner running 60+ miles a week) "I changed my diet!" (her diet as she described it was disgusting. Most average people have better diets than hers. McDonald every morning? Fast food more than once a day?? Gross. Also, she ate cheesecake and a burrito the day she was caught). A diet change would do very little here also.
Looking back it seems ridiculous that we overlooked her as a clear doper. And the entitled way she has behaved since...training with the team still, setting up a gofundme to act like she's some victim. Gross, gross, gross.
If I were innocent, truly innocent I would put all my energy into proving myself innocent. I would not continue to train with the team since it's a clear distraction and I honestly wouldn't want to. I wouldn't ask anyone for money. I would work for it myself.
Brojos (and Jon Gault), thank you for hiring Ross Tucker to analyze the Shelby CAS decision and for posing questions to him. I found the two articles very helpful. I am impressed. This helps counteract the exposure to frequent noxious fumes produced by gasbags posting on your site.
Brojos (and Jon Gault), thank you for hiring Ross Tucker to analyze the Shelby CAS decision and for posing questions to him. I found the two articles very helpful. I am impressed. This helps counteract the exposure to frequent noxious fumes produced by gasbags posting on your site.
From the brosjo' mind, Paula and Shelby are equally innocent and Shelby is by no means a "proven doper." Paula is the most outrageously blatant doping cheater in the history of all sports, yet she will always remain a brojo darling.
For those of us that started following the sport after Paula was retired, what made people say she was a blatant drug cheat? The crazy WRs, or was there something else?
So many things. I knew instantly the first time I saw her run. Hearing about her amazing times, I was excited to watch her run in Athens. After less than ten seconds of watching that head bob I said to myself that there is NO possible way that a clean runner with an inefficiency that massive can run that fast. Go out and try to run a quarter mile while bobbing your skull through its full vertical range every step. You will be exhausted after a minute. Here was a woman doing that for over two hours. Take away that amount of wasted energy and you get a woman with a 10K pr of around 31 minutes who would be a faster marathoner than Shorter!
Other things:
the brit mandatory doping program
she was busted with blood values that were beyond legal, she mad up some ridiculous excuse about them (a la Shelby) then she refused to release other values even though she promised to
her training group in France was beyond suspect
the shady "doctors" that she frequented
other factors that I can't just recall but were very compelling
Sometimes you just KNOW when they are filthy. Who ever watched Ben Johnson and didn't KNOW?
Thanks, Ross. I would preface these remarks by saying the whole WADA regulatory system is broken and hurting the sports and athletes it regulates. But assuming we accept their process and protocols as legitimate, let me unpack your points a little bit which might be hard for readers to follow.
With respects to your second point above, note that in 4.3 of that 2021 TD, there is an "AND", which you're omitting from your selection. It is very clear that BOTH the concentration requirement AND the GC/C/IRMS results must be inconclusive. As per the CAS decision, which I read as correct, the latter is not the case here. that moves you across to the left, into the ADRV column (on the basis of 3.2.4 in the same TD, on page 5).
With respect to the lab's reporting responsibilities in this scenario, here is WADA's exact wording for reporting an Atypical Finding. It does not imply there must be doubt about the estimated concentration of 19-NA.
o Estimated concentration of 19-NA ≤ 15 ng/ml; AND o GC/C/IRMS results inconclusive or do not meet the criteria supporting an exogenous origin of 19-NA (see Art. 3.2.3); AND o 19-NA/19-NE > 3.
The pork defense raised some doubts about the results, and Ayotte did not have access to McGlone's expertise at the time. It would have been well within her purview to judge the results as inconclusive and Shelby would have still been tarred-and-feathered for an Atypical Finding.
THen the legal language at the head of that table - "The laboratory shall report" makes very clear that the lab has to report this as an ADRV. Also in points 76 to 78 of the CAS verdict, they correctly and very clearly spell out that the "the Athlete’s delta-delta values were far out of range with that of human endogenous urinary steroids referred to in the TD2021NA" (point 76). They then quote 3.2.4 from the TD, followed by "this is undoubtedly the case here". Your interpretation of it appears to be the same as Houlihan's, but it's focused only on the concentration, and not the large enough difference between the 19-NA and the ERC to rule out endogenous origins.
This is a bit of a red herring because no one on Shelby's team ever argued there was a possibility of endogenous (from pregnancy) or in-situ (chemical reactions in the urine) origin. Of course it was exogenous. It came from a piece of pork, and it was likely that the amount of corn Shelby ate in the weeks preceding the test were different from the amount of corn the pig ate before its demise. That's all that analysis refers to.
