Shelby Houlihan runs 4:03 1500

Indeed. Coleman complained bitterly to CAS that when AIU came, they didn't call him back from his shopping trip like USADA used to do.

CAS actually felt with him, and reduced his ban because they thought that was a reasonable expectation based on previous experiences - though commenting that it was wrong, hence confirming 18 of 24 months of the ban.

Fun fact: as his receipts showed, he could not have come back within 5 minutes, which implies that USADA had actually called him in the past before the 55 minutes were up.

Thanks; all that fits with some of my memory cells which is quite satisfying.

Again I seem to recall that some years earlier they rang before getting on the plane to make the test.

I don't know if these details were made public.

At this point, I have to ask, with no disrespect intended, who cares? I don't mean tabloids or pseudo-investigative journalists or anonymous "fans" of the sport, but officially, in the anti-doping world, who cares about Coleman getting called by DCOs? These details about when a call may or may not have happened, and the purpose of the call, look like another desperate effort to fabricate a controversy where there is none.

Coleman doesn't seem the right example here, as he received enough whereabouts violations that he was banned twice.

A better example would be to take the case of Asbel Kiprop, where the AIU confirmed that Kiprop was given 1 day advance notice. Actually, text screenshots showed that he had 6 days notice.

The IAAF/AIU was the testing authority. Did anyone/does anyone fault the AIU for that? No, because it was pretty clear that it was the DCA trying to schedule a time with Kiprop for the test, rather than an instruction from the IAAF/AIU.

The AIU said it was "extremely disappointing", but apart from that, I'm unaware of any official investigations or repercussions for anyone. Officially no one cares. Maybe a few DCAs were educated on the importance of no-notice testing, and instructed not to do that anymore. But beyond that, it simply doesn't seem all that important.

So all medicines should be banned because they can be harmful if used in the wrong doses. You are a total moron.

No no no !

Never said any such thing.Again you contort by making things up. Nearly every post.

However if you look a the banned list you will find much banned because the harmful effects are only such in the wrong dosages.

See what I mean about social construction!

Insults I see. Now who would have thought that.

Someone, now who would that be I wonder, keeps registering my user nine.So that is why I keep having to change it each post.

I can't deal. I'm so SICK of Shelby. One good thing is that not all of BTC at the time supported her. Read betwixt the lines here. Also, I'm positive that Gwen didn't believe Shelby either.I wish Shelby would just admit to what she did rather than drag us through all this. I don't wish her ill, but it's hurting the sport for us to keep dragging name up every time she posts about grifting money or that she ran a 4:03.

You miss the point of course. You have insisted that there are innumerable drugs that aid performance and harm health (like aspirin - God help me!) that aren't banned by WADA. But whatever those routine medicines are they don't make the cut because the benefits are either insignificant or the harmful consequences are negligible. But as usual you cannot distinguish between such medicines and banned drugs. Fortunately WADA relies on expert medical advice. So remind me - where did you get your medical qualifications? The same place you got your legal qualifications? You are a constant reminder that free speech even applies to idiots.

I don't know if these details were made public.At this point, I have to ask, with no disrespect intended, who cares?(quote)

Quite.

What if Shelby has already admitted what she did, and no one believed it because they were persuaded by an error too subtle for them to realize? Then who is hurting the sport?

"The Prosecutor’s Fallacy (1). This is a logical error involving conditional probabilities – a measure of the chance, likelihood, or probability of X when Y has happened, Y being something that modifies the chance. The Prosecutor’s Fallacy can be avoided by making sure the probability answers the right question, by focusing on how the evidence applies to the 'defendant' and not on the 'evidence' alone in the absence of other relevant factors."

"The Prosecutor’s Fallacy is most often associated with miscarriages of justice. It’s when the probability of innocence given the evidence is wrongly assumed to equal an infinitesimally small probability that that evidence would occur if the defendant was innocent. Consequently, highly improbable innocent explanations have led to the assumption of guilt, as with ...."

"(T)he Prosecutors Fallacy is a subtle error that requires careful thought to understand, which makes teaching it all the more challenging."

You asked me to indicate which drugs break the rules but are allowed.

I did that and now you complain.

You refer to routine medicines and thus separate them if from non routine medicines that is a SOCIAL CONTRUCTION.

At no point did I say that they should be added to the banned list nor for that matter that drugs on the banned list should be removed.Why do you make things up yet again.

It is because of the beneficial effects of most banned drugs that are routine medicines that we have mass TUE’s and we might find such behind the the ice skating child.

The drugs don't break the rules. Medicines remain medicines until they are used as peds, which is when WADA bans them. But you should be telling them which drugs to ban since you know the ones being used that WADA doesn't know about.

Of course the logical inference of your argument is that if virtually everything is a form of doping and not just the drugs listed by WADA then everyone - and not just athletes - is doping. You can hardly object then to Shelby being called a doper because she is just one of the crowd.

Medicines stay medicines even when banned.

The drugs I mentioned do meet the criteria to be banned but are not banned.

You asked me which drugs are have the potential to enhance and have health risks but are not on the banned list.

Wada know about the drugs but the social construction of the prohibited list means the choose not to put them on.

How are you getting in with the Sociology of Medicine; it will allow you to increase your education to understand all this.

Oh; you don’t read stuff do you.

Staggering.

You keep spinning off in your own arguments and your own logical inferences.

You missed another necessary logical inference. You are a complete moron.

More insults, but not racial this time.

You have constructed your own reality to create what you wish to define as a necessary logical inference. At every single stage your invent and contort and fall into both schoolchild teleological and tautological glaring errors.

Remember you are the man who logically assumed that because you had not noticed any contra indication of your medicine then you are justified in saying that you could override centuries of medical science.

How are you getting on with the Sociology of Medicine or are you satisfied to post on subjects your remain gloriously uneducated.

Oh! Sorry you are still swotting on eugenics and my race and intelligence.

Has Armpstinglivs bothered to do any reading so he can join the adults’ debate?

Let us know when you have finished doodling.