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.
What was proven was that she had a banned ped in her system for which she could furnish no acceptable legitimate explanation. So a doper - and an intentional doper, since no one was shown to have caused her to ingest the drug without her knowing, which only left her.
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.
I agree -- with WADA. There is no doubt that these levels are considered "usual" and "in the low range".
What was proven was that she had a banned ped in her system for which she could furnish no acceptable legitimate explanation. So a doper - and an intentional doper, since no one was shown to have caused her to ingest the drug without her knowing, which only left her.
A level of nandrolone in an athlete's system in this "usual" "low range", may or may not even be a rule violation. Recall the panel was of two minds on this more important question, in a split decision.
What was not proven was that the WA/AIU/WADA Lab met their burden of establishing an ADRV, to the higher standard of "comfortable satisfaction (i.e. greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt)". The CAS made this clear that this was also presumed, and the burden was also shifted to the athlete to play the role of quality control.
If it's not properly a rule violation, the athlete should not be asked to provide any explanation to the standard of balance of probability, rendering that analysis moot.
Since all of these civil burdens are "less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt", this means that reasonable doubts remain. Rather, as the CAS explains, decisions are based on presumptions rather than proofs.
What was proven was that she had a banned ped in her system for which she could furnish no acceptable legitimate explanation. So a doper - and an intentional doper, since no one was shown to have caused her to ingest the drug without her knowing, which only left her.
A level of nandrolone in an athlete's system in this "usual" "low range", may or may not even be a rule violation. Recall the panel was of two minds on this more important question, in a split decision.
What was not proven was that the WA/AIU/WADA Lab met their burden of establishing an ADRV, to the higher standard of "comfortable satisfaction (i.e. greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt)". The CAS made this clear that this was also presumed, and the burden was also shifted to the athlete to play the role of quality control.
If it's not properly a rule violation, the athlete should not be asked to provide any explanation to the standard of balance of probability, rendering that analysis moot.
Since all of these civil burdens are "less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt", this means that reasonable doubts remain. Rather, as the CAS explains, decisions are based on presumptions rather than proofs.
It was unequivocally of a level that confirmed doping unless an acceptable justification could be provided. It couldn't. Hence she intentionally doped since she didn't swallow nandrolone by accident.
It was unequivocally of a level that confirmed doping unless an acceptable justification could be provided. It couldn't. Hence she intentionally doped since she didn't swallow nandrolone by accident.
Unequivocally? Now you are just making stuff up. The CAS never said "unequivocal". But 20+ years of WADA and IOC research says the levels were "usual" and "in the low range".
The standard the CAS used to "accept" the doping alternative was "suggested" and "consistent with". Houlihan's explanation was similarly "suggested" and "consistent with".
Note again that providing an "acceptable justification" is not required if the ADRV was improperly charged.
If it wasn't unequivocal she could have gotten off on the grounds she didn't commit a violation. So the amount was a violation. **** off with your endless lies.
You are the one fabricating a stream of lies, like the student who never reads his assignments when asked to report on them.
You are partly right because she could have gotten off on the grounds she didn't didn't commit a violation. That part of the decision was not equivocal, nor even unanimious, but 2:1. Whether she gets off depends more on the luck of the choice of CAS panel, and the ADO, and how committed they are in finding facts versus getting a conviction.
When the applied standard is "presumption", "suggestion", and "consistent with", nothing rises to the level of certainty of unequivocal.
This post was edited 49 seconds after it was posted.
If it wasn't unequivocal she could have gotten off on the grounds she didn't commit a violation. So the amount was a violation. **** off with your endless lies.
You are the one fabricating a stream of lies, like the student who never reads his assignments when asked to report on them.
You are partly right because she could have gotten off on the grounds she didn't didn't commit a violation. That part of the decision was not equivocal, nor even unanimious, but 2:1. Whether she gets off depends more on the luck of the choice of CAS panel, and the ADO, and how committed they are in finding facts versus getting a conviction.
