rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"Perhaps" the moon is also made of green cheese. Your speculation is pure fancy. What is much more probable is that they doped, which we would expect in a country that WADA has identified has a doping problem.
My speculation is backed by data, while yours is not.
That there are boars in Kenya? And, who, pray, in WADA (or anyone else in anti-doping) has suggested this as a cause for Kenya's endemic doping issues?
original liar soorer wrote:
nardi one wrote:
We don’t need to read the rules to know that taking nandrolone is cheating, and that saying eating a burrito caused it is lying.
Shelby should have abided by the rules you keep telling everyone to read.
She had multiple hearings and appeals. All resulting in the same conclusion. She cheated and lied.
Four year ban. Maximum penalty.
They don’t hand out the maximum penalty lightly.
Her coach is a liar too. He’s heard of nandrolone, and by lying and saying he hasn’t raised suspicion.
Every sentence is wrong and written by one who needs educating.
Despicable. You are only here to create noise in this thread so people don’t continue to talk about how ridiculous it is that people thinks she is innocent. Jerry Schumacher claimed that him and Shelby had both never heard of nandrolone. That is a straight up lie. Want to deny that again?
Go to 0:25 in this video.
https://youtu.be/D2_ywLBxyhsThis is the last time I reply to you.
Armstronglivs wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
When it is allowed and even encouraged.
Examples?
Doper is too wide and too simple and misleading a word.
Broadly I would use it for any knowing use of substances to enhance performance which could have adverse health effects.
Come what may the word is misleading and needs clarity for context.
Bit like racial insults; your monkey taunts and race and intelligence views need context to be recognised.
RIrunnerz wrote:
original liar soorer wrote:
Every sentence is wrong and written by one who needs educating.
Despicable. You are only here to create noise in this thread so people don’t continue to talk about how ridiculous it is that people thinks she is innocent. Jerry Schumacher claimed that him and Shelby had both never heard of nandrolone. That is a straight up lie. Want to deny that again?
Go to 0:25 in this video.
https://youtu.be/D2_ywLBxyhsThis is the last time I reply to you.
Where is the evidence that it is a lie?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Accident doping, when there was no fault or negligence in the part of the athlete, is "honest" within your definition but only as an excuse for something that is proscribed. As you also say, ""honesty" does not extend to the athlete knowing what they are doing. So, crucially, doping cannot be open, admitted - or even aware - and "honest" at the same time. The word instead of "honest" should be "unaware", added to the proviso of "without negligence".
"Fairness" does not mean ineffectual. There is never a defence to doping that it may not have worked. As an offence its effects are not calculated. By definition, banned substances have the "potential" to enhance performance (or can harm health or are in breach of principles of sportsmanship). Using a banned substance is never "fair" within the code. We can never know whether it worked for an individual athlete and by how much although it can generally be assumed there will be an advantage.
The athlete's motivation is irrelevant if they have taken something that is banned that has the potential to enhance performance. They have doped. They are responsible for what is found in their body. All they have is the possible excuse that it was accidental and occurred without negligence on their part.
Now you argue that doping can be honest. That is progress.
Doping is only unfair if it puts another athlete at a disadvantage.
Recall we were talking about cheating, and not about defending against a doping ban.
You are looking for these crucial elements of cheating in the Code, and unsurprisingly not finding it.
I already told you that the Code doesn't address cheating.
We cannot infer cheating from a doping ban when it doesn't address the elements of honesty, fairness, for the intended purpose of gaining an advantage.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
You moved the goalpost.
A positive test result that is considered an ATF is not considered doping.
So doping is never "legitimate"; it can only be excusable? Thus it is always wrong.
These are your conclusions you are building around your new goalpost.
I said an ATF is not considered doping, not speaking to "doping" or "legitimacy" or "excusable" or "wrong".
You asked what WADA considered.
