the evidence was conclusive in the context of the WADA code which is what all athletes sign up for and need to abide by. the people who matter (not you, sorry) found it to be so.
I’m not sure if Shelby is the dolphin or tuna in your analogy but if the system is truly broken then why aren’t more dolphin/tuna? getting caught in the net?
That's really the whole point. No one can be sure if Shelby is the dolphin or the tuna. Not the AIU, not the CAS, not Tucker, not Armstronglivs, and not rekrunner.
Sure the athlete signed up to the WADA code and must abide by the ban, so not much can be said about that without retroactive WADA Code reform. I can't argue that the AIU and the CAS did anything that the WADA Code didn't permit them to do.
But the athlete didn't sign up for public baseless accusations of intentional cheating and lying, something not found in the WADA Code or CAS report.
Who's to say more dolphins aren't being caught in the WADA net? Look at the 50 Kenyan positives for nandrolone between 2004-2018, where the AIU "near-zero" argument completely collapses, as there are no USDA inspectors, and farmers do not routinely castrate their pork. This was 40% of all Kenyan positive results. Which Kenyan has 5-figures to fight it?
Look at cases like Simon Getzmann, and imagine that some athletes may actually use all of their prescribed painkiller, leaving nothing to test.
Or imagine that the AIU prosecuted the 27 USADA no-fault cases with the same aggressiveness as for Houlihan?
I'm also imagining the increased pressure on WADA to justify countries worldwide investing in it, if it decides to relax nandrolone positives, say by recommending that less than 10 ng/ml be considered ATFs, on a case by case basis, and their already low success rate of 1-2% drops by another 40%.
Here WADA has two conflicting incentives: it wants to increase detection rates and conviction rates, in order to bring returns on investments, so it relaxes its standards of convinctions, while its ultimate goal is that the doping rate, and therefore test and conviction rates, drop to 0%.
there’s a lot of who’s to say and imagining going on in this post.
creating fictional possibilities doesn’t help your argument.
That's really the whole point. No one can be sure if Shelby is the dolphin or the tuna. Not the AIU, not the CAS, not Tucker, not Armstronglivs, and not rekrunner.
Sure the athlete signed up to the WADA code and must abide by the ban, so not much can be said about that without retroactive WADA Code reform. I can't argue that the AIU and the CAS did anything that the WADA Code didn't permit them to do.
But the athlete didn't sign up for public baseless accusations of intentional cheating and lying, something not found in the WADA Code or CAS report.
Who's to say more dolphins aren't being caught in the WADA net? Look at the 50 Kenyan positives for nandrolone between 2004-2018, where the AIU "near-zero" argument completely collapses, as there are no USDA inspectors, and farmers do not routinely castrate their pork. This was 40% of all Kenyan positive results. Which Kenyan has 5-figures to fight it?
Look at cases like Simon Getzmann, and imagine that some athletes may actually use all of their prescribed painkiller, leaving nothing to test.
Or imagine that the AIU prosecuted the 27 USADA no-fault cases with the same aggressiveness as for Houlihan?
I'm also imagining the increased pressure on WADA to justify countries worldwide investing in it, if it decides to relax nandrolone positives, say by recommending that less than 10 ng/ml be considered ATFs, on a case by case basis, and their already low success rate of 1-2% drops by another 40%.
Here WADA has two conflicting incentives: it wants to increase detection rates and conviction rates, in order to bring returns on investments, so it relaxes its standards of convinctions, while its ultimate goal is that the doping rate, and therefore test and conviction rates, drop to 0%.
there’s a lot of who’s to say and imagining going on in this post.
creating fictional possibilities doesn’t help your argument.
she was caught with abnormally high levels of a performance enhancing steroid in her system that couldn’t be explained away away by contamination. that’s cheating.
But the athlete didn't sign up for public baseless accusations of intentional cheating and lying
Well, it’s a good thing this doesn’t apply to Shelby!
Data shows she intentionally cheated, and her actions show she is a pathological liar. She stole money, opportunity, and fame from others. Nothing baseless about it.
Then you will have no problem providing the basis.
Which data? Which actions? Which money, opportunity and fame, from whom?