Anybody know how she is spending her days now? Is she still living in Oregon with Bowerman crew or did she head home? The ban is basically the end of her running career, writing is on the wall, time to move on with rest of her life?
Anybody know how she is spending her days now? Is she still living in Oregon with Bowerman crew or did she head home? The ban is basically the end of her running career, writing is on the wall, time to move on with rest of her life?
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Any your point is.
LOL. Isn't that obvious? That rekrunner was wrong again in claiming that only "fans" see that as cheating.
liar soorer wrote:
Have you read the rules yet?
Yes.
You are keeping you reading well hidden.
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
But the lab never said that.
Not in those very words. But Shelby isn't the only one who interprets an AAF as cheating, especially after CAS confirmed that. And she isn't a "fan", so it's not only "fans" as rekrunner falsely claimed.
CAS called it an intentional Anti-Doping Rule Violation (possession and use of nandro) because they use the exact words as per Wada code. The public in general understands that as doping/cheating, imho correctly so.
But we have discussed that so often...
What's new now is that rekrunner just went all the way and calls that conclusion "baseless". Ridiculo, as the base for that is very obvious.
Here we go,,, “ not her very words “
Wada Code says they don’t rule on intent.
And read comment on 10.2.3 and resound .
Why did AIU say “ deemed”?
liar soorer wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Not in those very words. But Shelby isn't the only one who interprets an AAF as cheating, especially after CAS confirmed that. And she isn't a "fan", so it's not only "fans" as rekrunner falsely claimed.
CAS called it an intentional Anti-Doping Rule Violation (possession and use of nandro) because they use the exact words as per Wada code. The public in general understands that as doping/cheating, imho correctly so.
But we have discussed that so often...
What's new now is that rekrunner just went all the way and calls that conclusion "baseless". Ridiculo, as the base for that is very obvious.
Here we go,,, “ not her very words “
Wada Code says they don’t rule on intent.
And read comment on 10.2.3 and resound .
Why did AIU say “ deemed”?
AH is reacting to he assumption that the Lab was prejudiced against her; if she is correct then this is appalling and should have stopped case immediately.
And then we find that the head of the lab was Ayotte.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If Houlihan's defence team did not make use of that information it would have been because they did not consider it
would help her case. They would have known better than the resident "statistician with a mathematical bent" here
what data would have been persuasive to the Court. They couldn't find it. They failed. Her case was weak. Like your
arguments.
I have the benefit of hindsight, and being able to consider more facts than were presented to the CAS.
My argument is that her case was weak because it is not possible to build a strong case with objective evidence,
unless you are lucky enough to have a sample of the alleged source available for testing. This is unlikely for many athletes when they are put on notice one months after the fact.
Another argument is that the WADA code, with it’s presumptions, and lack of consideration of a series of valid defenses, cannot ensure fairness to all athletes.
They must be fairly strong arguments because you are unable to rebut either of them.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
She is still banned.
It would be premature and baseless to call her a “drug cheat”.
The WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU and the CAS Panel did not.
Only “fans” do.
The findings of the official bodies were to establish a doping rules violation - which they did. They did not need to use
the term "drug cheat": it follows from their findings of an intentional ADRV. Only doping deniers don't get that.
This is just one interpretation from one “fan of the sport?” who has proved he is largely ignorant of the facts.
So Shelby is on record? Not the WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU and the CAS Panel?
casual obsever wrote:
Quote corrected and link added.
Even Shelby is on record with:
Houlihan wrote. "Nothing moved the lab from their initial snap decision. Instead, they simply concluded that I was a cheater and that a steroid was ingested orally, but not regularly. "
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The findings of the official bodies were to establish a doping rules violation - which they did. They did not need to use
the term "drug cheat": it follows from their findings of an intentional ADRV. Only doping deniers don't get that.
This is just one interpretation from one “fan of the sport?” who has proved he is largely ignorant of the facts.
Yes, you are.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If Houlihan's defence team did not make use of that information it would have been because they did not consider it
would help her case. They would have known better than the resident "statistician with a mathematical bent" here
what data would have been persuasive to the Court. They couldn't find it. They failed. Her case was weak. Like your
arguments.
I have the benefit of hindsight, and being able to consider more facts than were presented to the CAS.
My argument is that her case was weak because it is not possible to build a strong case with objective evidence,
unless you are lucky enough to have a sample of the alleged source available for testing. This is unlikely for many athletes when they are put on notice one months after the fact.
Another argument is that the WADA code, with it’s presumptions, and lack of consideration of a series of valid defenses, cannot ensure fairness to all athletes.
They must be fairly strong arguments because you are unable to rebut either of them.
They are so weak - like most of your arguments - I don't bother.
What is particularly satisfying is that not a word from the doping apologists here will change anything. Houlihan has lost. They lose.