Your point 3 is basically teh same as they argued at CAS too, people can read how CAS assessed that from point 115 onwards. Houlihan's experts are summarized in 117 onwards. The final bullet point in point 116 directly contradicts your statement above re "normal in Canadian...pork". It is however similar to European pork, and the expert who Houlihan gets on this testifies as such in Point 118 of CAS. Ultimately CAS dismiss that as irrelevant to the case (Point 119).
I wrote: 3. The only number the lab found that was suspicious was the δ13C value of -23‰ but there has been almost no research at all on how rare such a level is in everyday pork consumed from markets and restaurants across America, just generalities. Such a δ13C number would be considered normal in Canadian or European pork, for example.
Here is WADA's defense of the -23‰ number. Notice how it is entirely backed up by their own personal observations and not any published research:
115: McGlone "submits that" the emergency practice of feeding extra soy to the pigs was not sustained. 116: "Relying on literature and her own studies that the consistent corn feeding practices in the United States and Canada result in consistently enriched carbon isotope signatures." "Over the years, her own studies’ results..." "it differs from the 19‐NA excreted in urine samples collected after the consumption of intact (uncastrated) pig offal (mostly kidneys and livers) which, according to Prof Ayotte’s experience, is measured around ‐18.5 to ‐ 21‰ in Canada."
Her "experience". Okay, then!
All this said, it brings me back to the issue about Houlihan's defence. It is remarkable to me that her experts testified about pork on another continent (Jahren, point 118), and testified only that "we just can't be sure" (as per Point 117). If the defense can be made that US pork has a signature at -23, then make it! Why not throw a good deal more at that? I found this really bemusing.
I agree entirely with Dr. Strahm's comments in 117 and don't see anything resembling the phrase, "we just can't be sure." As referenced in my piece, there have been a couple studies looking at δ13C values in US pork, but nothing that would be considered a broad enough survey of pork in the marketplace that could give us a reliable range of values. Beyond Ayotte's personal notebook, the science on that is pretty much unknown.
And to reiterate, my approach or "job" here was not to examine the specific content of the arguments from both sides, but rather to try to explain what CAS heard and how they decided. This whole section of the case, dealing with agriculture in the USA and the likelihood of a contamination felt like a really one sided boxing match, with one side throwing all the punches and landing many, with the other throwing basically none, and defending very weakly. The absence of any strong rebuttals, with evidence, is striking.
I remain amazed at the number of individuals on this board who support the US meatpacking industry (do some research, folks)! However, at the time Greene was formulating his defense, the true extent of the turmoil in the pork industry (which is highly secretive) wasn't really known, and to do an expose on it was beyond his scope. Most importantly, it wouldn't have helped her case to raise doubts about US pork quality control since "reasonable doubt" is worthless under the "strict liability" standard they were operating under, and let's consider that Shelby's legal budget was not limitless.
I hope, in another post, to outline what I think WADA's response and regulatory regime should look like. But I can guarantee that if I somehow magically were in charge of WADA investigations, there would be no doubt to anyone about whether an athlete had been doping or not.
Thanks, Ross. I would preface these remarks by saying the whole WADA regulatory system is broken and hurting the sports and athletes it regulates. But assuming we accept their process and protocols as legitimate, let me unpack your points a little bit which might be hard for readers to follow.
With respects to your second point above, note that in 4.3 of that 2021 TD, there is an "AND", which you're omitting from your selection. It is very clear that BOTH the concentration requirement AND the GC/C/IRMS results must be inconclusive. As per the CAS decision, which I read as correct, the latter is not the case here. that moves you across to the left, into the ADRV column (on the basis of 3.2.4 in the same TD, on page 5).
With respect to the lab's reporting responsibilities in this scenario, here is WADA's exact wording for reporting an Atypical Finding. It does not imply there must be doubt about the estimated concentration of 19-NA.
o Estimated concentration of 19-NA ≤ 15 ng/ml; AND o GC/C/IRMS results inconclusive or do not meet the criteria supporting an exogenous origin of 19-NA (see Art. 3.2.3); AND o 19-NA/19-NE > 3.
The pork defense raised some doubts about the results, and Ayotte did not have access to McGlone's expertise at the time. It would have been well within her purview to judge the results as inconclusive and Shelby would have still been tarred-and-feathered for an Atypical Finding.
