Nothing you say - as you do, ad nauseam - changes what a court decided, which is that she committed an intentional antidoping violation that warranted a 4 year ban from the sport. The only thing you make obvious is why you, or one like you, wouldn't have been part of that process. Unlike CAS you are a deluded fantasist.
Hahaha! You got to realize that you are describing yourself to a T here. Are you doing that on purpose?
My posts are written according to a normal standard, supported by statements in the CAS report, in the WADA Code, in the WADA TD, and by experts in the domains.
I can see how this might make some posters feel inferior, and how they might want to blame me, but that is not my purpose.
What I haven't seen is what objective evidence of intent, let alone "proof she committed an intentional violation" as was originally claimed, was before the CAS when they sanctioned Houlihan for 4-years, as they expressly said it was a consequence of a presumption.
Are you really that delusional or forgetful? Just go back, and read again all your obfuscations, shameless exaggerations and lies, lame personal attacks and baseless belittling of the other posters and the experts from McGlone to Tucker, and repeated grandstanding like just now "I can see how this might make some posters feel inferior".
A SYNTHETIC substance was found and the amount far exceeded the legal limit. CASE CLOSED.
The burrito thing was complete BS even if wild boar testes found their way into her dinner. Accidentally took a contaminated supplement? I could buy that as very plausible and she would have received a lighter sentence. She and her team swung for the fences and lost. She’s done her time. Move on.
Nothing you say - as you do, ad nauseam - changes what a court decided, which is that she committed an intentional antidoping violation that warranted a 4 year ban from the sport. The only thing you make obvious is why you, or one like you, wouldn't have been part of that process.
The CAS opinions are based on insufficient objective evidence and presumptions, and are not themselves established facts.
I would not be part of that process because it takes too many shortcuts, and I wouldn't be proud of the outcomes, and the risk of false convictions.
A finding of "intentional doping" under policies of "strict liability" and "presumed intent" raises the question of whether she really doped, and whether it was really intentional, when we don't hold athletes responsble for what happens in the meat and supplement industry, and when we don't presume intent.
Are you really that delusional or forgetful? Just go back, and read again all your obfuscations, shameless exaggerations and lies, lame personal attacks and baseless belittling of the other posters and the experts from McGlone to Tucker, and repeated grandstanding like just now "I can see how this might make some posters feel inferior".
And all of that as an IT guy...
I am none of these things. I am often accused of obfuscations and lies and more, and often the subject of personal attacks, but these always seemed like defense mechanisms in order to avoid the point, presumedly due to an inability to rebut the point.
The main point in this thread, when we combine all the posters, and all the experts, no one can identify, or has identifed in the past 4 years, any specific and concrete evidence of intentional doping that was before the CAS, and that the CAS considered before deciding to deem the presumed intent.
Are you really that delusional or forgetful? Just go back, and read again all your obfuscations, shameless exaggerations and lies, lame personal attacks and baseless belittling of the other posters and the experts from McGlone to Tucker, and repeated grandstanding like just now "I can see how this might make some posters feel inferior".
And all of that as an IT guy...
I am none of these things. I am often accused of obfuscations and lies and more, and often the subject of personal attacks, but these always seemed like defense mechanisms in order to avoid the point, presumedly due to an inability to rebut the point.
The main point in this thread, when we combine all the posters, and all the experts, no one can identify, or has identifed in the past 4 years, any specific and concrete evidence of intentional doping that was before the CAS, and that the CAS considered before deciding to deem the presumed intent.
Just a few quotes from you of the last week here in this thread… there is more, a lot more… Personal attacks: But that is just your dumbed-down retelling according to you. Sounds like someone has a superiority complex hiding the little insecure boy inside.
Grandstanding + personal attacks: Are you trying to deal with your own feelings of inferiority? I can see how this might make some posters feel inferior. I generally post to point out flaws and faith and fallacy and to provide supplementary facts. Bad science and bad law and false convictions and an uninformed fan base who prefer to believe in conspiracies can only hurt the sport. What's with all the childish name-callling? Are you not able to have an intellectual fact-finding discussion without playing all the emotional rhetoric and games? You think the "ostrich approach" will help you dig for intellectual truths?
Personal attacks + shameless exaggerations + outright lies: Why is it so important for everyone to pretend that presumptions are findings of facts, and remain virtually uninformed about the process? The hate for Shelby seems to be a nationwide obsession. One expert cautiously estimated some amount less than 12,000 intact boars pass USDA inspectors each year in the US for consumption on the market, and conceded that these pigs were eating soy in the right timeframe.
I don’t care how many apologists there are for WADA out there, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out WADA was wrong from the very beginning.
Nandrolone in a person’s body does not mean they were using it as a performance enhancing substance.
No one has proved that the nandrolone was there in her body for the sake of enhancing performance. So some arbitrary, United States hating committee decides they have jurisdiction to ban an American athlete. That doesn’t mean she cheated. It just means they made a choice to ban her because someone else would “gain from it.”
If you’re not a hobby jogger or lazy finger pointer stop talking trash about Shelby and move on with your life.
Alberto Salazar doped athletes. Jerry Schumacher did not and NO, Shelby wasn’t some rogue one off. Use common sense and see that WADA is not an unbiased organization…it has motives and interests, just like any other body.
Use a little imagination in how you see Shelby’s case and don’t just assume that she cheated because WADA told you that she did.
WADA 100% gets some cases wrong, just as it gets some right. In this case they were wrong, but they will never admit as much, just like all political organizations and major figures…blame someone else for your own error.
BTW rekrunner, this here was the thread opener. Also full of lies and distortions. You are also poorly informed about the "main point in this thread". Or you are trying to trick and deflect about it, also quite possible with your history. Either way, that doesn't look good for you.
