she cheated, and tried to concoct a bulls*t story and was banned.
She's acted like a victim, tried to grift money and continued to train with the team. She has been enabled by a running community that is far too biased for their own good.
If you care about clean sport, you won't want Shelby competing. There is no two ways about this.
Please stop trying to come across as an expert in these matters. You spam every thread with your opinions ad nauseum, without ever adding to the conversation (frankly neither does anyone else) or resolving any issues. You are just another windbag (like Armstronglivs, etc.) who clogs up the boards.
The system isn't broken (regardless what Tygart says), it just isn't perfect (just like any current Justice system). It seems that it would never pass muster to what YOU have deigned to be acceptable, because you are a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. The bigger the net (and WADA has a big net) the less perfect it will be - the solution is either have no net at all, or accept the validity of the jurisdiction , or get involved yourself (off these boards) to enact some change. That you seemingly spend all day on here tells me that you don't have the time or will to get involved in the ACTUAL process.
If you were an expert on these matters the last place that you would inhabit is Letsrun. Frankly, that Tucker sullies himself by pandering to the likes of the Brojo's and their pseudo journalism, isn't exactly doing his reputation any favor either, regardless of which side of the fence he is on. You do know that much of the sporting world holds this site in contempt, and its denizens ( of which you are amongst the most vociferous) as well. It is a contempt well earned. This thread simply underscores that, again.
I am not an expert on these matters, but simply know how to read and think and speak.
Are you asking me to dumb down my posts, so I can blend in with everyone else? Shall I turn into a lemming and just hop on to the bandwagon and grab a pitchfork? Would that make you feel more comfortable with your thoughts?
I try to add value to the conversation and challenge the thinking of others who have seem to made up their mind. I do this by bringing in points that have been overlooked or downplayed, or highlighting points which haven't been made by the experts or lack any substantial evidence.
In the specific case of Houlihan and potential pork ingestion, WADA already has a solution built into TD2021NA -- report the result as an ATF. I agree with the dissenting CAS panelist that the AIU/WADA Lab made the wrong call.
According to an expert on prosecuting ADRVs (Tygart) the WADA Code "broke" with changes in 2015. Does "what a crock" who inhabits Letsrun, know better than the longtime head of USADA, who brought down Nike giants Lance Armstrong and Salazar?
I don't consider myself representative of this forum. If the rest of the world holds this site in contempt, maybe it is for the same reason that I try to challenge the thinking of those who want to believe things far beyond the boundaries of evidenced based logic.
Brojos, I read Ross Tucker’s piece and I believe that he is misinterpreting the WADA Technical document. One CAS legal arbitor agreed that the correct process wasn’t followed. However, if Houlihan’s legal team relies on the same arguments they already made, they will probably lose in the Swiss Court.
There is quite a bit of the article citing prosecution experts such as Ayotte but not following up to see if they deliberately misrepresent (“over generalize”) their own research.
Unfortunately, I am traveling around the country now and typing up a multi-page response on my phone is difficult. Happy to point out some issues by phone or not.
Twoggle
How would you know? Why should you be taken seriously over someone who has a PhD in exercise physiology, has worked with elite sports governing bodies, and has been an expert witness in CAS cases? What have you done to compare with Tucker's credentials?
You can question authority, but you need to show why people should believe that your argument comes from a place of expertise. Otherwise, I think it's much more likely that you don't understand either the science or the process.
So, who are you and what are your credentials? Or are you just another message board blowhard like the rest of us?
You're the resident LRC.com bot on this board at this point.
"Did the AIU or CAS provide evidence that Jerry and Shalane had heard of nandrolone? This doesn't look like "history", but looks like another "story" invented by fans"
All they would have to establish is that Jerry and Shalane have a pulse and are bipedal mammals in an endurance sport at the highest levels. But sure, THEY dont know the landscape and are completely ignorant of all the F ery going on right on the margins.