When the applied standard is "presumption", "suggestion", and "consistent with", nothing rises to the level of certainty of unequivocal.
The "unequivocal certainty" was the Court finding she committed an intentional violation for which she incurred a 4 year ban. 'So how do you like them apples?'
The "unequivocal certainty" was the Court finding she committed an intentional violation for which she incurred a 4 year ban. 'So how do you like them apples?'
That CAS opinion, that deemed intent, was unequivocally based on a presumption of intent.
Didn't the Johnson brothers pay money to,Ross Tucker to investigate the evidence and he concluded that she did cheat??
Does he know her personally? Was he on the inside? No, he wasn’t. Science doesn’t take you as far as people who were there from the beginning and know the truth.
Common sense is better than “science.” Didn’t we all learn our lesson during Covid?
And Robert and Weldon do not believe she cheated.
The only thing dumb than thinking your uncle Fred knows more about Covid than NIH, is believing Shelby’s (continued BS). Frankly, I look at all the athletes liking her comeback post and I’m suspicious of all of them.
Why the hell are we still debating this? What good does it do?
we know 50% of the athletes in the London games used some type of borderline to illegal substances because they told us they did in that anonymous survey. We know microdosing exists, we know that athletes “time” their doping. I hate that we know all this frankly.
shelby was doping with something, that something got contaminated with the nandrolone and she got caught, and everyone around her was flat footed because they couldn’t say, “no, that’s not what she has been taking” and correct the press. So they had to suck it up.
Has she served her ban? Yes. Do I want to watch her compete? No, I don’t. She played by the rules and left the sport for a time but I as a fan am under no obligation to watch her compete. I’m just not interested. I didn’t like watching Maurice green compete again either.
You are the one fabricating a stream of lies, like the student who never reads his assignments when asked to report on them.
You are partly right because she could have gotten off on the grounds she didn't didn't commit a violation. That part of the decision was not equivocal, nor even unanimious, but 2:1. Whether she gets off depends more on the luck of the choice of CAS panel, and the ADO, and how committed they are in finding facts versus getting a conviction.
When the applied standard is "presumption", "suggestion", and "consistent with", nothing rises to the level of certainty of unequivocal.
The "unequivocal certainty" was the Court finding she committed an intentional violation for which she incurred a 4 year ban. 'So how do you like them apples?'
I’m trying to understand how Armstronglivs could be so uncreative as to trust CAS hook, line and sinker.
These governing bodies like them are completely full of it. They wanted Laura Muir to get a medal. Shelby Houlihan didn’t dope. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that CAS/WADA are corrupt and not unbiased against Americans.
Armstronglivs, are you American? Are you given to critical thought or do you just take everything at face value? If the government told you to wear a mask, would you just say yes, without even thinking about it? Honest questions I have.
The "unequivocal certainty" was the Court finding she committed an intentional violation for which she incurred a 4 year ban. 'So how do you like them apples?'
That CAS opinion, that deemed intent, was unequivocally based on a presumption of intent.
It was unequivocally based on a banned substance in her system that she had ingested for which no other cause could be found but her. You must enjoy losing.
The "unequivocal certainty" was the Court finding she committed an intentional violation for which she incurred a 4 year ban. 'So how do you like them apples?'
I’m trying to understand how Armstronglivs could be so uncreative as to trust CAS hook, line and sinker.
These governing bodies like them are completely full of it. They wanted Laura Muir to get a medal. Shelby Houlihan didn’t dope. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that CAS/WADA are corrupt and not unbiased against Americans.
Armstronglivs, are you American? Are you given to critical thought or do you just take everything at face value? If the government told you to wear a mask, would you just say yes, without even thinking about it? Honest questions I have.
She had a banned substance in her bladder. No one - including her - denied that. She couldn't show any cause for that except her. It isn't very complicated or confusing.