THen the legal language at the head of that table - "The laboratory shall report" makes very clear that the lab has to report this as an ADRV. Also in points 76 to 78 of the CAS verdict, they correctly and very clearly spell out that the "the Athlete’s delta-delta values were far out of range with that of human endogenous urinary steroids referred to in the TD2021NA" (point 76). They then quote 3.2.4 from the TD, followed by "this is undoubtedly the case here". Your interpretation of it appears to be the same as Houlihan's, but it's focused only on the concentration, and not the large enough difference between the 19-NA and the ERC to rule out endogenous origins.
This is a bit of a red herring because no one on Shelby's team ever argued there was a possibility of endogenous (from pregnancy) or in-situ (chemical reactions in the urine) origin. Of course it was exogenous. It came from a piece of pork, and it was likely that the amount of corn Shelby ate in the weeks preceding the test were different from the amount of corn the pig ate before its demise. That's all that analysis refers to.
Your point 3 is basically teh same as they argued at CAS too, people can read how CAS assessed that from point 115 onwards. Houlihan's experts are summarized in 117 onwards. The final bullet point in point 116 directly contradicts your statement above re "normal in Canadian...pork". It is however similar to European pork, and the expert who Houlihan gets on this testifies as such in Point 118 of CAS. Ultimately CAS dismiss that as irrelevant to the case (Point 119).
I wrote: 3. The only number the lab found that was suspicious was the δ13C value of -23‰ but there has been almost no research at all on how rare such a level is in everyday pork consumed from markets and restaurants across America, just generalities. Such a δ13C number would be considered normal in Canadian or European pork, for example.
Here is WADA's defense of the -23‰ number. Notice how it is entirely backed up by their own personal observations and not any published research:
115: McGlone "submits that" the emergency practice of feeding extra soy to the pigs was not sustained. 116: "Relying on literature and her own studies that the consistent corn feeding practices in the United States and Canada result in consistently enriched carbon isotope signatures." "Over the years, her own studies’ results..." "it differs from the 19‐NA excreted in urine samples collected after the consumption of intact (uncastrated) pig offal (mostly kidneys and livers) which, according to Prof Ayotte’s experience, is measured around ‐18.5 to ‐ 21‰ in Canada."
Her "experience". Okay, then!
All this said, it brings me back to the issue about Houlihan's defence. It is remarkable to me that her experts testified about pork on another continent (Jahren, point 118), and testified only that "we just can't be sure" (as per Point 117). If the defense can be made that US pork has a signature at -23, then make it! Why not throw a good deal more at that? I found this really bemusing.
I agree entirely with Dr. Strahm's comments in 117 and don't see anything resembling the phrase, "we just can't be sure." As referenced in my piece, there have been a couple studies looking at δ13C values in US pork, but nothing that would be considered a broad enough survey of pork in the marketplace that could give us a reliable range of values. Beyond Ayotte's personal notebook, the science on that is pretty much unknown.
And to reiterate, my approach or "job" here was not to examine the specific content of the arguments from both sides, but rather to try to explain what CAS heard and how they decided. This whole section of the case, dealing with agriculture in the USA and the likelihood of a contamination felt like a really one sided boxing match, with one side throwing all the punches and landing many, with the other throwing basically none, and defending very weakly. The absence of any strong rebuttals, with evidence, is striking.
I remain amazed at the number of individuals on this board who support the US meatpacking industry (do some research, folks)! However, at the time Greene was formulating his defense, the true extent of the turmoil in the pork industry (which is highly secretive) wasn't really known, and to do an expose on it was beyond his scope. Most importantly, it wouldn't have helped her case to raise doubts about US pork quality control since "reasonable doubt" is worthless under the "strict liability" standard they were operating under, and let's consider that Shelby's legal budget was not limitless.
I hope, in another post, to outline what I think WADA's response and regulatory regime should look like. But I can guarantee that if I somehow magically were in charge of WADA investigations, there would be no doubt to anyone about whether an athlete had been doping or not.
So the meatpacking industry is so corrupt and this is do well known but Olympic level athletes with all the sports scientists, nutritionists and physios out there dont know this? They just want to roll the dice even though this is such a well known scandal?
That’s the narrative you’re selling here?
In that case, why is she eating meat at all? Especially meat from some anonymous street vendor where no one can track or verify the origin
Thanks, Ross. I would preface these remarks by saying the whole WADA regulatory system is broken and hurting the sports and athletes it regulates. But assuming we accept their process and protocols as legitimate, let me unpack your points a little bit which might be hard for readers to follow.