Coming on here once again to state the obvious that Shelbo cheated. She likely took a nandrolone precursor which she likely ordered off amazon. She likely knew the substances in it included banned things and she likely didn't care because she likely reasoned that as long as it wasn't EPO she wasn't THAT dirty.
Nothing you say - as you do, ad nauseam - changes what a court decided, which is that she committed an intentional antidoping violation that warranted a 4 year ban from the sport. The only thing you make obvious is why you, or one like you, wouldn't have been part of that process.
The CAS opinions are based on insufficient objective evidence and presumptions, and are not themselves established facts.
I would not be part of that process because it takes too many shortcuts, and I wouldn't be proud of the outcomes, and the risk of false convictions.
A finding of "intentional doping" under policies of "strict liability" and "presumed intent" raises the question of whether she really doped, and whether it was really intentional, when we don't hold athletes responsble for what happens in the meat and supplement industry, and when we don't presume intent.
The "process" you would be part of would always let the dopers go free. For all your bs about "facts" and "objectivity" you show nothing else.
Shelby doped. Or didn't. She served her time. (Longer than she needed to - could've done a deal but didn't). She's free to race now. I'd think the convo should now be "Will she be competitive?" "Will she win medals?" "Will she break any records?"
Just a few quotes from you of the last week here in this thread… there is more, a lot more… Personal attacks: But that is just your dumbed-down retelling according to you. Sounds like someone has a superiority complex hiding the little insecure boy inside.
Grandstanding + personal attacks: Are you trying to deal with your own feelings of inferiority? I can see how this might make some posters feel inferior. I generally post to point out flaws and faith and fallacy and to provide supplementary facts. Bad science and bad law and false convictions and an uninformed fan base who prefer to believe in conspiracies can only hurt the sport. What's with all the childish name-callling? Are you not able to have an intellectual fact-finding discussion without playing all the emotional rhetoric and games? You think the "ostrich approach" will help you dig for intellectual truths?
Personal attacks + shameless exaggerations + outright lies: Why is it so important for everyone to pretend that presumptions are findings of facts, and remain virtually uninformed about the process? The hate for Shelby seems to be a nationwide obsession. One expert cautiously estimated some amount less than 12,000 intact boars pass USDA inspectors each year in the US for consumption on the market, and conceded that these pigs were eating soy in the right timeframe.
These don't look like personal attacks and grandstanding and exaggerations and lies, but rather basic observations, supported by examples in previous posts, and a straightforward calculation.
Note the "superiority complex masking inferiority" first came from "inquiring minds". "Armstronglivs" doubled down on it. My response was to show him that it applies to him, giving examples from the previous pages, and repeating it when he gave new examples.
BTW rekrunner, this here was the thread opener. Also full of lies and distortions. You are also poorly informed about the "main point in this thread". Or you are trying to trick and deflect about it, also quite possible with your history. Either way, that doesn't look good for you.
It is also in there: "No one has proved that the nandrolone was there in her body for the sake of enhancing performance".
But I should have said "my main point", since Armstronglivs claimed that intent was proved back on page 3.
What doesn't look good is the complete failure to indentify any evidence of intent, let alone the proof.
The "process" you would be part of would always let the dopers go free. For all your bs about "facts" and "objectivity" you show nothing else.
That's kind of a simple way to look at it, but wrong. No where can we see you show any concern for innocent athletes wrongfully convicted.
Coming from a country that values justice, I am conditioned by a history of famous quotes like William Blackstone's "the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer (innocent person be convicted)" and the 1895 Supreme Court's "it is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent."
I would support a process that actually decides each case on the merits. I would support improving that process to robustly separate the innocent from the guilty, rather than deciding based on presumptions because something is too hard to prove (and equally hard to disprove), with a "kill 'em all, let god sort 'em" approach. I would also support a process of education and prevention and deterrents which seek to minimize the doping problems.
I'm all for banning Houlihan, if the violations and intent were proven on the specific merits, rather than based on unfavorable unproven presumptions.
Note that it's not about letting dopers go free. Before 2015, the violations of "presence" and "use" would not let athletes go free, but would warrant a 2-year sanction without any burden on either side, or discussion of proving intent or non-intent.
Note also that we are talking about a narrow subset of violations, where the small amounts involved are consistent with the consumption of USDA approved food. In the case of Houlihan, reporting this ambiguous result as an ATF, and increasing targeted testing will eventually catch her, if she is doping.
The level of drugs in her system are the evidence. Other than an admission of guilt or being caught in the act, that's the best you're going to get.
It was up to her to prove otherwise, which she could not.
The rocket level of drugs in her system are not evidence of anything to the doping apologist.
Do you consider WADA a doping apologist? They called the level of her nandrolone "usual" and "in the low range" for someone who consumed intact boar offal.
"Rocket level"? Where is "unbiased" calling out these exaggerations?
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
Something like that. Clearly it wasn't in the burrito, and the doper herself ruled out her supplements. EOT
Help me decide. Would you call "She likely took a nandrolone precursor which she likely ordered off amazon. She likely knew the substances in it included banned things and she likely didn't care because she likely reasoned that as long as it wasn't EPO she wasn't THAT dirty." "shameless exaggerations", or "outright lies"?
None of these likelihoods were discussed, let alone decided or established or proved.
For someone who pretends he/she is "unbiased", it's really not a good look for you.
The rocket level of drugs in her system are not evidence of anything to the doping apologist.
Do you consider WADA a doping apologist? They called the level of her nandrolone "usual" and "in the low range" for someone who consumed intact boar offal.
"Rocket level"? Where is "unbiased" calling out these exaggerations?
It was well above the level of any doubt. Doper levels. Hence it was easy to conclude she "intentionally" doped.
This post was edited 49 seconds after it was posted.