They love to hold up this 'fresh' image of innocence but only some of the folks on this site buy that advertising. Again, they have no problem posturing with the moral superiority when it's other groups but if they are really serious, where's their record of transparency? Nowhere.
They have plenty of soft propaganda coming from places like this site to do their work for them, they have no need to get in the mud.
That's a pretty long way of saying no, and telling another "story".
she cheated, and tried to concoct a bulls*t story and was banned.
She's acted like a victim, tried to grift money and continued to train with the team. She has been enabled by a running community that is far too biased for their own good.
If you care about clean sport, you won't want Shelby competing. There is no two ways about this.
Concoct.She did eat the food; thus that is no concoction. Previous cases and publications including WADA’s own published technical documents gave reason for a supposition that the food caused the laboratory finding.
Evidence latter provided by Ayotte at the hearing showed this supposition to be wrong.
She was then correctly found to have broken the rules but then Tucker goes on to say that it is not clear if such a breach of the rules was by intent ie cheating.
Thus Tucker is not clear if she is a victim or not and it may well be that BTC think she is.
USADA have repeated their view that many are victims of the rules.
Brojos, I read Ross Tucker’s piece and I believe that he is misinterpreting the WADA Technical document. One CAS legal arbitor agreed that the correct process wasn’t followed. However, if Houlihan’s legal team relies on the same arguments they already made, they will probably lose in the Swiss Court.
There is quite a bit of the article citing prosecution experts such as Ayotte but not following up to see if they deliberately misrepresent (“over generalize”) their own research.
Unfortunately, I am traveling around the country now and typing up a multi-page response on my phone is difficult. Happy to point out some issues by phone or not.
Twoggle
How would you know? Why should you be taken seriously over someone who has a PhD in exercise physiology, has worked with elite sports governing bodies, and has been an expert witness in CAS cases? What have you done to compare with Tucker's credentials?
You can question authority, but you need to show why people should believe that your argument comes from a place of expertise. Otherwise, I think it's much more likely that you don't understand either the science or the process.
So, who are you and what are your credentials? Or are you just another message board blowhard like the rest of us?
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.
Then you are quite wrong as I understand all of those things.
I agree with you that the greasy half-eaten pork stomach burrito is the only candidate to be evaluated. As unlikely as it is, it is still the most likely candidate as it is the only one with any evidence before the CAS. I am not throwing up any other alternative than the one presented to the CAS. The AIU didn't evaluate her burrito specifically, but counted all the pigs in the USA, and still the AIU expert effectively opined that up to 12,100 pigs per year could cause nandrolone positives, and that during the pandemic, the AIU pig expert conceeded many pigs ate soy due to the unavailability of corn. Ross asked why look at pigs in Europe, but the AIU experts (from Texas and Canada) looked at pigs across the USA and in Canada -- why not look at pigs locally in Oregon, adjusting the statistics for factors during the pandemic?
I also agree with you that it is also not Prof. Ayotte's job to suggest nandrolone products available on Amazon, as she is not Houlihan or hired by Houlihan. But she did. Like you said, Houlihan did not argue these things, and Ayotte is just throwing up a shot in the dark. Many letsrun posters are doing the same.
Here at letsrun, we are in the real world. While I don't disagree with "alternate universe", in discussion forums, real world standards apply. Posters here go far beyond what was established by Houlihan, the AIU, or the CAS, with baseless judgements of Houlihan, Jerry, Shalane, the BTC, and suggestions that Houlihan's progress and AR performances were not clean. If posters here are not limited by the roles and definitions defined by WADA, and the evidence before and findings in the CAS report, why should I be?
If you, or others, want to convince me that intentional exogenous nandrolone is more likely than a pork burrito, that would be your claim (or theirs), a "shot in the dark" not supported by any AIU or CAS evidence, and your (or their) burden to support. That is where we are now -- a bunch of baseless claims extending far beyond the CAS ruling made within an artificial framework defined by WADA to make prosecuting ADRVs easier, at the expense of athletes.
