If Shelby was doping intentionally why wasn't she running super spikes?

It's too early to tell whether she is a doper without any substantial evidence.

I remind you that she was banned for 4-years based on a set of unsubstantiated presumptions and scientifically ambiguous evidence.

Burritos are cheaper.

You cannot because you simply don't have the information. Fifty years ago you were gullible and impressionable. Fifty years later, you are older, but no wiser.

So you know nothing about the history of doping in the sport. Typical.

"Too early to tell" - for a convicted doping offender (nothing ambiguous about her failed test) who failed to produce an adequate defence to consuming a banned substance - which was undisputed. You are beyond belief.

Only a masochist or a fool would seek to deprive you of your ignorance about doping in the sport. Over a billion Euros spent by athletes on the doping black market every year and antidoping bodies like WADA failing to make a dent in that trade are meaningless to a doping denier such as yourself.

Still waiting for your evidence.

As the CAS made clear, she was only convicted based on presumptions. Under a presumption of innocent until proven guilty, she is innocent.

The science says her results do not necessarily indicate doping. The CAS was split on that decision.

The lack of substantial information and specific details renders it meaningless to everyone.

At minimum, you're very stubborn. For the umpteenth time, asada burritos can be "uncharacteristically greasy." I had a chorizo burrito last weekend that wasn't greasy at all. Again, if she consumed 3/4 of a true offal burrito (stomach, heart, liver, kidney, testicles, etc.), it wouldn't have been the grease she noticed first, but the TASTE.

She doped. Got caught. End of story.

I would have said skeptical, but better stubborn than gullible.

As compelling as the personal experience of "almost boomer" is, with eating burritos bought somewhere else, here is what Shelby wrote:

"We go over burrito pictures that were taken by PI and establish that the carne asada burrito that I did order, was not greasy at all in the picture. The burritos that Courtney and I ate on 14 December were so extremely greasy that neither of us could even finish them."

Here is what the CAS said:

"All witnesses that were present at the dinner testified or declared that the burrito was extremely greasy and it follows from the pictures submitted by the Respondent that the pork burrito is particularly greasy."

Maybe Shelby doped, maybe she didn't. It's stlil too early to draw any conclusions without conclusive evidence. The existing evidence is ambiguous, being both equally consistent with a doping scenario, and a non-doping scenario. I'm prepared to listen to evidence based arguments that would establish that on the balance of probabilty, without relying on any presumptions.

They were available for Bannister, but he refused to use them. Same for Elliott. And Coe. And Morceli.

Only the current fake generation is lazy enough to use them.

Does anybody have a transcript of what Professor Ayotte said in the movie Icarus?

You are unbelievable. Browsing through this thread alone, I notice that you have been several times reminded that the invoice for the "offal" was for meat and stomach. Therefore that was discussed. Logic 101. It is absolutely irrelevant for this case what other offals can be made of. Yet you keep mentioning the mysterious potential ingredients of other offals, just to deflect from this drug cheat's obvious guilt.

Did you ever read Tucker's explanations? For example this one:

That shouldn't be too hard to understand. Notice also "with reasons for this", before you go on and on again with your favorite new word "unsubstantiated".

But ultimately I agree with your ending:
Yay! Hooray for the sport! All is well here, one drug cheat got banned.

You carry on, keep deflecting, try to keep the discussion of this drug cheat running forever. Hooray for the sport!

It is too early to tell whether you have an IQ in triple digits without any substantial evidence. The jury is out.

Gullible? No, I live in reality. Asada burritos from the same establishment can be greasy during one visit and not so much the next time. Shelby admitted she ate about 3/4 of the said greasy burrito. Again, if it was offal, it would have been the TASTE, not the grease she noticed. And after one bite it would have been obvious.

Speaking of presumptions, you've spent 4 years defending her based on the burrito story. A story with more holes than swiss cheese. So, yes, the balance of probability says she doped, in a sport rife with doping.

As a followup, I didn’t see any smoking guns in the movie (as it pertains to the Montreal WADA lab director, Ayotte), but maybe I missed it.

The bigger smoking gun in my opinion is that it was shown (with the help of an athlete’s legal team) that she provided false testimony. She was allowed to keep her position somehow, to be the Lab Director who made key testing decisions about another athlete represented by the same legal team and then be an “expert” witness against that athlete.

There appears to be no functioning ethical standards for WADA personnel.

The biggest WADA surprise is coming very soon for U.S.-based athletes who test positive due to *possible* meat contamination. Don’t buy meat retail (from grocery stores).

Rekrunner is pro-doping for love of the game, but I think Twoggle might be a paid shill for the USA Doping Agency.