rekrunner wrote:
Sorry but you are still wrong. There was no effort to prove “drug cheat”, so it remains very close to zero percent proven.
Webster:
“having no basis in reason or fact”
rekrunner:
“baseless rumor that the athlete cheated”
From your link, we don’t really know what the WADA lab called her, because they were not quoted, and they are not otherwise on record as calling her a “drug cheat”.
It’s not the first time your argument relies on what we don’t know to be considered established fact.
Your high quantity/low quality list of bases in facts are bases for “rule violations”, and not “drug cheat”, because the elements required to call it cheating were not required, alleged, argued, demonstrated, or proved. (You keep naming “possession”, but rule 2.1 is “presence”).
The only thing you got right was “not in those very words”. If the words were “rule violation”, instead of “drug cheat”, then your post would make some sense, but would also be awkward and unnecessary.
So many say they are content and happy that she received a 4-year ban, but the fact that so many feel some unfulfilled need to choose other words that mean different things, without providing any basis for doing so, suggests that they are not happy with how little can be inferred from a 4-year ban, from a process that did not identify the source, and did not demonstrate intent.
casual obsever wrote:
1) OK, Shelby claimed that the lab treated her as "cheat". She didn't say "drug cheat", but obviously that was about cheating with a drug, namely nandrolone.
2) You were also wrong by calling it "baseless".
Webster:
Here we are obviously well beyond baseless rumors. Bases in fact in this case include:
1) She tested positive for nandrolone, well above the limit of 2 ng/ml, a drug forbidden at all times.
2) The Wada lab judged that to be an AAF.
3) AIU provisionally suspended her.
4) AIU charged her with possession and use of said forbidden drug.
5) CAS banned her for an intention ADRV, namely possession and use of said forbidden drug.
"baseless", LOL. You might be able to claim with a straight face that her cheating is only proven to 99.99999999999999%, but "baseless"? An absurd statement, considering all those facts.
LOL - that is obviously wrong too. Will you now start redefining "baseless" as not 100% proven to pretend you were not wrong again?