Try to follow the logic. If the drug wasn't accepted as being in her body by accident then what does that leave?
An arbitrary subjective decision based on an incomplete set of facts.
A confirmed positive test for which there was no convincing defence in the view of the Court. That's complete enough for an adjudicated violation resulting in a 4 year ban. Excellent result.
Athletes are required to know what is on the list. That is why banned substances are listed. WADA just does it for fun? Are you really that thick? Ignorance of what is listed is not an excuse. If it was Houlihan could have argued it by saying she had no idea nandrolone was banned. She didn't.
No one is talking about a failure to know what is on the list, but whether they know if banned substances are present in their USDA approved food.
... which was a beef burrito. Again, she produced a receipt for a beef burrito. Beef. Not pork. not offal. Beef. The fact is she gave them a receipt for a beef burrito. Beef. Fact. They tried to throw the shady mexican guy under the burrito truck. Cause you can't trust them mexicans. They ain't smart and they can't take a simple order cuz they can't speak english, still . Just say it l louder, then he'll get it. Probably not though. "I would like One Wild Boar Burrito, por favor !"
Maybe it's risky to eat several Uncastrated Pig Burritos, but she, again, ordered One Beef Burrito. The evidence shows she had One Beef Burrito.
I don’t care how many apologists there are for WADA out there, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out WADA was wrong from the very beginning.
Nandrolone in a person’s body does not mean they were using it as a performance enhancing substance.
No one has proved that the nandrolone was there in her body for the sake of enhancing performance. So some arbitrary, United States hating committee decides they have jurisdiction to ban an American athlete. That doesn’t mean she cheated. It just means they made a choice to ban her because someone else would “gain from it.”
If you’re not a hobby jogger or lazy finger pointer stop talking trash about Shelby and move on with your life.
Alberto Salazar doped athletes. Jerry Schumacher did not and NO, Shelby wasn’t some rogue one off. Use common sense and see that WADA is not an unbiased organization…it has motives and interests, just like any other body.
Use a little imagination in how you see Shelby’s case and don’t just assume that she cheated because WADA told you that she did.
WADA 100% gets some cases wrong, just as it gets some right. In this case they were wrong, but they will never admit as much, just like all political organizations and major figures…blame someone else for your own error.
When Linford Christie tested positive for Nandrolone, it was a tiny amount even if it did exceed the allowed limit. UK authorities then tested him a few weeks later and he tested 100% clean. If he had been using Nandrolone in a way consistent with improving athletic performance the drug would not have cleared in that time frame. Linford was well past retirement and was tested when he ran a 200m indoor race in Germany as a lark. If Linford had actually been using Nandroline to gain an advantage he certainly would not have been foolish enough to then compete in a meet where there was testing (or likely to be testing). Not long after Linford's positive test, many athletes started testing positive for Nandrolone and it was determined the drug was in many supplements so WADA issued a warning to carefully scrutinize any supplements and avoid any which appeared suspicious. It is possible Shelby took a tainted supplement. Now most such supplements are ones labeled "Anabolic" so she was stupid for taking any such supplement (if she did).
I see ads all the time on the internet for supplements. When I then see the words "Anabolic", "Peptide", "Blood Enhancer" I don't bother clicking on them.
When Linford Christie tested positive for Nandrolone, it was a tiny amount even if it did exceed the allowed limit. UK authorities then tested him a few weeks later and he tested 100% clean. If he had been using Nandrolone in a way consistent with improving athletic performance the drug would not have cleared in that time frame. Linford was well past retirement and was tested when he ran a 200m indoor race in Germany as a lark. If Linford had actually been using Nandroline to gain an advantage he certainly would not have been foolish enough to then compete in a meet where there was testing (or likely to be testing). Not long after Linford's positive test, many athletes started testing positive for Nandrolone and it was determined the drug was in many supplements so WADA issued a warning to carefully scrutinize any supplements and avoid any which appeared suspicious. It is possible Shelby took a tainted supplement. Now most such supplements are ones labeled "Anabolic" so she was stupid for taking any such supplement (if she did).
I see ads all the time on the internet for supplements. When I then see the words "Anabolic", "Peptide", "Blood Enhancer" I don't bother clicking on them.
Personally, I don’t believe any excuse presented by a doper for a positive test. They’re pretty much always lies.