I also understand that Shelby was solely responsible for proving "not intentional" and ultimately having to determine the nature of ingredients in a burrito she ate one month earlier. This seems to me like an impossible burden and the system that places that burden on her is not a just system. I agree with the longtime USADA chief Travis Tygart that this version of justice railroads innocent athletes into 4-year bans and risks treating innocent athletes like dopers. Does this include Houlihan? There is simply no way to tell from the CAS report and the current WADA adjudication process.
I have lost hope that most here would even attempt to understand, as they are now blinded by my handle, but I hope you read the contents of my posts and understand.
Brojos, I read Ross Tucker’s piece and I believe that he is misinterpreting the WADA Technical document. One CAS legal arbitor agreed that the correct process wasn’t followed. However, if Houlihan’s legal team relies on the same arguments they already made, they will probably lose in the Swiss Court.
There is quite a bit of the article citing prosecution experts such as Ayotte but not following up to see if they deliberately misrepresent (“over generalize”) their own research.
Unfortunately, I am traveling around the country now and typing up a multi-page response on my phone is difficult. Happy to point out some issues by phone or not.
Twoggle
How would you know? Why should you be taken seriously over someone who has a PhD in exercise physiology, has worked with elite sports governing bodies, and has been an expert witness in CAS cases? What have you done to compare with Tucker's credentials?
You can question authority, but you need to show why people should believe that your argument comes from a place of expertise. Otherwise, I think it's much more likely that you don't understand either the science or the process.
So, who are you and what are your credentials? Or are you just another message board blowhard like the rest of us?
I think you should not be blinded by credentials -- that is a logical tactic known as "appeal to authority".
Ross's statements, and twoggle's statements, should be evaluated on the merits.
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.
Then you are quite wrong as I understand all of those things.
I agree with you that the greasy half-eaten pork stomach burrito is the only candidate to be evaluated. As unlikely as it is, it is still the most likely candidate as it is the only one with any evidence before the CAS. I am not throwing up any other alternative than the one presented to the CAS. The AIU didn't evaluate her burrito specifically, but counted all the pigs in the USA, and still the AIU expert effectively opined that up to 12,100 pigs per year could cause nandrolone positives, and that during the pandemic, the AIU pig expert conceeded many pigs ate soy due to the unavailability of corn. Ross asked why look at pigs in Europe, but the AIU experts (from Texas and Canada) looked at pigs across the USA and in Canada -- why not look at pigs locally in Oregon, adjusting the statistics for factors during the pandemic?
I also agree with you that it is also not Prof. Ayotte's job to suggest nandrolone products available on Amazon, as she is not Houlihan or hired by Houlihan. But she did. Like you said, Houlihan did not argue these things, and Ayotte is just throwing up a shot in the dark. Many letsrun posters are doing the same.
Here at letsrun, we are in the real world. While I don't disagree with "alternate universe", in discussion forums, real world standards apply. Posters here go far beyond what was established by Houlihan, the AIU, or the CAS, with baseless judgements of Houlihan, Jerry, Shalane, the BTC, and suggestions that Houlihan's progress and AR performances were not clean. If posters here are not limited by the roles and definitions defined by WADA, and the evidence before and findings in the CAS report, why should I be?
If you, or others, want to convince me that intentional exogenous nandrolone is more likely than a pork burrito, that would be your claim (or theirs), a "shot in the dark" not supported by any AIU or CAS evidence, and your (or their) burden to support. That is where we are now -- a bunch of baseless claims extending far beyond the CAS ruling made within an artificial framework defined by WADA to make prosecuting ADRVs easier, at the expense of athletes.
I also understand that Shelby was solely responsible for proving "not intentional" and ultimately having to determine the nature of ingredients in a burrito she ate one month earlier. This seems to me like an impossible burden and the system that places that burden on her is not a just system. I agree with the longtime USADA chief Travis Tygart that this version of justice railroads innocent athletes into 4-year bans and risks treating innocent athletes like dopers. Does this include Houlihan? There is simply no way to tell from the CAS report and the current WADA adjudication process.
