Inconsistent as Nandrolone would not be on the charge sheet.
Thy much harder.
What's your evidence for that?
It is also irrelevant, a classical obfuscation, because Schumacher wrote explicitly about nandrolene, not about, for example 19-norandrosterone or 19-NA, or the "charge sheet":
The positive test was for a substance called nandrolone, something that neither Shelby nor I had ever heard of.
A troublesome witch tries to convince a medieval court that she isn't a witch.Download the entire movie in HD for free here from KickAss Torrents: http://kic...
Inconsistent as Nandrolone would not be on the charge sheet.
Thy much harder.
What's your evidence for that?
It is also irrelevant, a classical obfuscation, because Schumacher wrote explicitly about nandrolene, not about, for example 19-norandrosterone or 19-NA, or the "charge sheet":
The positive test was for a substance called nandrolone, something that neither Shelby nor I had ever heard of.
Ever bothered to read what they say an athlete has been caught with. It is the press that have to put it into words of less than 25 letters long.Or even longer if granddaughter metabolites.
The CAS said a few of things lacking specific information and with insufficient evidence, siding with the AIU, also lacking specific evidence. Because the actual evidence is missing, it would be premature to conclude that the nandrolone was synthetic as suggested by the AIU-expert, or that soy-fed "commercial" pork sourced during the pandemic wasn't the most likely source of the nandrolone, as argued by Houlihan. It would also be premature to conclude that Houlihan's violation wasn't "innocent".
The only thing relevant in the CAS decision was a ruling that 1) the WADA labs acted within the procedures (not a unanimous ruling), and 2) Houlihan did not prove "not intentional" on the balance of probability.
While WADA rules and expanded definitions allows the AIU to build a weak case propped up with presumptions and the principle of "strict liability", to convict athletes guilty of accidental and unknowling ingestion, the case that Houlihan intentionally doped with synthetic nandrolone has not been established to any legal, scientific, or intellectual standard.
Still could be from farmers enhancing their stock; well documented.
Without specific information and more evidence, it "could be" several things, some before the CAS, and some not. For example, both the USA and Canada practice chemical castration, a treatment which may also have been disrupted due to the pandemic. The expert on the US pork market did not address that, when estimating the percentage of boar meat that makes it to market.
The CAS gave us several gratuitous answers to questions not actually before the CAS, not backed by specific evidence, and not relevant to decide a WADA rule violation and the length of sanction.
Still could be from farmers enhancing their stock; well documented.
Without specific information and more evidence, it "could be" several things, some before the CAS, and some not. For example, both the USA and Canada practice chemical castration, a treatment which may also have been disrupted due to the pandemic. The expert on the US pork market did not address that, when estimating the percentage of boar meat that makes it to market.
The CAS gave us several gratuitous answers to questions not actually before the CAS, not backed by specific evidence, and not relevant to decide a WADA rule violation and the length of sanction.
There have been several cases where the independent nature of CAS has been challenged and the Wada code says that normal civil law standards should not apply.
As the detection levels become lower and lower the problems inherent in Wada become clearer. Food contamination and granddaughter metabolites are one big problem for WADA.
Also WADA are finding that granddaughter metabolites are coming from non banned drugs.Oh dear!
Without specific information and more evidence, it "could be" several things, some before the CAS, and some not. For example, both the USA and Canada practice chemical castration, a treatment which may also have been disrupted due to the pandemic. The expert on the US pork market did not address that, when estimating the percentage of boar meat that makes it to market.
The CAS gave us several gratuitous answers to questions not actually before the CAS, not backed by specific evidence, and not relevant to decide a WADA rule violation and the length of sanction.
There have been several cases where the independent nature of CAS has been challenged and the Wada code says that normal civil law standards should not apply.
As the detection levels become lower and lower the problems inherent in Wada become clearer. Food contamination and granddaughter metabolites are one big problem for WADA.
Also WADA are finding that granddaughter metabolites are coming from non banned drugs.Oh dear!
I have little doubt that a slightly different CAS panel, or a prosecution by USADA rather than the AIU, could have equally determined the positive test result was an ATF, rather than an AAF, within the WADA Code and any applicable guidelines and standards.
This is not a problem with CAS independence per se, but stems from the ambiguity in the WADA Code that leaves it open to broad interpretation by the adjudicating panels. (See for example Salazar's conviction and appeal. Both the AAA Panel and the CAS Panel seem unquestionably "independent", and yet the CAS Panel overturned 2 out of 3 AAA Panel convictions, while adding 2 more of their own, reversing another AAA Panel finding.)
Meat contamination and lower and lower detection levels is becoming a bigger and bigger problem, but not so much a problem for WADA, as it is for innocent athletes subject to an old standard of "strict liability" from factors that they cannot monitor nor control, nor easily prove weeks after the fact, when the source has long been consumed or discarded.
I think USADA's long time anti-doping chief Travis Tygart is right, and some reform is needed in the WADA Code to tip the balance of fairness and justice in such "strict liability" cases back towards innocent athletes who are railroaded to 4-year sanctions because they cannot prove contamination in their normal meals.
Would such reform have included Houlihan? There is simply no way to tell from a process that doesn't require collecting evidence of intent, or knowledge, or fault or negligence when determining if a rule violation occurred.
