I'm not always sure you all do know where I stand, because it often gets oversimplified and distorted.
These other cases have given me reason to doubt that the WADA labs always get this test right (with reference lanes bleeding into other lanes during testing), and that the evidence of the lab error would be permitted to reach the accused in time for him/her to defend him/herself.
The consistency is of requiring conclusive evidence before jumping to conclusions, whatever the topic.
We have heard it loud and clear through your 1000 monotonous posts. Speaking of jumping to conclusions, I love the array of small chance events you support while ignoring the high chance event. You know what, I think S.H is the cleanest athlete of all american sports. There is so much pointing to her being clean with her ban.
Don’t think the high chance events are being ignored.
It is which small chance events are we not aware of and how does the Wada system takes such into account?
couldn't get through it, the host speaks in an extreme monotone. he sounds like he's being forced to talk lol
He probably was. It sounded like her lawyer wrote all of the questions. That whole podcast was a joke. He was kissing her ass the whole time and she just talked about how much of a victim she was.
"The fundamental problem for me is not whether Shelby is innocent or guilty of intentional doping, but, considering all the shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code to anti-doping bodies, we simply cannot say, notwithstanding the CAS ruling, if she is an intentional cheat, or just being treated like one."(quote)
The CAS ruling does not "treat" her as an intentional cheat; ...
Of course they did, and so are you.
The CAS had no evidence before them of intent, or cheating.
A banned drug in your system for which there is no actual evidence of an innocent cause might do it. So CAS ruled intent. Where there is intent to dope that is cheating. Except to you.
couldn't get through it, the host speaks in an extreme monotone. he sounds like he's being forced to talk lol
He probably was. It sounded like her lawyer wrote all of the questions. That whole podcast was a joke. He was kissing her ass the whole time and she just talked about how much of a victim she was.
He probably was. It sounded like her lawyer wrote all of the questions. That whole podcast was a joke. He was kissing her ass the whole time and she just talked about how much of a victim she was.
Did rekrunner help with the questions?
He should have been the one to ask them as he has actually read the other Wada code and knows about the various burdens of proof.
Have you found out what these are after 15,000 posts on the matter.
The CAS had no evidence before them of intent, or cheating.
A banned drug in your system for which there is no actual evidence of an innocent cause might do it. So CAS ruled intent. Where there is intent to dope that is cheating. Except to you.
They never said it was intentional when finding her guilty or innocent.You have been told about the actual rules a hundred times but you have shown no evidence of ever reading them.
The CAS had no evidence before them of intent, or cheating.
A banned drug in your system for which there is no actual evidence of an innocent cause might do it. So CAS ruled intent. Where there is intent to dope that is cheating. Except to you.
In other words, the CAS treated her as an intentional cheat, without any evidence of intent or cheating.
A banned drug in your system for which there is no actual evidence of an innocent cause might do it. So CAS ruled intent. Where there is intent to dope that is cheating. Except to you.
In other words, the CAS treated her as an intentional cheat, without any evidence of intent or cheating.
Cheating definitely. She had a banned substance in her body, which is proven 100%. Like others have said, unintentionally cutting the course is still cheating.
Intent you could argue. But given the evidence suggested a synthetic origin (via isotope) and taking precursors (which she never tried to argue against in all the evidence she supplied), plus probably what they saw as a lack of accountability, they definitely treated her as an intentional cheat. This is debatable conclusion, but it’s certainly not a crazy place to arrive at. Her argument basically amounted to, “they should trust me.”
That guy is a total BTC shill. When I pointed out in his insta post on this episode that it wasn't a complicated case and his summary was incorrect he deleted post and blocked all comments.
I knew this would inevitably make its way on here so I would like to say a few things.
1) You may disagree or not believe in Shelby, but I sincerely ask you to listen to this episode. You will benefit greatly from hearing Shelby’s vulnerability, heart, and openness in sharing her story. We could be here endlessly debating all the different facts of the case, evidence on both sides, and much more. But that’s not what we’re here to do. All we’re here to do is give Shelby an opportunity to share her heart, give her side of the story in full, and give her the opportunity to answer every misconception about the situation.
2) Shelby has never spoken publicly in a long-form manner since her ban. She speaks on many news things that aren't publically known and addresses all of the misconceptions that you all wrongly speculate on here all the time.