I have lost hope that most here would even attempt to understand, as they are now blinded by my handle, but I hope you read the contents of my posts and understand.
I am in general in support of your position.
We may differ on how the panel should have viewed the evidence.
However it is the rules that the panel had to work with are entirely against the athlete with burdens unparalleled in normal forms of justice that I am entirely in agreement with you.
The WADA code says that normal civil procedures should not apply….
I await the multimillion pound athletes and their agents taking this apart at some point.
All the Tucker article does is provide further support to the position most people with half a brain took from the the start. The Burrito story was absolute nonsense, therefore Shelby either deliberately took performance enhancers or took them by mistake in some other way (most likely by taking supplements that were contaminated or she didn't check properly). Only she or maybe one two others know which. The reason people don't have any sympathy for her is she clearly lied to try and avoid to a ban. If she had said she didn't know how the drugs got into her system or thought it was likely to be from supplements but she had been unable to prove it, she still would have got a ban but wouldn't have had the ridicule brought on by Burrito gate and a few more people may have had some sympathy for her. They obviously looked at the Lawson and Wilson cases and thought the best chance to avoid a ban was to play the Burrito card even though they knew it was complete BS. Rojo doesn't seem to understand why people are upset that Lets Run took the position supporting Shelby despite her obvious lies and dishonesty.
Unfortunately, I am traveling around the country now and typing up a multi-page response on my phone is difficult. Happy to point out some issues by phone or not.
How would you know? Why should you be taken seriously over someone who has a PhD in exercise physiology, has worked with elite sports governing bodies, and has been an expert witness in CAS cases? What have you done to compare with Tucker's credentials?
You can question authority, but you need to show why people should believe that your argument comes from a place of expertise. Otherwise, I think it's much more likely that you don't understand either the science or the process.
So, who are you and what are your credentials? Or are you just another message board blowhard like the rest of us?
I think you should not be blinded by credentials -- that is a logical tactic known as "appeal to authority".
Ross's statements, and twoggle's statements, should be evaluated on the merits.
That is how misinformation and conspiracy theories are spread. It's exactly the kind of garbage Q-Anon morons come out with. The idea that all opinions are equal is total BS. You might have strong opinions on how to fly a plane, but I don't want any airline hiring you until they've seen proof that you're a qualified pilot. In the Shelby case, scientific knowledge is required, it's not something you can evaluate based on vibes.
All the Tucker article does is provide further support to the position most people with half a brain took from the the start. The Burrito story was absolute nonsense, therefore Shelby either deliberately took performance enhancers or took them by mistake in some other way (most likely by taking supplements that were contaminated or she didn't check properly). Only she or maybe one two others know which. The reason people don't have any sympathy for her is she clearly lied to try and avoid to a ban. If she had said she didn't know how the drugs got into her system or thought it was likely to be from supplements but she had been unable to prove it, she still would have got a ban but wouldn't have had the ridicule brought on by Burrito gate and a few more people may have had some sympathy for her. They obviously looked at the Lawson and Wilson cases and thought the best chance to avoid a ban was to play the Burrito card even though they knew it was complete BS. Rojo doesn't seem to understand why people are upset that Lets Run took the position supporting Shelby despite her obvious lies and dishonesty.
You say that she might have taken it by mistake but then conclude that she is an obvious liar and dishonest.Can you explain what lie she told.
I think you should not be blinded by credentials -- that is a logical tactic known as "appeal to authority".
Ross's statements, and twoggle's statements, should be evaluated on the merits.
That is how misinformation and conspiracy theories are spread. It's exactly the kind of garbage Q-Anon morons come out with. The idea that all opinions are equal is total BS. You might have strong opinions on how to fly a plane, but I don't want any airline hiring you until they've seen proof that you're a qualified pilot. In the Shelby case, scientific knowledge is required, it's not something you can evaluate based on vibes.