When Linford Christie tested positive for Nandrolone, it was a tiny amount even if it did exceed the allowed limit. UK authorities then tested him a few weeks later and he tested 100% clean. If he had been using Nandrolone in a way consistent with improving athletic performance the drug would not have cleared in that time frame. Linford was well past retirement and was tested when he ran a 200m indoor race in Germany as a lark. If Linford had actually been using Nandroline to gain an advantage he certainly would not have been foolish enough to then compete in a meet where there was testing (or likely to be testing). Not long after Linford's positive test, many athletes started testing positive for Nandrolone and it was determined the drug was in many supplements so WADA issued a warning to carefully scrutinize any supplements and avoid any which appeared suspicious. It is possible Shelby took a tainted supplement. Now most such supplements are ones labeled "Anabolic" so she was stupid for taking any such supplement (if she did).
I see ads all the time on the internet for supplements. When I then see the words "Anabolic", "Peptide", "Blood Enhancer" I don't bother clicking on them.
Personally, I don’t believe any excuse presented by a doper for a positive test. They’re pretty much always lies.
Your chosen handle tells us all we need to know about your intelligence.
No one is talking about a failure to know what is on the list, but whether they know if banned substances are present in their USDA approved food.
... which was a beef burrito. Again, she produced a receipt for a beef burrito. Beef. Not pork. not offal. Beef. The fact is she gave them a receipt for a beef burrito. Beef. Fact. They tried to throw the shady mexican guy under the burrito truck. Cause you can't trust them mexicans. They ain't smart and they can't take a simple order cuz they can't speak english, still . Just say it l louder, then he'll get it. Probably not though. "I would like One Wild Boar Burrito, por favor !"
Maybe it's risky to eat several Uncastrated Pig Burritos, but she, again, ordered One Beef Burrito. The evidence shows she had One Beef Burrito.
Evidence, Fact, Beef.
Hail Mary, Made Up, Unsaturated Pig.
Maybe. Unless it wasn't a beef burrito, and she ate a greasy pork burrito due to a mixup. The receipt says beef, but she didn't eat the receipt. Or maybe the nandralone was in supplements she couldn't test. Or some other source she didn't identify. No one established the source to any standard, so the only conclusion we the public can draw is tht we don't know the source, as Team Houlihan did not establish a more likely than not source.
Note that neither World Athletics nor the AIU, nor the WADA Lab, nor the "experts", nor the CAS produced any receipt for norsteroid precursors or any other ingestable nandrolone. By your logic, it is not possible that she took nandralone without a receipt.
In any case, this doesn't alter the fact that intent was decided by the CAS, as they explained, based on presumption, lacking any facts before the CAS supporting intent.
An arbitrary subjective decision based on an incomplete set of facts.
A confirmed positive test for which there was no convincing defence in the view of the Court. That's complete enough for an adjudicated violation resulting in a 4 year ban. Excellent result.
The rules permit arbitration panels to decide based on presumptions, when the facts are incomplete or non-existent, as is often the case.
Because of these procedural shortcuts crafted by experienced WADA lawyers to make such adjudications quicker and cheaper, a finding of doping deemed intentional, based on a presumption of intent, is good enough under these rules to punish both innocent and guilty athletes for 4 years, but not good enough to establish that any rule violations were truly intentional.
A confirmed positive test for which there was no convincing defence in the view of the Court. That's complete enough for an adjudicated violation resulting in a 4 year ban. Excellent result.
The rules permit arbitration panels to decide based on presumptions, when the facts are incomplete or non-existent, as is often the case.
Because of these procedural shortcuts crafted by experienced WADA lawyers to make such adjudications quicker and cheaper, a finding of doping deemed intentional, based on a presumption of intent, is good enough under these rules to punish both innocent and guilty athletes for 4 years, but not good enough to establish that any rule violations were truly intentional.
so they need to have a needle in their arm and be in the process of injecting the ped during the hearing. otherwise it's presumption or intent or whichever word you're hung up on. I'm convinced. You're right. I can't believe I've been so hard-headed. 🙈
A confirmed positive test for which there was no convincing defence in the view of the Court. That's complete enough for an adjudicated violation resulting in a 4 year ban. Excellent result.
Because of these procedural shortcuts crafted by experienced WADA lawyers to make such adjudications quicker and cheaper, a finding of
btw: she immediately, or maybe after looking up what nandrolone was, played the most successful Tainted Food lawyer in the business. First thing he probably said was, "Um, this receipt is for a beef burrito."
