So; a non fault doping conviction still makes that person a doper?
And does the breach of the rules of association make a doper ?
I argue that the word doper is a personal value judgement and not an objective fact.
I said nothing about a no fault breach. But in such a situation it is likely the athlete would be exonerated because the breach wasn't intentional and they probably exercised due care. I also said nothing about breaching rules of association. You are merely shifting the goal posts.
It is enough that someone has tested positive for a banned drug for which they have no acceptable excuse for me to say they are a doper. What else are they?
You said that breaching the doping rules makes the a doper; now you run away from that.
Still not explained why one breach of the doping rules does not warrant the term doper but an other does. King Mr Tautology fails yet again.
A tautology is saying the same thing twice. Clearly, I did not do that, as I said nothing about doping offences that do not include a positive test. There is a difference with a whereabouts failure. A positive test shows they are unequivocally a doper; a whereabouts failure leaves an element of doubt although it is safe to presume they were likely doping (as WADA does, by imposing the same penalty).
I think you will find that a doper is a regular user and not one caught by strict liability.
No. A doper is anyone convicted of an anti-doping offence who tests positive for a banned drug for which they have no accepted excuse. It also helps that it is deemed intentional because they cannot show otherwise. Regular use does not have to be proven to establish doping - to have doped once and been caught is enough.
I think you will find that a doper is a regular user and not one caught by strict liability.
No. A doper is anyone convicted of an anti-doping offence who tests positive for a banned drug for which they have no accepted excuse. It also helps that it is deemed intentional because they cannot show otherwise. Regular use does not have to be proven to establish doping - to have doped once and been caught is enough.
Real world use of the words and not a Wada code breach.
So; a non fault doping conviction still makes that person a doper?
And does the breach of the rules of association make a doper ?
I argue that the word doper is a personal value judgement and not an objective fact.
I said nothing about a no fault breach. But in such a situation it is likely the athlete would be exonerated because the breach wasn't intentional and they probably exercised due care. I also said nothing about breaching rules of association. You are merely shifting the goal posts.
It is enough that someone has tested positive for a banned drug for which they have no acceptable excuse for me to say they are a doper. What else are they?
Again you show appalling lack of understanding of the WADA code you seek to justify.
I said nothing about a no fault breach. But in such a situation it is likely the athlete would be exonerated because the breach wasn't intentional and they probably exercised due care. I also said nothing about breaching rules of association. You are merely shifting the goal posts.
It is enough that someone has tested positive for a banned drug for which they have no acceptable excuse for me to say they are a doper. What else are they?
Again you show appalling lack of understanding of the WADA code you seek to justify.
No fault would not be exonerated.
Armstronglies still has not apologised for not understanding the standard of proof in doping cases.
He should not post until he passes such a basic test of understanding.
Everything you discus has Shelby eating pork. It is clearly establish she ordered a beef burrito . Shelby said she ordered beef , she had a receipt "beef burrito". Your imagination has you debating a situation that did not happen, and now your imagination has you actually believing she was eating pork all night lol.
And now we've come full circle and that only took two days.
The relevant question is not what she ordered, but what she actually ate.
I'm discussing the CAS panel finding that what she ate is possibly contrary to what she ordered (see paragraphs 99-101).
Note there is no receipt from Amazon for nandrolone products, so this is pure imagination.
That's pure imagination, but getting pork when you order beef is not????????????????
The supporting evidence isn't anything Ross says but is the CAS decision, which is the finding that Houlihan doped. But keep believing the moon landings were faked in a warehouse in Arizona.
I’m no flatearther or anything but the moon landings did not happen. There are dozens of massive science problems with the official narrative and the video evidence, but here are three simple ones: - so easy to get there that they manage to figure it out in less than 10 years starting in an era when people sent telegrams and before television, but no Earthling has managed it in the 50 years since? Imagine what technology was like in the 60s. The computing power of an iPhone would require at least a 1960s warehouse, if even possible. Yet they were playing golf and driving a dune buggy around up there. LOL - NASA lost all original video from all moon landings. What?
- no engine exhaust mark on the surface of the moon under the lander. Try holding a hair drier overtop of a pile of sand. Now remember that the moon is covered in silt, basically powered. yet no displacement whatsoever. LOL
Any real engineer or physicist thinks the moon landings are are complete fiction… Stanley Kubrick’s best work… but very few are crusaders looking to expose this NASA lie … so they keep there mouth shut.
Using the moon landing as a universal truth to help prove your argument may need a rethink.