With respect to the lab's reporting responsibilities in this scenario, here is WADA's exact wording for reporting an Atypical Finding. It does not imply there must be doubt about the estimated concentration of 19-NA.
o Estimated concentration of 19-NA ≤ 15 ng/ml; AND o GC/C/IRMS results inconclusive or do not meet the criteria supporting an exogenous origin of 19-NA (see Art. 3.2.3); AND o 19-NA/19-NE > 3.
The pork defense raised some doubts about the results, and Ayotte did not have access to McGlone's expertise at the time. It would have been well within her purview to judge the results as inconclusive and Shelby would have still been tarred-and-feathered for an Atypical Finding.
This is a bit of a red herring because no one on Shelby's team ever argued there was a possibility of endogenous (from pregnancy) or in-situ (chemical reactions in the urine) origin. Of course it was exogenous. It came from a piece of pork, and it was likely that the amount of corn Shelby ate in the weeks preceding the test were different from the amount of corn the pig ate before its demise. That's all that analysis refers to.
I wrote: 3. The only number the lab found that was suspicious was the δ13C value of -23‰ but there has been almost no research at all on how rare such a level is in everyday pork consumed from markets and restaurants across America, just generalities. Such a δ13C number would be considered normal in Canadian or European pork, for example.
Here is WADA's defense of the -23‰ number. Notice how it is entirely backed up by their own personal observations and not any published research:
115: McGlone "submits that" the emergency practice of feeding extra soy to the pigs was not sustained. 116: "Relying on literature and her own studies that the consistent corn feeding practices in the United States and Canada result in consistently enriched carbon isotope signatures." "Over the years, her own studies’ results..." "it differs from the 19‐NA excreted in urine samples collected after the consumption of intact (uncastrated) pig offal (mostly kidneys and livers) which, according to Prof Ayotte’s experience, is measured around ‐18.5 to ‐ 21‰ in Canada."
Her "experience". Okay, then!
I agree entirely with Dr. Strahm's comments in 117 and don't see anything resembling the phrase, "we just can't be sure." As referenced in my piece, there have been a couple studies looking at δ13C values in US pork, but nothing that would be considered a broad enough survey of pork in the marketplace that could give us a reliable range of values. Beyond Ayotte's personal notebook, the science on that is pretty much unknown.
I remain amazed at the number of individuals on this board who support the US meatpacking industry (do some research, folks)! However, at the time Greene was formulating his defense, the true extent of the turmoil in the pork industry (which is highly secretive) wasn't really known, and to do an expose on it was beyond his scope. Most importantly, it wouldn't have helped her case to raise doubts about US pork quality control since "reasonable doubt" is worthless under the "strict liability" standard they were operating under, and let's consider that Shelby's legal budget was not limitless.
I hope, in another post, to outline what I think WADA's response and regulatory regime should look like. But I can guarantee that if I somehow magically were in charge of WADA investigations, there would be no doubt to anyone about whether an athlete had been doping or not.
So the meatpacking industry is so corrupt and this is do well known but Olympic level athletes with all the sports scientists, nutritionists and physios out there dont know this? They just want to roll the dice even though this is such a well known scandal?
That’s the narrative you’re selling here?
In that case, why is she eating meat at all? Especially meat from some anonymous street vendor where no one can track or verify the origin
How about the way this useless toolbag "moultonk" starts off by telling Ross that he's going to "unpack his points a little bit" like he even has a clue what he's talking about. What a joke.
For those of us that started following the sport after Paula was retired, what made people say she was a blatant drug cheat? The crazy WRs, or was there something else?
So many things. I knew instantly the first time I saw her run. Hearing about her amazing times, I was excited to watch her run in Athens. After less than ten seconds of watching that head bob I said to myself that there is NO possible way that a clean runner with an inefficiency that massive can run that fast. Go out and try to run a quarter mile while bobbing your skull through its full vertical range every step. You will be exhausted after a minute. Here was a woman doing that for over two hours. Take away that amount of wasted energy and you get a woman with a 10K pr of around 31 minutes who would be a faster marathoner than Shorter!
Other things:
the brit mandatory doping program
she was busted with blood values that were beyond legal, she mad up some ridiculous excuse about them (a la Shelby) then she refused to release other values even though she promised to
her training group in France was beyond suspect
the shady "doctors" that she frequented
other factors that I can't just recall but were very compelling
Sometimes you just KNOW when they are filthy. Who ever watched Ben Johnson and didn't KNOW?
