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.
Absurd that the prosecution has to prove their case; indeed who ever would have thought of such an appalling principle of law.
1) I can't speak for Rojo but the consistency is Rojo is expressing how he feels. He looks at each case and gives his thoughts on it. Not each drug case is the same. You should look at the evidence and try and form an opinion.
2) If Jerry thinks Shelby didn't intentionally dope and wants to keep coaching her, apparently that is not an anti-doping violation so then it just becomes a matter of public relations right? The easier course for him would be to cast her aside but that isn't what he believes.
And your brother always sides with white people, and against black people. Interesting how that works out huh?
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.
Here is what you don't understand:
It shouldn't be anyone's task to evaluate every which scenario that the nandrolone could get into Shelby's system besides Shelby and whoever she hires. They are tasked for coming up with a theory, defending that theory, and then proving it above 50% probability. Shelby had ample resources and time, and she came up with the carne asada burrito that she ordered being a greasy, half-eaten pork stomach burrito that she got instead with meat from an uncastrated boar. That, and solely that, is what is to be evaluated.
Now, if you want to evaluate Shelby in some other alternate universe, go nuts. Maybe, in the most generous interpretation of this she had a tainted supplement? Maybe she had an off-menu pork kidney/heart burrito from an uncastrated boar that was missed in a pork plant somehow and she missed itand the food truck missed that were cooking pork kidney? But she herself has not argued these things, so you're just throwing up a shot in the dark.
I had to sit on a jury in a criminal case once and we had one guy who kept inventing up "what about this scenarios" for the accuser because her story just didn't add up. Just like him, I would again remind you that is not the job for whoever is making the ruling here.
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.
Absurd that the prosecution has to prove their case; indeed who ever would have thought of such an appalling principle of law.
stupid comment.
There’s no ‘case’. You are either within the lines or not.
When you are NOT burden shifts to you. Pretty simple
Otherwise anyone that got popped could just speculate how or just say ‘you know i have no idea — never even heard of it’ and that would be acceptable to you?
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.
Here is what you don't understand:
It shouldn't be anyone's task to evaluate every which scenario that the nandrolone could get into Shelby's system besides Shelby and whoever she hires. They are tasked for coming up with a theory, defending that theory, and then proving it above 50% probability. Shelby had ample resources and time, and she came up with the carne asada burrito that she ordered being a greasy, half-eaten pork stomach burrito that she got instead with meat from an uncastrated boar. That, and solely that, is what is to be evaluated.
Now, if you want to evaluate Shelby in some other alternate universe, go nuts. Maybe, in the most generous interpretation of this she had a tainted supplement? Maybe she had an off-menu pork kidney/heart burrito from an uncastrated boar that was missed in a pork plant somehow and she missed itand the food truck missed that were cooking pork kidney? But she herself has not argued these things, so you're just throwing up a shot in the dark.
I had to sit on a jury in a criminal case once and we had one guy who kept inventing up "what about this scenarios" for the accuser because her story just didn't add up. Just like him, I would again remind you that is not the job for whoever is making the ruling here.
I am subject to the Wada code and really I have not a clue what I ate yesterday let alone over a month ago.
Absurd that the prosecution has to prove their case; indeed who ever would have thought of such an appalling principle of law.
stupid comment.
There’s no ‘case’. You are either within the lines or not.
When you are NOT burden shifts to you. Pretty simple
Otherwise anyone that got popped could just speculate how or just say ‘you know i have no idea — never even heard of it’ and that would be acceptable to you?
You have not grasped that most people think that prosecutions have to prove their cases.
Innocent until proven guilty , I think it is.
Of course it is fully accepted that the person would be allowed to say anything.I learned my law by watching Perry Mason and that how it works.
This all seems quite fair to me. I think people need to chill out a bit on this thread.
Lrc funded a great piece that pretty clearly shows Shelby is guilty. And yet the prevailing comments here are saying they're supporting Shelby too much.
You are missing the main point- Even though the piece confirms that Shelby is a drug cheat, the wejo/bojo continues to claim she is innocent. This you can see from the incessant diatribe.
This all seems quite fair to me. I think people need to chill out a bit on this thread.
Lrc funded a great piece that pretty clearly shows Shelby is guilty. And yet the prevailing comments here are saying they're supporting Shelby too much.
You are missing the main point- Even though the piece confirms that Shelby is a drug cheat, the wejo/bojo continues to claim she is innocent. This you can see from the incessant diatribe.
She cheated, she's a cheater. Continuing to train with BTC? Also cheating. Because why? She know the inside game and could bring the whole team down. Get over yourself.
She cheated, she's a cheater. Continuing to train with BTC? Also cheating. Because why? She know the inside game and could bring the whole team down. Get over yourself.
Tucker did not say that.
Why has no other BTC been positive; they would have been subject to extra testing?
There’s no ‘case’. You are either within the lines or not.
When you are NOT burden shifts to you. Pretty simple
Otherwise anyone that got popped could just speculate how or just say ‘you know i have no idea — never even heard of it’ and that would be acceptable to you?
You have not grasped that most people think that prosecutions have to prove their cases.
Innocent until proven guilty , I think it is.
Of course it is fully accepted that the person would be allowed to say anything.I learned my law by watching Perry Mason and that how it works.
this is not a court of law is what youre not grasping apparently.
you have no rights to participate in sport at this level. this is simply a privilege.
stop being so obviously naive and trying to obfuscate a pretty simple open and shut case Colombo
It shouldn't be anyone's task to evaluate every which scenario that the nandrolone could get into Shelby's system besides Shelby and whoever she hires. They are tasked for coming up with a theory, defending that theory, and then proving it above 50% probability. Shelby had ample resources and time, and she came up with the carne asada burrito that she ordered being a greasy, half-eaten pork stomach burrito that she got instead with meat from an uncastrated boar. That, and solely that, is what is to be evaluated.
Now, if you want to evaluate Shelby in some other alternate universe, go nuts. Maybe, in the most generous interpretation of this she had a tainted supplement? Maybe she had an off-menu pork kidney/heart burrito from an uncastrated boar that was missed in a pork plant somehow and she missed itand the food truck missed that were cooking pork kidney? But she herself has not argued these things, so you're just throwing up a shot in the dark.
I had to sit on a jury in a criminal case once and we had one guy who kept inventing up "what about this scenarios" for the accuser because her story just didn't add up. Just like him, I would again remind you that is not the job for whoever is making the ruling here.
I am subject to the Wada code and really I have not a clue what I ate yesterday let alone over a month ago.
Are you like a sanitation person or something?
Who are you and how are you ‘subject to WADA code’?
Honestly, I would believe her (only 0.001%) more if she claimed it must have been sabotage by a competitor spiking her food with nandro, bribing a lab person, or putting some nandro cream in her sunscreen. That would actually be very easy to do, and probably has happened, however still unlikely and nearly impossible to prove.
But, the trusty old "taco truck sold me pig organ meat from a pig that is that 1 rare pig in 10,000 with undescended balls" explanation just seems like the kind of excuse your team doctors and lawyers keep on tap, just in case you pop for what you all know you're taking.
I'm not saying this was what happened. But think of how dirty some of these sponsors and teams are with their corrupt doping histories. If they're corrupt enough to cheat like that, don't you think they're dirty enough to sabotage their competition? Nearly certain to have happened. Nearly impossible to prove.