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.
How would you know what the merits are? The strength of an opinion comes from knowledge and expertise. It's very easy to spout convincing BS to non-experts because by flattering them into think that they understand. The entire wellness industry is built on this premise and it's worth billions. Whatever you may believe, expertise and credentials matter. The convincing-sounding argument from the random internet guy essentially plays on ignorance, it's a con trick
As can be taken from the downvotes, fortunately almost no one here falls for the equally as sad as hilarious it-was-in-the-burrito nonsense, no matter how often the trolls keep repeating that.
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.
No, your obligations as an athlete dont change, not sure where youre getying that.
So athletes have a right to privacy?
Why dont they simply tell the testers to go away then?
They can just agree to be governed by the sport but when the testers show up go ‘sorry, i have a right to privacy and youre not going to come in and watch me pee in this cup. ill call you when im ready’
3.3 All Applicable Persons will be deemed to have agreed: a. that it is their personal responsibility to familiarise themselves with all of the requirements of this Code, including what conduct constitutes a violation of the Code; b. to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and determine charges brought pursuant to the Code; and, c. not to bring any proceedings in any court or other forum that are inconsistent with the foregoing submission to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal.
I.e. You can’t then sue the IAAF in civil court because you feel your rights or due process have been violated and you want to be reinstated for international competition.
Your submission to this jurisdiction is now superseding your ‘rights’
Only because its BTC are we in this weird space where compliance with the rules and regulations is tyranny
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.
No, your obligations as an athlete dont change, not sure where youre getying that.
So athletes have a right to privacy?
Why dont they simply tell the testers to go away then?
They can just agree to be governed by the sport but when the testers show up go ‘sorry, i have a right to privacy and youre not going to come in and watch me pee in this cup. ill call you when im ready’
I never mentioned privacy. Why do you raise this ?
3.3 All Applicable Persons will be deemed to have agreed: a. that it is their personal responsibility to familiarise themselves with all of the requirements of this Code, including what conduct constitutes a violation of the Code; b. to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and determine charges brought pursuant to the Code; and, c. not to bring any proceedings in any court or other forum that are inconsistent with the foregoing submission to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal.
I.e. You can’t then sue the IAAF in civil court because you feel your rights or due process have been violated and you want to be reinstated for international competition.
Your submission to this jurisdiction is now superseding your ‘rights’
Only because its BTC are we in this weird space where compliance with the rules and regulations is tyranny
Just cos the rules say this is does not mean they are lawful and can’t be challenged.
And note people are going to the Swiss Court and have gone to the European Courts.
Does anyone else think that Twoggle is Chris Derrick?
It has to be someone close to Houlihan to go through all that trouble. It's got to be someone who is pretty smart. And the manner in which twoggle writes, and air of superiority, reminds me of Derrick.
Mate, you are clearly unacquainted with academic writing conventions. "Her own studies" will be referring to the many lab tests that she has conducted on behalf of the AIU - you also failed to highlight the part where it says she relied on the previous literature as well (I presume because that's inconvenient for your argument). When the decision highlights Professor Ayotte's experience, it's not just her opinion, it is informed by results she has observed and her knowledge of the literature. This is the very definition of expertise in any field. You make it sound like Prof. Ayotte was just someone who has opinions on the case when, in reality, she is a renowned scientist in the field. Her experience is knowledge, her studies are research.
What's your knowledge and experience? Anything to do with biology, chemistry, pharmacology, or sports science?
[Yo, webmaster, I've tried to respond three times to High Hopes here, but every time I click Post Reply it just hangs. I will try it without hyperlinks on the research papers to see if it goes through.]
I searched for every published study on δ13C values in American pork, and the titles below were pretty much all I could find. I don't recall seeing a study by Ayotte that surveyed pork δ13C values (and I tried to check most of her work), but I'm happy to be corrected.
Application of Stable Isotope Ratio Analysis for Origin Authentication of Pork Limitation: This study looked at pork that had been imported into S. Korea, which is very likely to be from mainstream sources and not pasture-raised.
Isotopic carbon turnover in pig hoof and rib Limitation: This study only looked at how δ13C values change in pork as their diet is altered. It did not attempt to survey pork generally.
Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in fast food: Signatures of corn and confinement Limitation: Did not look at pork. But the beef numbers and visuals are fantastic. Low δ13C values are rare, but they do occur. Must also keep in mind fast-food beef is the most homogenous mainstream beef available and does not represent a broad sample.
Excretion of 19-norandrosterone after consumption of boar meat Limitation: It only studied wild boars in Germany.
FWIW, I am a generalist. Pretty good knowledge of the history of the FDA and regulatory capture. Worked in a research library for several years. Degree in Behavioral Sciences. Studied biology with Lorna Straus and Jerre Levy at UChicago, among others. Boring. I notice all of you jackals are anonymous.
I think you are missing that Shelby claimed to eat pork stomach. Her side let it go unopposed from the expert that there was no pig for which her nandrolone value would go so high.
How would you know what the merits are? The strength of an opinion comes from knowledge and expertise. It's very easy to spout convincing BS to non-experts because by flattering them into think that they understand. The entire wellness industry is built on this premise and it's worth billions. Whatever you may believe, expertise and credentials matter. The convincing-sounding argument from the random internet guy essentially plays on ignorance, it's a con trick
Just because you can't tell the difference, doesn't mean everyone else cannot.
Experts can spout convincing BS too, particularly if they are talking about domains outside their area of expertise. And posters like you would find it convincing. This is the fallacy of argumentation by authority.
To determine if something has merit requires basic intelligence and ability to comprehend what you read. Generally someone says something, and to give it weight and strength, supports it with real world observations, sometimes carefully measured in controlled environments, or relies on the strength of a report or paper or some other authoritative source, where someone else has done the same thing. This is basic Scientific Method 101. If it is BS, it should be easy to find a counter-example.
Of course, I would listen to Ross on topics of exercise physiology and heat dissipation -- topics I know he has some expertise and credentials. Even then, I'm sure he would be inclined to point me to papers to back up certain points.
But it doesn't take much expertise to read 44 pages of a CAS Report and a handful of documents at WADA's website, to know what they found, and what they didn't find, and what the findings mean.
As can be taken from the downvotes, fortunately almost no one here falls for the equally as sad as hilarious it-was-in-the-burrito nonsense, no matter how often the trolls keep repeating that.
What are upvotes and downvotes, except the collective opinions of many non-experts?
I think you are missing that Shelby claimed to eat pork stomach. Her side let it go unopposed from the expert that there was no pig for which her nandrolone value would go so high.
Actually, I didn't miss that. If you read my first lengthy post, I addressed the point of pork stomach, suggesting that as something that Houlihan's team might have gotten wrong.
Recall I was not a party to the proceedings and I am not bound to what was brought up or not brought up before the CAS. In order to form my opinions, I can draw on facts and data not presented to the CAS, and I can point out the doubts that arise from the experts testimonies that Houlihan's team did not. A stomach burrito has many ingredients, and the nandrolone could come from multiple ingredients: stomach mixed with meat mixed with other organs.
I think you are missing that Shelby claimed to eat pork stomach. Her side let it go unopposed from the expert that there was no pig for which her nandrolone value would go so high.
One of the many problems of Shelby's team. They keep talking about studies on offal (that included kidney etc.), which could explain her nandro levels (if the pig was an uncastrated boar), while ignoring that the food truck only used outer stomach muscle for their Maw burrito.
Somewhat funny, because (according to their "official timeline" - revised by the lawyer) Shelby noted already on January 21st that is was pig stomach:
the chorizo and the Maw (pig stomach) burritos were more reflective of how greasy our burritos were
(The chorizo then never gets mentioned again, so that was a completely dead end.)
Later on, it's all about offal, e.g. on January 20th:
we believe the source of nandrolone was from pig offal
That was also the mistake from the Swiss expert, Strahm, see e.g. on March 3rd:
levels are consistent with the ingestion of pig offal
At CAS then, McGlone pointed out why that is an important difference:
Only the tough outer stomach that is basically a muscle tissue is sold to the food industry.
Finally, the outer connective tissue of the stomach has protein and collagen, and is metabolically not as active as the inner lining
Strahm's counter ("stomach is still offal") sounds desperate.