Hey Rekrunner, this is what you sound like defending SH. LOLOL
To be precise: CAS banned her for two intentional antidoping rule violations after she tested positive for nandro, namely 2.1 ("Presence of a Prohibited Substance...") and 2.2. ("Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance"). Most people would call that doping.
Wada did not publicly comment on Houlihan. But the Wada rules say breaking 2.1 or 2.2 etc. amounts to doping:
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.
Tucker said:
With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion.” Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty. There is much unknowable in between, but the contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.
So, guilty in a doping case. Sounds like doping to me.
Rekrunner, you are proven to be eitther mistaken, or a liar. Ross Tucker, does assess guilt.
I’m no flatearther or anything but the moon landings did not happen. There are dozens of massive science problems with the official narrative and the video evidence, but here are three simple ones: - so easy to get there that they manage to figure it out in less than 10 years starting in an era when people sent telegrams and before television, but no Earthling has managed it in the 50 years since? Imagine what technology was like in the 60s. The computing power of an iPhone would require at least a 1960s warehouse, if even possible. Yet they were playing golf and driving a dune buggy around up there. LOL - NASA lost all original video from all moon landings. What?
- no engine exhaust mark on the surface of the moon under the lander. Try holding a hair drier overtop of a pile of sand. Now remember that the moon is covered in silt, basically powered. yet no displacement whatsoever. LOL
Any real engineer or physicist thinks the moon landings are are complete fiction… Stanley Kubrick’s best work… but very few are crusaders looking to expose this NASA lie … so they keep there mouth shut.
Using the moon landing as a universal truth to help prove your argument may need a rethink.
Hey Rekrunner, this is what you sound like defending SH. LOLOL
I guess they sound similar if the listener is a fish in water.
For what it's worth, the Japenese took hi-res photos of dune buggy tracks on the moon, among other things.
To be precise: CAS banned her for two intentional antidoping rule violations after she tested positive for nandro, namely 2.1 ("Presence of a Prohibited Substance...") and 2.2. ("Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance"). Most people would call that doping.
Wada did not publicly comment on Houlihan. But the Wada rules say breaking 2.1 or 2.2 etc. amounts to doping:
Tucker said:
So, guilty in a doping case. Sounds like doping to me.
Rekrunner, you are proven to be eitther mistaken, or a liar. Ross Tucker, does assess guilt.
Casual Observer has the receipts!
Mistaken about what exactly? Did I say somewhere that Ross didn't assess guilt? Guilty of what exactly? She was found "guilty" in a WADA doping case. I don't say otherwise.
A WADA doping case uses different criteria, relaxing some of the obligations that would make the CAS findings reliable and robust outside of the limited context created by the WADA Code.
You are almost there -- we weren't discussing the case.
This whole thread is about the case, and her guilt therein. You flimsily clinging to some poster 100s of posts ago is pure obfuscation.
Shelby is home eating a burrito, knowing she cheated. She ya in 4 years, honey.
Armstronglivs didn't reply to the whole thread, but specifically to me. His response veered off-topic.
In response to "it's relevant what she ate", in a case where nandrolone ingestion was undisputed, Armstronglivs felt it important to re-summarize, to me specifically, the CAS findings not being discussed or disputed by me -- findings which incidentally were about "what she ate", and not "what she ordered".
Just checking in to this super interesting conversation to see if Shelby Houlihan still is convicted of doping. I read something interesting in a interview with a sports scientist:
It (the urine consentration of nandrolone) was almost three times higher than the highest levels measured in those two studies where people ate much larger pork meals. More tellingly, the isotope signature didn’t meet the requirements for an “ambiguous case” that might require further testing.
To much to have come from eating boar Wrong isotope to have come from boar.
We paid one of the top sports scientists in the world to analyze the Shelby Houlihan doping case and CAS ruling. Afterward, we asked him to answer our questions in a Q&A format.
Just checking in to this super interesting conversation to see if Shelby Houlihan still is convicted of doping. I read something interesting in a interview with a sports scientist:
It (the urine consentration of nandrolone) was almost three times higher than the highest levels measured in those two studies where people ate much larger pork meals. More tellingly, the isotope signature didn’t meet the requirements for an “ambiguous case” that might require further testing.
To much to have come from eating boar Wrong isotope to have come from boar.
Just the same way we cannot know much without having observed it ourselves. I don't know if my GF took a shower this morning. She left bed, went into the bathroom, I heard the shower going and she had wet hair when she came out. But do I know? Nah.
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.