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
But the lab never said that.
Not in those very words. But Shelby isn't the only one who interprets an AAF as cheating, especially after CAS confirmed that. And she isn't a "fan", so it's not only "fans" as rekrunner falsely claimed.
CAS called it an intentional Anti-Doping Rule Violation (possession and use of nandro) because they use the exact words as per Wada code. The public in general understands that as doping/cheating, imho correctly so.
But we have discussed that so often...
What's new now is that rekrunner just went all the way and calls that conclusion "baseless". Ridiculo, as the base for that is very obvious.
Yes — not in those very words.
It’s funny how quickly you jump to accusations of “falsely claimed”, then completely fail to demonstrate any false claim from me.
Recall my statement was that “only “fans”” “call her a “drug cheat””, and that doing so would be “premature” and “baseless”.
You may be right that those who call her a “drug cheat” are not fans of the sport, but:
In the link you provided, Shelby clearly did not call herself a “drug cheat”.
In the link you provided, the WADA lab did not call Shelby a “drug cheat”.
Supposing that Shelby is correct, and the WADA lab “concluded that (she) was a cheater”, such a conclusion would be both “premature” and “baseless”.
If I were to infer any basis for “cheat” from your link, it appears to be a baseless conclusion that “a steroid was ingested orally” (presumably she meant synthetic/exogenous), and not the AAF itself.
You also suggest that Shelby is not a “fan” of the sport. I’d be curious to see if there is any basis for that.
You also suggest that we should consider what the “public in general understands … as doping/cheating”, and that, in your opinion (in what role? as a “fan”?), that understanding is correct.
Yet you already know that WADA redefines “doping” quite differently, even with respect to violating the rules on “presence” and “use”; the WADA Code doesn’t define cheating, nor use the term; and with respect to “intentional”, that the CAS did not provide any basis for “intent”, making it “baseless”, but rather presumed it, and felt obliged to deem it, ironically based on an “insufficient basis” of “not intentional”.
I’m always happy to be corrected if I am wrong, if you can demonstrate it.
Armstronglivs wrote:
What is particularly satisfying is that not a word from the doping apologists here will change anything. Houlihan has lost. They lose.
Doping apologist ; what are they.?
Armstronglivs wrote:
What is particularly satisfying is that not a word from the doping apologists here will change anything. Houlihan has lost. They lose.
I have said I would have found her guilty.
But you just refuse to read, Even the rules.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I have the benefit of hindsight, and being able to consider more facts than were presented to the CAS.
My argument is that her case was weak because it is not possible to build a strong case with objective evidence,
unless you are lucky enough to have a sample of the alleged source available for testing. This is unlikely for many athletes when they are put on notice one months after the fact.
Another argument is that the WADA code, with it’s presumptions, and lack of consideration of a series of valid defenses, cannot ensure fairness to all athletes.
They must be fairly strong arguments because you are unable to rebut either of them.
They are so weak - like most of your arguments - I don't bother.
You don’t bother as you would have to read and engage on the rules.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
This is just one interpretation from one “fan of the sport?” who has proved he is largely ignorant of the facts.
Yes, you are.
Not left the playground, yet again.
liar soorer wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
Here we go,,, “ not her very words “
Wada Code says they don’t rule on intent.
And read comment on 10.2.3 and resound .
Why did AIU say “ deemed”?
AH is reacting to he assumption that the Lab was prejudiced against her; if she is correct then this is appalling and should have stopped case immediately.
And then we find that the head of the lab was Ayotte.
Basis for appeal ?
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I have the benefit of hindsight, and being able to consider more facts than were presented to the CAS.
My argument is that her case was weak because it is not possible to build a strong case with objective evidence,
unless you are lucky enough to have a sample of the alleged source available for testing. This is unlikely for many athletes when they are put on notice one months after the fact.
Another argument is that the WADA code, with it’s presumptions, and lack of consideration of a series of valid defenses, cannot ensure fairness to all athletes.
They must be fairly strong arguments because you are unable to rebut either of them.
They are so weak - like most of your arguments - I don't bother.
Apparently they are stronger than you.
Whatever your excuse, the points stand uncontested.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What is particularly satisfying is that not a word from the doping apologists here will change anything. Houlihan has lost. They lose.
Doping apologist ; what are they.?
Idiots, liars and defenders of cheats. Like you.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
They are so weak - like most of your arguments - I don't bother.
Apparently they are stronger than you.
Whatever your excuse, the points stand uncontested.
You can't tell the difference between uncontested and ignored. You have lost every argument. Shelby's loss confirms it.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
They are so weak - like most of your arguments - I don't bother.
You don’t bother as you would have to read and engage on the rules.
Houlihan is still losing. Like you.