CAS judged accordingly:
The evidence presented by Dr Strahm was not very substantiated
I searched for every published study on δ13C values in American pork, and the titles below were pretty much all I could find. I don't recall seeing a study by Ayotte that surveyed pork δ13C values (and I tried to check most of her work), but I'm happy to be corrected.
How would you know what the merits are? The strength of an opinion comes from knowledge and expertise. It's very easy to spout convincing BS to non-experts because by flattering them into think that they understand. The entire wellness industry is built on this premise and it's worth billions. Whatever you may believe, expertise and credentials matter. The convincing-sounding argument from the random internet guy essentially plays on ignorance, it's a con trick
By the way, I should note that I didn't really reject anything that Ross wrote in his 5000 word piece or Q&A, so no disrespect intended, but I raised a number of questions that I felt were still unanswered, or not conclusive, some inside and some outside the CAS decision. His lengthy report and the Q&A explained fairly well why the CAS decided what they decided, and was helpful at explaining some of the science behind the measures referred to in the TD2021NA.
Similarly, when "twoggle" wrote his piece, it was well annotated with official documents and flowcharts from WADA and excerpts from CAS cases and other authoritative sources. I don't need "twoggle's" credentials when what he is saying in fact comes from WADA or from a CAS Panel. Some things were not so well supported or annotated, so these did not get the same weight.
How would you know what the merits are? The strength of an opinion comes from knowledge and expertise. It's very easy to spout convincing BS to non-experts because by flattering them into think that they understand. The entire wellness industry is built on this premise and it's worth billions. Whatever you may believe, expertise and credentials matter. The convincing-sounding argument from the random internet guy essentially plays on ignorance, it's a con trick
By the way, I should note that I didn't really reject anything that Ross wrote in his 5000 word piece or Q&A, so no disrespect intended, but I raised a number of questions that I felt were still unanswered, or not conclusive, some inside and some outside the CAS decision. His lengthy report and the Q&A explained fairly well why the CAS decided what they decided, and was helpful at explaining some of the science behind the measures referred to in the TD2021NA.
Similarly, when "twoggle" wrote his piece, it was well annotated with official documents and flowcharts from WADA and excerpts from CAS cases and other authoritative sources. I don't need "twoggle's" credentials when what he is saying in fact comes from WADA or from a CAS Panel. Some things were not so well supported or annotated, so these did not get the same weight.
Credentials give legitimacy and they communicate whether there is bias or not.
We can judge Ross's expertise and his likelihood of bias on the topic because we've got decades of his work to understand where he comes from, who he is affiliated with, and what his history tells us about his accuracy.
With Twoggle, we have none of that. Sure, we have data and citations, but we don't know twoggles record, bias, his conflicts of interest, or anything. Lots of people rightfully question professor Ayotte after the Lawson case. We have no such opportunity to know if Twoggle is paid by Houlihan, Nike, or has a history of scientific fraud.
Even if the analysis seems appropriate, it deserves to be dismissed because we don't have any of that information.
Another way to look at it is, Ross's analysis could be published in a peer reviewed outlet. Twoggle could not. There's a reason we don't anonymize authors in serious work.
3.3 All Applicable Persons will be deemed to have agreed: a. that it is their personal responsibility to familiarise themselves with all of the requirements of this Code, including what conduct constitutes a violation of the Code; b. to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and determine charges brought pursuant to the Code; and, c. not to bring any proceedings in any court or other forum that are inconsistent with the foregoing submission to the jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Tribunal.
I.e. You can’t then sue the IAAF in civil court because you feel your rights or due process have been violated and you want to be reinstated for international competition.
Your submission to this jurisdiction is now superseding your ‘rights’
Only because its BTC are we in this weird space where compliance with the rules and regulations is tyranny
Just cos the rules say this is does not mean they are lawful and can’t be challenged.
And note people are going to the Swiss Court and have gone to the European Courts.
You can’t sign your rights away.
Good luck with those challenges.
Again there’s no ‘right’ to participate in international competition. The onus is on you to present where that right exists.
Otherwise you’re being very pedantic just to play lawyer in this forum.
There are rules to ensure integrity and fairness. Those rules were broken in this case. theres plenty of evidence both scientific and anecdotal to support the tribunal’s conclusions. end of story
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.