This is what you and rekrunner don't understand. The job of the CAS/AIU is to rule based on the defense's claims.
What is it you think I don't understand? I know what the job of the AIU/CAS is and I know how WADA makes certain things easier for them, at the expense of the athletes.
The AIU and the CAS operate in an artificially constructed world created by WADA, to decide very narrow questions.
Not being subject to WADA's rules, I can apply a different set of rules, for example requiring the burden of proving claims by those who make them.
If I challenge any claims, it is either because 1) there is little to no basis for them, or 2) there is contradictory evidence.
Thanks, Ross. I would preface these remarks by saying the whole WADA regulatory system is broken and hurting the sports and athletes it regulates. But assuming we accept their process and protocols as legitimate, let me unpack your points a little bit which might be hard for readers to follow.
With respects to your second point above, note that in 4.3 of that 2021 TD, there is an "AND", which you're omitting from your selection. It is very clear that BOTH the concentration requirement AND the GC/C/IRMS results must be inconclusive. As per the CAS decision, which I read as correct, the latter is not the case here. that moves you across to the left, into the ADRV column (on the basis of 3.2.4 in the same TD, on page 5).
With respect to the lab's reporting responsibilities in this scenario, here is WADA's exact wording for reporting an Atypical Finding. It does not imply there must be doubt about the estimated concentration of 19-NA.
o Estimated concentration of 19-NA ≤ 15 ng/ml; AND o GC/C/IRMS results inconclusive or do not meet the criteria supporting an exogenous origin of 19-NA (see Art. 3.2.3); AND o 19-NA/19-NE > 3.
The pork defense raised some doubts about the results, and Ayotte did not have access to McGlone's expertise at the time. It would have been well within her purview to judge the results as inconclusive and Shelby would have still been tarred-and-feathered for an Atypical Finding.
THen the legal language at the head of that table - "The laboratory shall report" makes very clear that the lab has to report this as an ADRV. Also in points 76 to 78 of the CAS verdict, they correctly and very clearly spell out that the "the Athlete’s delta-delta values were far out of range with that of human endogenous urinary steroids referred to in the TD2021NA" (point 76). They then quote 3.2.4 from the TD, followed by "this is undoubtedly the case here". Your interpretation of it appears to be the same as Houlihan's, but it's focused only on the concentration, and not the large enough difference between the 19-NA and the ERC to rule out endogenous origins.
This is a bit of a red herring because no one on Shelby's team ever argued there was a possibility of endogenous (from pregnancy) or in-situ (chemical reactions in the urine) origin. Of course it was exogenous. It came from a piece of pork, and it was likely that the amount of corn Shelby ate in the weeks preceding the test were different from the amount of corn the pig ate before its demise. That's all that analysis refers to.
Your point 3 is basically teh same as they argued at CAS too, people can read how CAS assessed that from point 115 onwards. Houlihan's experts are summarized in 117 onwards. The final bullet point in point 116 directly contradicts your statement above re "normal in Canadian...pork". It is however similar to European pork, and the expert who Houlihan gets on this testifies as such in Point 118 of CAS. Ultimately CAS dismiss that as irrelevant to the case (Point 119).
I wrote: 3. The only number the lab found that was suspicious was the δ13C value of -23‰ but there has been almost no research at all on how rare such a level is in everyday pork consumed from markets and restaurants across America, just generalities. Such a δ13C number would be considered normal in Canadian or European pork, for example.
Here is WADA's defense of the -23‰ number. Notice how it is entirely backed up by their own personal observations and not any published research:
115: McGlone "submits that" the emergency practice of feeding extra soy to the pigs was not sustained. 116: "Relying on literature and her own studies that the consistent corn feeding practices in the United States and Canada result in consistently enriched carbon isotope signatures." "Over the years, her own studies’ results..." "it differs from the 19‐NA excreted in urine samples collected after the consumption of intact (uncastrated) pig offal (mostly kidneys and livers) which, according to Prof Ayotte’s experience, is measured around ‐18.5 to ‐ 21‰ in Canada."
Her "experience". Okay, then!
All this said, it brings me back to the issue about Houlihan's defence. It is remarkable to me that her experts testified about pork on another continent (Jahren, point 118), and testified only that "we just can't be sure" (as per Point 117). If the defense can be made that US pork has a signature at -23, then make it! Why not throw a good deal more at that? I found this really bemusing.