Since you argue that athletes only have "faith" that doping works and not real evidence you should be arguing that Shelby didn't in fact take a performance enhancing drug as in your view drugs don't enhance performance. In your strange world WADA and CAS are punishing athletes for rules that are based on a misapprehension, that drugs aid performance. If only Shelby had known they don't.
Since you argue that athletes only have "faith" that doping works and not real evidence you should be arguing that Shelby didn't in fact take a performance enhancing drug as in your view drugs don't enhance performance. In your strange world WADA and CAS are punishing athletes for rules that are based on a misapprehension, that drugs aid performance. If only Shelby had known they don't.
Since you argue that athletes only have "faith" that doping works and not real evidence you should be arguing that Shelby didn't in fact take a performance enhancing drug as in your view drugs don't enhance performance. In your strange world WADA and CAS are punishing athletes for rules that are based on a misapprehension, that drugs aid performance. If only Shelby had known they don't.
Shelby tested positive and Centro and Jager have not been the same since.
Lazy. Centro's form was fine last year, least he beat Engels which he couldnt do in 2019 and he PRd in the mile. His problem is the 1500 has progressed while he hasn't.
Jager has been broken since 2019, he hasn't finished a steeplechase in nearly 4 years. His problems waaaayyy pre-date Houlihan's ban.
Since you argue that athletes only have "faith" that doping works and not real evidence you should be arguing that Shelby didn't in fact take a performance enhancing drug as in your view drugs don't enhance performance. In your strange world WADA and CAS are punishing athletes for rules that are based on a misapprehension, that drugs aid performance. If only Shelby had known they don't.
I should be arguing what?
First, this thread isn't about performance, or even about Shelby, but about how letsrun forum readers view BTC now.
Second, "PED" is a vague and ambiguous term, highly subjective to reader interpretation. Many potential PEDs are not banned by WADA.
Third, the misapprehension is not WADA's but yours. In my world, made stranger by various religions, WADA "punishes" athletes for rules based on a combination of factors, one of which is, optionally, a drug with the potential to enhance performance.
Finally, given her positive test was the 15th Dec, 2020, I wonder which performance you think was enhanced by the small quantity of nandrolone that actually made it into her bloodstream? Her training on the 16th?
Since you argue that athletes only have "faith" that doping works and not real evidence you should be arguing that Shelby didn't in fact take a performance enhancing drug as in your view drugs don't enhance performance. In your strange world WADA and CAS are punishing athletes for rules that are based on a misapprehension, that drugs aid performance. If only Shelby had known they don't.
But SH may well have not taken drugs knowingly.
Do you now how they got there as CAS does not ?
CAS does know. It said she intentionally doped. Who cares exactly how she did it.
Since you argue that athletes only have "faith" that doping works and not real evidence you should be arguing that Shelby didn't in fact take a performance enhancing drug as in your view drugs don't enhance performance. In your strange world WADA and CAS are punishing athletes for rules that are based on a misapprehension, that drugs aid performance. If only Shelby had known they don't.
Wada do ban drugs that don’t enhance performance.
Read the rules prior posting.
The brain-dead one is back again under another of his sock puppets. Tell us how nandrolone isn't a ped.
Since you argue that athletes only have "faith" that doping works and not real evidence you should be arguing that Shelby didn't in fact take a performance enhancing drug as in your view drugs don't enhance performance. In your strange world WADA and CAS are punishing athletes for rules that are based on a misapprehension, that drugs aid performance. If only Shelby had known they don't.
I should be arguing what?
First, this thread isn't about performance, or even about Shelby, but about how letsrun forum readers view BTC now.
Second, "PED" is a vague and ambiguous term, highly subjective to reader interpretation. Many potential PEDs are not banned by WADA.
Third, the misapprehension is not WADA's but yours. In my world, made stranger by various religions, WADA "punishes" athletes for rules based on a combination of factors, one of which is, optionally, a drug with the potential to enhance performance.
Finally, given her positive test was the 15th Dec, 2020, I wonder which performance you think was enhanced by the small quantity of nandrolone that actually made it into her bloodstream? Her training on the 16th?
Silly question. In your books, doping doesn't enhance performance, athletes only "believe" it does. You also seem to believe that when an athlete is caught that will be the only time they doped. If they are prepared to cross that Rubicon why would they choose to turn back?
Silly question. In your books, doping doesn't enhance performance, athletes only "believe" it does. You also seem to believe that when an athlete is caught that will be the only time they doped. If they are prepared to cross that Rubicon why would they choose to turn back?
I note you failed to address the question which performance is allegedly enhanced.
But I agree completely with you. That is a silly question. You aren't reading my books.
In my book, there is a chapter on the benefit of steroids for women in events that require physical strength.
In my book, there is another chapter that asks which athletes have ever crossed a Rubicon, and if so, when, based on what evidence.
In my book, there is another chapter which explores the question of whether ingesting a small quantity of nandrolone, for example, from eating pork, most of which gets filtered out on first pass, bypassing the bloodstream, could possibly have a measurable performance benefit.
In my book, there is another chapter, with a copius amount quotes from USADA's long time chief Travis Tygart -- the man who took down Nike icons Lance and Salazar -- discussing the fairness to athletes of WADA's default presumption of "intent" shifting a difficult, if not impossible, burden to the athlete in 27 no-fault cases prosecuted since 2015, that explores whether the WADA process uncovers enough "facts" for a body like the CAS to be able to reliably determine that a rule violation was, in reality, "intentional".
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.