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.
True. Plus, we have seen twoggle's bias on a number of occasions, for example when he listed four (alleged, all debatable) reasons why Shelby would never dope, and zero why she could.
Compare this to Tucker's rather neutral stance published on Letsrun:
In terms of whether nandrolone is the best drug to use for performance, of course you could list half a dozen that would be better, because of detection time, effect etc. Yet we know it is used, and perhaps that is because of availability or ease of acquisition, or it may be part of a collection of substances used, some legal, some not. I abandoned any notion of interpreting athletes’ actions against some logical framework long ago!
Twoggle also used almost verbatim the same arguments that occurred in Shelby's official timeline from early 2021, which wasn't public knowledge at the time of his editorial.
As for twoggle's expertise, he botched the pharmacokinetics discussion in his editorial, either on purpose because of his bias, or because of lack of expertise.
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 ?
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
Still not answered the question; why.
Are the rights or non rights any different from professional level to non professional?
You said they were explain.
And what anecdotal support do you refer to; or an other of your inventions.
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
Still not answered the question; why.
Are the rights or non rights any different from professional level to non professional?
You said they were explain.
And what anecdotal support do you refer to; or an other of your inventions.
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
Still not answered the question; why.
Are the rights or non rights any different from professional level to non professional?
You said they were explain.
And what anecdotal support do you refer to; or an other of your inventions.
we’re 18 pages into this thread and you want cliffs notes lol
What in Gods holy name are you guys blabbering about?
Not blabbering.
When posters come out with lies I think it is important to expose these.
But over time it is clear that they change the meanings of their words or deny.
It is interesting that those against SH come up with anecdotal evidence and stuff about designer drug enhanced hormones and plain misinformation about what the rules say.
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.
so, you're stating you are better the SH's team, and you think you're brilliant analysis is better than what they could come up with?