I agree entirely with Dr. Strahm's comments in 117 and don't see anything resembling the phrase, "we just can't be sure." As referenced in my piece, there have been a couple studies looking at δ13C values in US pork, but nothing that would be considered a broad enough survey of pork in the marketplace that could give us a reliable range of values. Beyond Ayotte's personal notebook, the science on that is pretty much unknown.
And to reiterate, my approach or "job" here was not to examine the specific content of the arguments from both sides, but rather to try to explain what CAS heard and how they decided. This whole section of the case, dealing with agriculture in the USA and the likelihood of a contamination felt like a really one sided boxing match, with one side throwing all the punches and landing many, with the other throwing basically none, and defending very weakly. The absence of any strong rebuttals, with evidence, is striking.
I remain amazed at the number of individuals on this board who support the US meatpacking industry (do some research, folks)! However, at the time Greene was formulating his defense, the true extent of the turmoil in the pork industry (which is highly secretive) wasn't really known, and to do an expose on it was beyond his scope. Most importantly, it wouldn't have helped her case to raise doubts about US pork quality control since "reasonable doubt" is worthless under the "strict liability" standard they were operating under, and let's consider that Shelby's legal budget was not limitless.
I hope, in another post, to outline what I think WADA's response and regulatory regime should look like. But I can guarantee that if I somehow magically were in charge of WADA investigations, there would be no doubt to anyone about whether an athlete had been doping or not.
Mate, you are clearly unacquainted with academic writing conventions. "Her own studies" will be referring to the many lab tests that she has conducted on behalf of the AIU - you also failed to highlight the part where it says she relied on the previous literature as well (I presume because that's inconvenient for your argument). When the decision highlights Professor Ayotte's experience, it's not just her opinion, it is informed by results she has observed and her knowledge of the literature. This is the very definition of expertise in any field. You make it sound like Prof. Ayotte was just someone who has opinions on the case when, in reality, she is a renowned scientist in the field. Her experience is knowledge, her studies are research.
What's your knowledge and experience? Anything to do with biology, chemistry, pharmacology, or sports science?
I read the entire story and I'm more confused than before. Why didn't they just go to the food truck and find out where they got their pork? It sounds like when her supplements came back negative, she had no other option than to mount this crazy excuse of tainted pork.
I know this has been brought up before: But isn't it a little suspicious that she raced so infrequently?
I'm never one to believe racist motivation without proof. But if this was Sifan Hassan, there is no way this website would be going out of it's way to exonerate her. So her 4 year ban means missing 2 olympics. That means she should only get a 3 year ban? And you claim you want to leave the sport in a better place than it is now? I don't see how letting a known drug cheat back in is doing that.
The entire thing is getting beyond embarrassing for all involved in her defense. It's shameful and humiliating. Will it ever stop?
Agreed + agreed. But no, that won't ever stop, the drug cheat apologists are still going hard with their obfuscations and long refuted points in this thread, as you can see,
At least wejo + rojo + JG are quiet today so far, and stopped deleting posts too.
This is what you and rekrunner don't understand. The job of the CAS/AIU is to rule based on the defense's claims.
Not being subject to WADA's rules, I can apply a different set of rules, for example requiring the burden of proving claims by those who make them.
In this instance, the "claim" is that she failed a drug test. She didn't contest that fact. If you choose to ascribe another level of burden of proof that says that, while she admits failing a drug test, it wasn't her fault and it's up to WADA/CAS to prove that it was, well, you're just being absurd.
I mean she ran 14:23. People are honestly wondering if that was clean? LOL. Of course it was doping. And dopers are all liars. They cheat, come up with excuses, swear they are clean, and cheat some more. They do not care. And very, very rarely will they confess.
The sport is what it is. But we do not all need to act like we were born yesterday when the subject comes up. "Hey look, an athlete that never showed a hint of elite ability all through college is suddenly running elite times. Seems legitimate to me."
Not being subject to WADA's rules, I can apply a different set of rules, for example requiring the burden of proving claims by those who make them.
In this instance, the "claim" is that she failed a drug test. She didn't contest that fact. If you choose to ascribe another level of burden of proof that says that, while she admits failing a drug test, it wasn't her fault and it's up to WADA/CAS to prove that it was, well, you're just being absurd.
If that's the only claim, I didn't contest it either.