What WADA considers could be wrong, and in need of reform.
nardi one wrote:
We don’t need to read the rules to know that taking nandrolone is cheating, and that saying eating a burrito caused it is lying.
Shelby should have abided by the rules you keep telling everyone to read.
She had multiple hearings and appeals. All resulting in the same conclusion. She cheated and lied.
Four year ban. Maximum penalty.
They don’t hand out the maximum penalty lightly.
Her coach is a liar too. He’s heard of nandrolone, and by lying and saying he hasn’t raised suspicion.
This is what the anonymous poster "nardi one" thinks, with no arguments presented to back up his opinion. Fortunately, I am familiar with the Code and the verdict.
The WA/AIU did not accuse her of lying or cheating, and the CAS did not find that she lied or cheated. This only comes from anonymous posters who don't need to read the rules.
The CAS is restricted to interpreting the limited evidence before it, according to the terms and definitions in the Code. The Code does not address cheating or lying.
The 4-year ban is the default, which is handed out lightly.
The maximum ban can be 8 years or life, under aggravated circumstances.
Other than that, you got everything right.
Still seeing no evidence,other that rek ,that rules have been read or studied.
The opening few Paras contain much we need to pay attention to . These are sporting rules and criminal and civil standards should not be applied.Earlier versions say that sports bodies don’t have the resources to reach those standards.
Thus we have strict liability;designed for low level offences largely not with zero tolerance and administrative matters.
What do you think the reaction would have been if SH said she had not a clue what caused the positive after the month’s gap?
She took the four year ban and saved her money and did not have the humiliation of the food defence.
Armstronglivs wrote:
That there are boars in Kenya? And, who, pray, in WADA (or anyone else in anti-doping) has suggested this as a cause for Kenya's endemic doping issues?
Does Kenya have endemic doping issues?
Who in WADA, or anyone else in anti-doping says that?
The few stats I've seen suggest doping in Kenya is around the global average.
WADA and anyone else in anti-doping rarely look for causes of doping, but tend to focus on improving detection and making prosecution easier.
Yes there are boars in Kenya.
"A boar is a term that is used for a male swine that has not been castrated yet, hence, ready for breeding, or shall be used for breeding purposes."
A 2009 study found 49% of 182 farmers did not practice castration on their male pigs.
These two guys obviously think that nobody has proven that Lance Armstrong intentionally doped. There are liars and there are false confessions. Lance’s teammates lied and Lance made a false confession. Lance is as innocent as Shelby.
Broadly I would use it for any knowing use of substances to enhance performance which could have adverse health effects.(quote)
If there are objectively strong grounds for believing that a substance can enhance performance while having adverse health effects it will be placed on the prohibited list. If this hasn't been shown it won't be put on the list and is therefore not considered doping. If it isn't on the list it doesn't have those effects you describe. You won't know anything WADA doesn't.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Accident doping, when there was no fault or negligence in the part of the athlete, is "honest" within your definition but only as an excuse for something that is proscribed. As you also say, ""honesty" does not extend to the athlete knowing what they are doing. So, crucially, doping cannot be open, admitted - or even aware - and "honest" at the same time. The word instead of "honest" should be "unaware", added to the proviso of "without negligence".
"Fairness" does not mean ineffectual. There is never a defence to doping that it may not have worked. As an offence its effects are not calculated. By definition, banned substances have the "potential" to enhance performance (or can harm health or are in breach of principles of sportsmanship). Using a banned substance is never "fair" within the code. We can never know whether it worked for an individual athlete and by how much although it can generally be assumed there will be an advantage.
The athlete's motivation is irrelevant if they have taken something that is banned that has the potential to enhance performance. They have doped. They are responsible for what is found in their body. All they have is the possible excuse that it was accidental and occurred without negligence on their part.
Now you argue that doping can be honest. That is progress.
Doping is only unfair if it puts another athlete at a disadvantage.
Recall we were talking about cheating, and not about defending against a doping ban.
