1 year since Shelby Ban: What have we learned?

rekrunner wrote:

I had to think carefully to exclude things I already knew. For me, here are a few new things I learned in the last year:

- Every athlete is potentially one meal away, one supplement away, or one prescription medicine away, from a 4-year ban, if they are unable to correctly identify the source, and have it tested for the unlikely presence of a banned substance, after being notified one-month after the fact of a positive result.

- The same violation, with the same evidence, before 2015 would have been considered unintentional, but after 2015, is considered intentional.

- Guilty verdicts for presence and use expressly do not depend on intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge.

- Under the WADA Code, proving your innocence cannot reverse a guily verdict, but establishing non-intent, no-fault, or non-negligence, can only reduce or end the remaining sanction.

- Athletes that prove their innocence are not recompensated for lost earnings, or for their costs to prove their innocence.

- According to Ross Tucker, proving your innocence can cost 5 to 6 figures, and even then, may not be possible.

- Poorer athletes may not have access to, or the financial resources to afford, the scientists and lawyers necessary to help prove their innocence.

- Out of diligence, innocent athletes should start preserving all their meals, tablets, medicine, for one-two months, just in case, and be prepared to spend 5 figures for testing and legal support, and serve a 1-year suspension, and face a hostile prosecution, and hostile journalists and fans.

- Changes made to the WADA Guidelines in 2021 to explicitly recognize pork as a potential but unlikely source of nandrolone, and to recognize the diets of pigs as a potential confounder to the tests used to determine exogenous, are optional and do not require consideration.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I had to think carefully to exclude things I already knew. For me, here are a few new things I learned in the last year:

- Every athlete is potentially one meal away, one supplement away, or one prescription medicine away, from a 4-year ban, if they are unable to correctly identify the source, and have it tested for the unlikely presence of a banned substance, after being notified one-month after the fact of a positive result.

- The same violation, with the same evidence, before 2015 would have been considered unintentional, but after 2015, is considered intentional.

- Guilty verdicts for presence and use expressly do not depend on intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge.

- Under the WADA Code, proving your innocence cannot reverse a guily verdict, but establishing non-intent, no-fault, or non-negligence, can only reduce or end the remaining sanction.

- Athletes that prove their innocence are not recompensated for lost earnings, or for their costs to prove their innocence.

- According to Ross Tucker, proving your innocence can cost 5 to 6 figures, and even then, may not be possible.

- Poorer athletes may not have access to, or the financial resources to afford, the scientists and lawyers necessary to help prove their innocence.

- Out of diligence, innocent athletes should start preserving all their meals, tablets, medicine, for one-two months, just in case, and be prepared to spend 5 figures for testing and legal support, and serve a 1-year suspension, and face a hostile prosecution, and hostile journalists and fans.

- Changes made to the WADA Guidelines in 2021 to explicitly recognize pork as a potential but unlikely source of nandrolone, and to recognize the diets of pigs as a potential confounder to the tests used to determine exogenous, are optional and do not require consideration.

You haven't learned anything in the last year. Your views remain essentially the same. The Houlihan case proves none of what you claim.

rekrunner wrote:

More:

- Potential conflicts of interest do not prevent the head of a WADA lab from providing expert testimony on behalf of one of the parties in a dispute.

- Experts can give misleading testimony to a tribunal during adjudication, significant enough to overturn the initial ruling, without any negative repercussions, and continue to serve as an expert in future cases.

- During Trump administration budget cuts, some of the duties performed by USDA inspectors, such as sniffing boar carcasses before allowing them in the food chain, can now be performed by trained line workers, allowing fewer USDA officials.

- Experts from both parties can agree that pigs were fed soy, and the CAS can still rule that pigs don't eat soy.

- Kenyan farmers do not routinely castrate their pigs, perhaps explaining the high number of Kenyan nandrolone positives in a 2018 WADA report.

- Some farmers in Oregon chemically castrate pigs. The potential impacts of pandemic-related supply issues, and another source of boar, were apparently not presented to the CAS.

rekrunner wrote:

I had to think carefully to exclude things I already knew. For me, here are a few new things I learned in the last year:

- Every athlete is potentially one meal away, one supplement away, or one prescription medicine away, from a 4-year ban, if they are unable to correctly identify the source, and have it tested for the unlikely presence of a banned substance, after being notified one-month after the fact of a positive result.

- The same violation, with the same evidence, before 2015 would have been considered unintentional, but after 2015, is considered intentional.

- Guilty verdicts for presence and use expressly do not depend on intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge.

- Under the WADA Code, proving your innocence cannot reverse a guily verdict, but establishing non-intent, no-fault, or non-negligence, can only reduce or end the remaining sanction.

- Athletes that prove their innocence are not recompensated for lost earnings, or for their costs to prove their innocence.

- According to Ross Tucker, proving your innocence can cost 5 to 6 figures, and even then, may not be possible.

- Poorer athletes may not have access to, or the financial resources to afford, the scientists and lawyers necessary to help prove their innocence.

- Out of diligence, innocent athletes should start preserving all their meals, tablets, medicine, for one-two months, just in case, and be prepared to spend 5 figures for testing and legal support, and serve a 1-year suspension, and face a hostile prosecution, and hostile journalists and fans.