... which was a beef burrito. Again, she produced a receipt for a beef burrito. Beef. Not pork. not offal. Beef. The fact is she gave them a receipt for a beef burrito. Beef. Fact. They tried to throw the shady mexican guy under the burrito truck. Cause you can't trust them mexicans. They ain't smart and they can't take a simple order cuz they can't speak english, still . Just say it l louder, then he'll get it. Probably not though. "I would like One Wild Boar Burrito, por favor !"
Maybe it's risky to eat several Uncastrated Pig Burritos, but she, again, ordered One Beef Burrito. The evidence shows she had One Beef Burrito.
Evidence, Fact, Beef.
Hail Mary, Made Up, Unsaturated Pig.
Maybe. Unless it wasn't a beef burrito, and she ate a greasy pork burrito due to a mixup. The receipt says beef, but she didn't eat the receipt. Or maybe the nandralone was in supplements she couldn't test. Or some other source she didn't identify. No one established the source to any standard, so the only conclusion we the public can draw is tht we don't know the source, as Team Houlihan did not establish a more likely than not source.
Note that neither World Athletics nor the AIU, nor the WADA Lab, nor the "experts", nor the CAS produced any receipt for norsteroid precursors or any other ingestable nandrolone. By your logic, it is not possible that she took nandralone without a receipt.
In any case, this doesn't alter the fact that intent was decided by the CAS, as they explained, based on presumption, lacking any facts before the CAS supporting intent.
"Maybe" isnt evidence. Maybe Sasquatch is real and maybe the moon is made of green cheese. Or she just made up an unlikely excuse which she couldn't prove. So a 4 year ban. Good.
A confirmed positive test for which there was no convincing defence in the view of the Court. That's complete enough for an adjudicated violation resulting in a 4 year ban. Excellent result.
The rules permit arbitration panels to decide based on presumptions, when the facts are incomplete or non-existent, as is often the case.
Because of these procedural shortcuts crafted by experienced WADA lawyers to make such adjudications quicker and cheaper, a finding of doping deemed intentional, based on a presumption of intent, is good enough under these rules to punish both innocent and guilty athletes for 4 years, but not good enough to establish that any rule violations were truly intentional.
Your need to exonerate convicted dopers is pathological. It is obviously based on the fact that you couldn't possibly follow a sport in which doping is rife and has completely eroded its credibility. So you must deny or minimise, or you risk losing your "faith" - which is your belief that the sport has not been corrupted by doping. Nothing else explains your denial and your delusions.
The rules permit arbitration panels to decide based on presumptions, when the facts are incomplete or non-existent, as is often the case.
Because of these procedural shortcuts crafted by experienced WADA lawyers to make such adjudications quicker and cheaper, a finding of doping deemed intentional, based on a presumption of intent, is good enough under these rules to punish both innocent and guilty athletes for 4 years, but not good enough to establish that any rule violations were truly intentional.
so they need to have a needle in their arm and be in the process of injecting the ped during the hearing. otherwise it's presumption or intent or whichever word you're hung up on. I'm convinced. You're right. I can't believe I've been so hard-headed. 🙈
Sorry - none of that is proof of intent, either, as there could be any number of reasons for the syringe. No - proof of intent can only be a confession "it's a fair cop, guv - I doped!" That, of course, is what rekrunner would require, if he could, because it would virtually eradicate a finding of intentional doping against any athlete. Doping would cease to exist as a "problem". "What dopers? Where?"
You guys sure are spending a lot of time worrying about this. Shelby is free. She will be racing very soon and she will be crushing your favorite women. Shelby was framed but we can move on because there is nothing she can do. She has forgiven the perpetrators. She is a wonderful person.
You guys sure are spending a lot of time worrying about this. Shelby is free. She will be racing very soon and she will be crushing your favorite women. Shelby was framed but we can move on because there is nothing she can do. She has forgiven the perpetrators. She is a wonderful person.
The only way she will crush the best is if she is back on in the juice. She may well be.
"Maybe" isnt evidence. Maybe Sasquatch is real and maybe the moon is made of green cheese. Or she just made up an unlikely excuse which she couldn't prove. So a 4 year ban. Good.
In this case, "maybe" referred to her maybe eating a beef burrito. If you have reasons to doubt that, you should direct it to "Llyod Flandis". I won't defend someone else's claim.