You are looking for these crucial elements of cheating in the Code, and unsurprisingly not finding it.
I already told you that the Code doesn't address cheating.
We cannot infer cheating from a doping ban when it doesn't address the elements of honesty, fairness, for the intended purpose of gaining an advantage.
I don't say doping can be honest. You have. What I say is that it can be unaware. Doping is only "honest" when the athlete knows what they are doing. If they know then they have committed a violation.
Doping doesn't have to be shown to put another athlete at a disadvantage to be unfair. All that is necessary is that it be shown to have the potential to enhance the performance of the athlete that takes it. That is its "unfairness".
The code does not address cheating because it does not need to. It is implicit, otherwise doping would not be banned. There would be no wrong to be addressed. That an athlete who dopes is a cheat is the same as saying that someone who unlawfully takes another's property is a thief. The statute against stealing need not describe the person convicted as a thief; it is implicit in the offence.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
That there are boars in Kenya? And, who, pray, in WADA (or anyone else in anti-doping) has suggested this as a cause for Kenya's endemic doping issues?
Does Kenya have endemic doping issues?
Who in WADA, or anyone else in anti-doping says that?
The few stats I've seen suggest doping in Kenya is around the global average.
WADA and anyone else in anti-doping rarely look for causes of doping, but tend to focus on improving detection and making prosecution easier.
Yes there are boars in Kenya.
"A boar is a term that is used for a male swine that has not been castrated yet, hence, ready for breeding, or shall be used for breeding purposes."
A 2009 study found 49% of 182 farmers did not practice castration on their male pigs.
You are now being ludicrous. Kenya isn't in the middle of the global pack for doping. It may not be as bad as Russia, where doping is claimed by whistleblowers to involve about 90% of elite athletes, but WADA has reported that Kenya has a serious problem with doping, subject to the caveat that it does not appear to be state-sponsored. The number of busts in Kenya over the last few years have shown that it is a serious offender - and especially in distance running.
No one in WADA or any reliable anti-doping expert has suggested that uncastrated pigs could be a cause for the unusual number nandrolone busts in Kenya. That is pure speculation on your part. If there was substance to the claim it would have been acknowledged long ago. It hasn't.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Broadly I would use it for any knowing use of substances to enhance performance which could have adverse health effects.(quote)
If there are objectively strong grounds for believing that a substance can enhance performance while having adverse health effects it will be placed on the prohibited list. If this hasn't been shown it won't be put on the list and is therefore not considered doping. If it isn't on the list it doesn't have those effects you describe. You won't know anything WADA doesn't.
Again you seek to re invent what I have said.
And then you conclude with yet another tautology.
You must be wearing blinkers if you cant think of substances that enhance performance but have potential adverse health effects. Can’t think of painkillers and anti inflabs those don’t have such health probs and serious heart ones at that.
Wada know this but create an arbitrary banned list.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Does Kenya have endemic doping issues?
Who in WADA, or anyone else in anti-doping says that?
The few stats I've seen suggest doping in Kenya is around the global average.
WADA and anyone else in anti-doping rarely look for causes of doping, but tend to focus on improving detection and making prosecution easier.
Yes there are boars in Kenya.
"A boar is a term that is used for a male swine that has not been castrated yet, hence, ready for breeding, or shall be used for breeding purposes."
A 2009 study found 49% of 182 farmers did not practice castration on their male pigs.
You are now being ludicrous. Kenya isn't in the middle of the global pack for doping. It may not be as bad as Russia, where doping is claimed by whistleblowers to involve about 90% of elite athletes, but WADA has reported that Kenya has a serious problem with doping, subject to the caveat that it does not appear to be state-sponsored. The number of busts in Kenya over the last few years have shown that it is a serious offender - and especially in distance running.
No one in WADA or any reliable anti-doping expert has suggested that uncastrated pigs could be a cause for the unusual number nandrolone busts in Kenya. That is pure speculation on your part. If there was substance to the claim it would have been acknowledged long ago. It hasn't.