- Changes made to the WADA Guidelines in 2021 to explicitly recognize pork as a potential but unlikely source of nandrolone, and to recognize the diets of pigs as a potential confounder to the tests used to determine exogenous, are optional and do not require consideration.

rekrunner wrote:

More:

- Potential conflicts of interest do not prevent the head of a WADA lab from providing expert testimony on behalf of one of the parties in a dispute.

- Experts can give misleading testimony to a tribunal during adjudication, significant enough to overturn the initial ruling, without any negative repercussions, and continue to serve as an expert in future cases.

- During Trump administration budget cuts, some of the duties performed by USDA inspectors, such as sniffing boar carcasses before allowing them in the food chain, can now be performed by trained line workers, allowing fewer USDA officials.

- Experts from both parties can agree that pigs were fed soy, and the CAS can still rule that pigs don't eat soy.

- Kenyan farmers do not routinely castrate their pigs, perhaps explaining the high number of Kenyan nandrolone positives in a 2018 WADA report.

- Some farmers in Oregon chemically castrate pigs. The potential impacts of pandemic-related supply issues, and another source of boar, were apparently not presented to the CAS.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

More:

- Potential conflicts of interest do not prevent the head of a WADA lab from providing expert testimony on behalf of one of the parties in a dispute.

- Experts can give misleading testimony to a tribunal during adjudication, significant enough to overturn the initial ruling, without any negative repercussions, and continue to serve as an expert in future cases.

- During Trump administration budget cuts, some of the duties performed by USDA inspectors, such as sniffing boar carcasses before allowing them in the food chain, can now be performed by trained line workers, allowing fewer USDA officials.

- Experts from both parties can agree that pigs were fed soy, and the CAS can still rule that pigs don't eat soy.

- Kenyan farmers do not routinely castrate their pigs, perhaps explaining the high number of Kenyan nandrolone positives in a 2018 WADA report.

- Some farmers in Oregon chemically castrate pigs. The potential impacts of pandemic-related supply issues, and another source of boar, were apparently not presented to the CAS.

2 court hearings of the same case says your arguments are specious, irrelevant and wrong.

Shelby Shelbs wrote:

It's been one year since the most shocking ban in US Distance running history.

What have we learned?

For me its:

1. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys". Just because someone's marketing themselves well, doesn't mean they aren't cheating.

2. Be a skeptic. There were a million signs of her cheating long before she was caught. Her incredible progression, body and face changes, the stupid Lopez picture etc.

3. American Distance running is not squeaky clean as it's advertised.

4. We need to demand more transparency from our distance runners.

5. All the liberal running media (oh and I say this as a bleeding heart liberal) really failed us. They showed how biased they were and how they can't ever be trusted to tell the truth about dopers they like. Going to be very interesting to see how a lot of these people (Melly, Wade, Strout, etc) react when there is another doping bust.

6. Adding off of that, the US distance running community has largely stayed silent or rallied around Shelby, which is suspicious in it of itself. Very few of Shelby's competitors have spoken out. There is a strong alliance among them, I guess.

7. Jerry and Shalane are...actually kind of shady.

8. what pig offal is

9. what nandrolone is

10. That GDS is kind of a bada$

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

More:

- Potential conflicts of interest do not prevent the head of a WADA lab from providing expert testimony on behalf of one of the parties in a dispute.

- Experts can give misleading testimony to a tribunal during adjudication, significant enough to overturn the initial ruling, without any negative repercussions, and continue to serve as an expert in future cases.

- During Trump administration budget cuts, some of the duties performed by USDA inspectors, such as sniffing boar carcasses before allowing them in the food chain, can now be performed by trained line workers, allowing fewer USDA officials.

- Experts from both parties can agree that pigs were fed soy, and the CAS can still rule that pigs don't eat soy.

- Kenyan farmers do not routinely castrate their pigs, perhaps explaining the high number of Kenyan nandrolone positives in a 2018 WADA report.

- Some farmers in Oregon chemically castrate pigs. The potential impacts of pandemic-related supply issues, and another source of boar, were apparently not presented to the CAS.

2 court hearings of the same case says your arguments are specious, irrelevant and wrong.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

More:

- Potential conflicts of interest do not prevent the head of a WADA lab from providing expert testimony on behalf of one of the parties in a dispute.

- Experts can give misleading testimony to a tribunal during adjudication, significant enough to overturn the initial ruling, without any negative repercussions, and continue to serve as an expert in future cases.

- During Trump administration budget cuts, some of the duties performed by USDA inspectors, such as sniffing boar carcasses before allowing them in the food chain, can now be performed by trained line workers, allowing fewer USDA officials.

- Experts from both parties can agree that pigs were fed soy, and the CAS can still rule that pigs don't eat soy.

- Kenyan farmers do not routinely castrate their pigs, perhaps explaining the high number of Kenyan nandrolone positives in a 2018 WADA report.

- Some farmers in Oregon chemically castrate pigs. The potential impacts of pandemic-related supply issues, and another source of boar, were apparently not presented to the CAS.

2 court hearings of the same case says your arguments are specious, irrelevant and wrong.