3) Please listen to this with an open mind and not your predisposed mindset. If you want to speak on the podcast AFTER you listen to it, that's fine, but don't assume to know what she said without listening to it. 4) Lastly, Shelby and I both deserve respect. Whether you agree with Shelby or not, these are very sensitive and life-altering subjects. I demand that you show the utmost respect in any comment sections about this episode whether you agree with her or not. Every human being has dignity and should be treated with such.
I hope you will all give Shelby a chance. If you would like more info you can go to
You're clearly on the payroll of BTC and an apologist for dopers.
I was one of the folks that commented on your preview of this episode by reminding you her case "wasn't complicated". You deleted the comment. Blocked comments. Apparently blocked me as I cant' access site on insta.
Why would you think we would go into something with an open mind when you are so over the top a PR agent?
She went home devastated from the court of science, so she's turning to the only place she still thinks she stands a chance to revitalize her career after a 4-year ban; the court of public opinion.
Maybe she is honestly trying to figure out who slipped her a Mickey?
You might be dumber than Jamin and that's saying something.
Reading many of the posts here make me question the intelligence of their posters.
And some of the smarter few, I question your honesty and integrity.
@rekrunner. you aren't the best thinker on this board, so that critique is pretty lightweight.
to quote a letsrun poster from a few years ago as it relates to your post:
1) People are emotional. 2) Rational people CAN use reasoning. 3) Rational people rarely use reasoning to contradict their emotional response. 4) Rational people regularly use reasoning to legitimize their emotional response.
What then is the difference between rational and irrational people in a panic? The rational people sound smarter.
I knew this would inevitably make its way on here so I would like to say a few things.
1) You may disagree or not believe in Shelby, but I sincerely ask you to listen to this episode. You will benefit greatly from hearing Shelby’s vulnerability, heart, and openness in sharing her story. We could be here endlessly debating all the different facts of the case, evidence on both sides, and much more. But that’s not what we’re here to do. All we’re here to do is give Shelby an opportunity to share her heart, give her side of the story in full, and give her the opportunity to answer every misconception about the situation.
2) Shelby has never spoken publicly in a long-form manner since her ban. She speaks on many news things that aren't publically known and addresses all of the misconceptions that you all wrongly speculate on here all the time.
3) Please listen to this with an open mind and not your predisposed mindset. If you want to speak on the podcast AFTER you listen to it, that's fine, but don't assume to know what she said without listening to it. 4) Lastly, Shelby and I both deserve respect. Whether you agree with Shelby or not, these are very sensitive and life-altering subjects. I demand that you show the utmost respect in any comment sections about this episode whether you agree with her or not. Every human being has dignity and should be treated with such.
I hope you will all give Shelby a chance. If you would like more info you can go to
You can "demand" whatever you want. You are a high school kid being used to help clean the image of a doper. Take that for what you will. I don't need to respect you nor her.
I missed number 4... Jesus. My instagram has my real name so my comment that he deleted before blocking me, was pretty tame. Tough questions like "I don't believe Flanagan had never heard of the drug that took down Baumann." But nothing rude.
I'm not always sure you all do know where I stand, because it often gets oversimplified and distorted.
These other cases have given me reason to doubt that the WADA labs always get this test right (with reference lanes bleeding into other lanes during testing), and that the evidence of the lab error would be permitted to reach the accused in time for him/her to defend him/herself.
The consistency is of requiring conclusive evidence before jumping to conclusions, whatever the topic.
We have heard it loud and clear through your 1000 monotonous posts. Speaking of jumping to conclusions, I love the array of small chance events you support while ignoring the high chance event. You know what, I think S.H is the cleanest athlete of all american sports. There is so much pointing to her being clean with her ban.
Have you? I'm still not sure.
Don't confuse my saying your claim has no evidence, with jumping to the opposite conclusion.
The cascade of small chance events just tells us not many athletes will test positive for nandrolone from pork, but that some will.
To overcome this near-zero probability, she needed specific evidence -- i.e. the burrito to test -- or a more sympathetic ADA/ADO or CAS Panel.
What are you calling a "the high chance event"? Prof. Ayotte didn't give us any indication of how high the chance was, normalized to the same metric as Prof. McGlone used for pork in the national pork market.
Someone reported like 40 posts in this thread. With Pre going on, I don't have time to look at them all so I'm going to temporarily pause this thread to new posts. Normally when a thread gets 20 pages deeps, it's the same two obsessed people going back and forth. Please stop.