You conclude with yet another Tautology.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I don't say doping can be honest. You have. What I say is that it can be unaware. Doping is only "honest" when the athlete knows what they are doing. If they know then they have committed a violation.
Doping doesn't have to be shown to put another athlete at a disadvantage to be unfair. All that is necessary is that it be shown to have the potential to enhance the performance of the athlete that takes it. That is its "unfairness".
The code does not address cheating because it does not need to. It is implicit, otherwise doping would not be banned. There would be no wrong to be addressed. That an athlete who dopes is a cheat is the same as saying that someone who unlawfully takes another's property is a thief. The statute against stealing need not describe the person convicted as a thief; it is implicit in the offence.
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what you say.
You have redefined "doping" to be something quite different from WADA's re-definition, to which athletes, ADAs, ADOs, and CAS are bound to.
You will arrive at conclusions consistent with your own customized la-la land definition but have no bearing out here in the real world.
Then you fail to understand that "cheating" has its own real world definition, not redefined by WADA, with criteria that must be shown, in order to justify its use. This includes showing the motivation for doping: in order to gain an advantage.
It does not need to be shown by ADOs and ADAs and the CAS, because they do not call athletes cheats.
As "dishonest", "unfair", and "in order to gain an advantage" are necessary elements that have not yet been shown by anyone, anywhere, anytime, it would be both premature and unjustified to call Houlihan a cheater.
Re-iterating that she is currently serving a ban for anti-doping rule violations do not help show the missing elements.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are now being ludicrous. Kenya isn't in the middle of the global pack for doping. It may not be as bad as Russia, where doping is claimed by whistleblowers to involve about 90% of elite athletes, but WADA has reported that Kenya has a serious problem with doping, subject to the caveat that it does not appear to be state-sponsored. The number of busts in Kenya over the last few years have shown that it is a serious offender - and especially in distance running.
No one in WADA or any reliable anti-doping expert has suggested that uncastrated pigs could be a cause for the unusual number nandrolone busts in Kenya. That is pure speculation on your part. If there was substance to the claim it would have been acknowledged long ago. It hasn't.
Are the number of busts in Kenya unusual?
Does WADA or any reliable anti-doping experts investigate causes of busts by nation?
Whether you believe it is ludicrous or not, my ideas are backed by data, while your brown-tinged ideas are not. The Sunday Times published data from two world-renowned Australian anti-doping research experts showing Kenya's "suspicious" blood doping was actually below the global average.
You said Kenyan doping was "endemic". Now I see you back pedal and say "serious".
As interesting as what you say is, can't you tell me what WADA really says?
Because at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what you say.
WADA has reported that the world has a serious problem with doping, and it is a matter of global concern.
In other threads, you seem to share this view too.
WADA has acknowledged that uncastrated pigs can be a natural source of nandrolone, and published an updated TD2021NA for that.
I remind that the veterinary residues committee report Nandrolone injected beef in the UK.
Also there is a big fuss about UK refusing Canadian beef because of steroids inc those directly on the Wada banned list.
Why do you keep trying to spit shine a turd?
WADA concluded she had an unnatural amount of the steroid nandrolone in her system. Which by any definition is cheating.
Then, they concluded her burrito excuse was not plausible in any way. Which by any definition is lying.
Then, the highest paid female runner on the planet and the highest paid running coach in the planet said they had never even heard of nandrolone.
That lie might work with the public, but since we are casual running fans on this site and we have all heard of nandrolone. We can conclude a Nike funded running coach working with the world’s best runners has heard of nandrolone.
That’s why they are both labeled as cheats and liars. That’s why she banned for two Olympics and four years. That’s why she was given the maximum penalty for a first office.
Please continue to try and spin this, but we all know a turd covered with sugar is still a turf, and we ain't eating it. But you can by all means keep chewing on it.