Shelby podcast today: "I want all the records", wants world record attempt in mile her first race back

Well, anyhoo, besides the inconvenient truth that a beef burrito doesn't contain pork offal, back to the actual subject: When Foolliban gets up and running, she's 4 years older, apparently broke (although she can vacation in Cabo), and has been training less. How then does she consider that she's going to break all these records?

CAS report about testes, .... :

"Fifth, the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach. Pork stomach, for the purposes of human consumption, is stripped of the inner layer with the consequence that only the outer muscle remains. Even if uncastrated boars do have elevated androgen levels, those are not found in the muscle, but only in specific parts (such as kidneys, testes or liver). Pork stomach, on the contrary, has one of the lowest androgen levels."

and

"In addition, even if uncastrated boars would have elevated androgen levels, those are only found in specific parts of the animal such as the kidney, testes and (to a lesser extent) the liver. However, the Athlete claims to have eaten pork’s stomach. "

and

"In Prof McGlone’s opinion the androgens levels in the pig’s stomach are, however, far lower that in other organs such as the kidney, fat, testes or salivary glands, since:"

Hahaha. Those are the only times testes are mentioned... never as an ingredient of Shelby's offal. On the contrary, they are mentioned as contrast to stomach: testes can cause such nandro levels, stomach cannot. Unrebutted by everyone. 3 : 0 decided by CAS.

Are you trying to ridicule your image completely with that kind of trolling?

Tygart a) agreed that the nandro wasn't in the burrito because of all the overwhelming evidence - which you keep disputing - and b) agreed that WADA/AIU/WA/CAS all acted properly and came to the right conclusion - which you keep disputing.

Hahahaha. Here's the outcome, just a few unanimous 3 : 0 decisions of the CAS panel:

a) "Based on the above, the Panel finds it is possible but improbable that the meat of an uncastrated boar ended up in the burrito that the Athlete ate."

b) "Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels"

c) "The Panel finds it possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples"

d) "The Panel finds that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is
neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature."

e) "Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the ADRV was unintentional, and the ADRV must be
deemed to be intentional."

How much of the above do you support again? I support all CAS decisions in this matter because of all the specific and concrete evidence. Like Tucker and Tygart.

"My arguments have remain virtually unchanged."

The only correct thing you have said about this and every other thread you have commented on since the CAS decision.

So you don't support the outcome - because it involves a process you reject. But it isn't as you describe. It is in fact based on incontrovertible evidence against the athlete, which is a confirmed positive test, for which they cannot produce an accepted defence. Hence the athlete is guilty of an intentional violation because any alternative has been ruled out by her failure to rebut the presumption of intent. That is the right outcome.

She is probably taking every illegal substance while on her ban, so she will cycle off them when the ban is over, look at her hair line, tell tale sign of steroid use.

Exactly as I said. The experts conceded that many organs contain high amounts of nandrolone, and offered no argument or analysis or any evidence excluding any of these organs from the burrito.

Note the WA/AIU mistate Houlihan's claim, which can be found in paragraph 8, alleging "a burrito ... containing pork offal", and not alleging just pork stomach. This explains why their rebuttal of "pork meat and stomach" falls far short of rebutting Houlihan's claim.

Note that CAS findings are not evidence, and general population probabilities across the USA and Canada (pre-pandemic) are not specific and concrete.

The WA/AIU make a strong argument that nandrolone positives from pork would be rare in the USA, which was not a question before it. But it is not clear how any of these probability decisions help us determine the most likely source of the nandrolone, relative to all other possible sources.

So, another vague reference to "overwhelming evidence", but nothing specific and concrete.

Tygart did not introduce any new evidence.

A decision based on presumptions allowed by the Code doesn't mean that the CAS correctly determined the truth.

A confirmed positive test is insufficient to determine both "doping" and "intent".

We cannot say if it was the "right outcome" since it was based on presumptions.

A banned substance in an athlete's bloodstream, for which they cannot provide an acceptable defence, is not a "presumption". The substance couldn't have got there by itself. That can only leave the athlete as the cause. That is what the standard of the balance of probabilities determined. Your arguments fail that test.

Shelby should be banned for life, made an example of. Because of people like her (the dumb ones who get caught) we have the Ruth Cheotngetichs of the world who feel the need to obliterate world records using undetectable rocket fuel.

Lol Rekrunner, you are all over the place. Just yesterday you said you supported the outcome, now you are backpedaling again. Troll mote consistently!

Really? I keep coming back to the same place.

I recall saying "that is the wrong goalpost" and saying "I don't support a process that determines outcomes based on presumptions".

It's easy for the most esteemed panel to find "intentional doping" when they first presume it without any specific and concrete evidence, but that doesn't mean the presumption is valid.

The detected substance wasn't found in the athlete's bloodstream, but in urine.

You misunderstand the standard applied. Houlihan was banned for 4-years according to the standard of codified presumption.

My argument, which you fail to rebut, is that you cannot conclude "intentional doping" on the known evidence alone, but that it requires additional and significant presumptions to spackle in the significant gaps in the evidence.

Sounds like you do support the outcome 🤣

The ban for what Houlihan did, is 4 years, and it cannot arbitrarily extended to being permanent.

Fortunately, there’s only one Ruth Chepngetich.

It is, when the athlete cannot successfully rebut it when given the opportunity.