I don't argue all opinions are equal.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "merits".
Opinions with basis have more value than those without regardless of who says them.
The strength of the opinions come from their supporting bases, not their title.
Also, I have many many rights in society but nearly all of them can get taken away if I break the law. So by your definition, in society, I have no rights.Think you better think better.
Im sure there’s some sense in your two posts but having trouble understanding wtf you’re saying.
This is akin to a ‘code of conduct’ violation which all our professions and industries have. You have many many freedoms and ‘rights’ outside of that arrangement and agreement, but when you are at work you will abide by X. No one seriously makes the argument that you voluntarily complying with codes and bylaws is infringement except if you are in a bad spot and you have nothing else to fall back on
Professional sports is not analogous to your role as a citizen in society and the rights afforded therein.
I really hope you understand that distinction at this point in your life
All the Tucker article does is provide further support to the position most people with half a brain took from the the start. The Burrito story was absolute nonsense, therefore Shelby either deliberately took performance enhancers or took them by mistake in some other way (most likely by taking supplements that were contaminated or she didn't check properly). Only she or maybe one two others know which. The reason people don't have any sympathy for her is she clearly lied to try and avoid to a ban. If she had said she didn't know how the drugs got into her system or thought it was likely to be from supplements but she had been unable to prove it, she still would have got a ban but wouldn't have had the ridicule brought on by Burrito gate and a few more people may have had some sympathy for her. They obviously looked at the Lawson and Wilson cases and thought the best chance to avoid a ban was to play the Burrito card even though they knew it was complete BS. Rojo doesn't seem to understand why people are upset that Lets Run took the position supporting Shelby despite her obvious lies and dishonesty.
You guys have a low opinion of letsrun forum posters: "alternate universe" and "people with half a brain".
Maybe this simple scenario will help understand why I think the AIU's "near zero" argument is fundamentally flawed, and the wrong probability to measure "intent".
In a scenarios with 10,000 athletes, sticking with McGlone's "1 in 10,000" for simplicity, let's assume 10% of distance athletes (1,000) take exogenous nandrolone, and WADA testing only catches 1% of them (10).
In a scenario where these 10,000 athletes eat 10,000 randomly selected pork burritos, the probability of a positive test from doping is 10 in 10,000, and the probability of a positive test from ingesting USDA approved cryptorchid is 1 in 10,000.
This means that, given a positive test result, the chance that that positive is from pork ingestion is 1 in 11 (not exactly, but let's keep it simple), and not 1 in 10,000.
Also, I have many many rights in society but nearly all of them can get taken away if I break the law. So by your definition, in society, I have no rights.Think you better think better.
Im sure there’s some sense in your two posts but having trouble understanding wtf you’re saying.
This is akin to a ‘code of conduct’ violation which all our professions and industries have. You have many many freedoms and ‘rights’ outside of that arrangement and agreement, but when you are at work you will abide by X. No one seriously makes the argument that you voluntarily complying with codes and bylaws is infringement except if you are in a bad spot and you have nothing else to fall back on
Professional sports is not analogous to your role as a citizen in society and the rights afforded therein.
I really hope you understand that distinction at this point in your life
I am following your line of thinking where you sat that there is a point where athletes loose their rights and it then becomes a privilege.
You fail utterly to substantiate that point.
I fully accept that when a contract exists there are obligations on both sides; be that a works contract ; purchasing goods ; or joining a sports club.
In the case of the latter you seem to suggest that at some point or other the obligations on the athlete change. But you fail to explain this matter.
Also codes and bylaws do actually have to comply with all particular statute law.In employment terms in the UK you can’t be bound by a contact which is in breach of statute law even though you made that contract voluntarily.
Thus Soccer players in the UK are not required to be tested at home/ holidays etc as their basic employment law will not allow this.