T&F Nut wrote:
I don't know about voter fraud, but my name is on three three separate property deeds as owner and/or co-owner. I received THREE mail-in ballots. Can you offer a rational explanation?
You could only use one of them, Einstein. So you voted 3 times - and no one noticed? Sure you did. If you are a Republican.
So there we have proof of widespread voter fraud in the last election, despite the rejection of it by the Dep of Justice and every other body overseeing the election.
T&F Nut wrote:
I don't know if Shelby is guilty or innocent. By reading all of the accounts, it's obvious that the process if flawed. Without going into all of the specifics, one point is not debatable. How do you give any credibility to an "analyst" who was found giving false testimony which lead to the overturning of an athlete's suspension. That's simply corrupt, and makes about much sense of putting new shoes on a dead horse.
If you don't know whether Shelby is guilty or innocent you don't know anything. She tested positive for a banned substance. This isn't disputed. Her claim that it came from eating contaminated pork was rejected by CAS as beyond the realms of probability. What else is there to know?
doping level 3 wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Who was defending Armstrong? There were about 10 witnesses lined up to testify against him and he was absolutely guilty. He is one of the most disliked American athletes in history and his interview with Oprah only made it worse.
Lol. You must be very young.
You didn't answer my question. There was a huge backlash against Lance even before the Oprah interview. Him being so arrogant in his self-defense was disgusting. Who was on his side besides his attorneys?
griles17 wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The "Shelby is a doper crowd" includes CAS, WADA and AIU. You are embarrassingly stupid.
Coming from you? LOL
I repeat - CAS, WADA and the AIU, who are your "Shelby is a doper crowd". Sorry - you are a total moran.
An athlete never proves their innocence, it's just creating doubt in the chain of command in these tests -
People were clamoring people like Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton (he had a twin in the womb!) were innocent as well at one point and donating to their cause
runningfued wrote:
twoggle is def shelby or some insider, look at those twitter replies lmao shelby needs to just go away for 4 years
I don't think it's Shelby, though they may have been in contact with each other. He looks to be some guy possibly associated with this Keith Moulton character and probably not as involved in science as he lets on.
rojo wrote:
I greatly enjoyed reading the report by Twoggle3.
That being said, I've been trying to find out who wrote it as I have a few questions. If the person really wants to help Shelby, they need to go public. Hell, just email me anonymously. I can keep things off the record.
robert@letsrun.com
It’s not a report. It states it’s an editorial option piece
If you actually read the piece and engage with him, he doesn't know the science, he's just spouting off bad information - basically the same as Shelby's defense. His claim is that, if we just assume Shelby a.) got the wrong order, b.) that wrong order came from meat that was delivered to the food truck wrongly c.) containing uncastrated boar stomach not typically found in the US supply chain that was also d.) fed an atypical diet, e.) her burrito contained an atypically large amount of offal from this atypical source fed an atypical diet, then there is a 40% chance her sample may give the wrong reading. Obviously, a-e are fulfilled (they aren't, but that is his argument), so therefore, under those circumstances, there is a 40% chance she may have gotten the wrong reading and she therefore must be innocent.
It's so stupid, and that Rojo and Gault put any stock into that is just more evidence of how biased they are. Can't wait for them to at least be consistent and start shouting for the likes of Kiprop to be reinstated and his medals given back. Oh wait, they won't, I wonder why...
Rojo, if you read this, I honestly want an answer as to why you would think the pointless drivel from Twoggle is really anything other than trash.
adslkfjadf;hg wrote:
Rojo, if you read this, I honestly want an answer as to why you would think the pointless drivel from Twoggle is really anything other than trash.
Same goes for Gault.
Occam wrote:
Virtue is a Patient wrote:
Ok. That's what YOUO believe. You don't 'know' that, you just believe it.
Bottom line: There are problems with the way CAS and the AIU are conducting their affairs. the first being that upon the finding, the athlete is automatically assumed as guilty and then the athlete has to have the burden of proving their innocence. I know that CAS isn't American law, but it should be that an accuser has the burden of proving guilt. that means, especially in this case, that they should do everything possible to strip away viable innocence. That wasn't done here, because they don't HAVE to. They SHOULD have, but it wasn't required, so they didn't. This is not fair to the athlete for a number of reasons. 1st: Assume the athlete is innocent... their reputation is now destroyed. 2nd: The athlete's livelihood is now destroyed. 3rd: Their sponsors potentially have a claim against them and the athlete likely loses their financial support as well. this is a huge burden IF THE ATHLETE IS INNOCENT. Again, in this case, all avenues should be run down to show SH was not correct. CAS didn't do that. They have the privilege of sitting on high in a place of assumed superiority and can pass judgment with impunity. that is fundamentally wrong at best.
All of this does not mean Shelby ISN'T guilty. It means that the process is flawed and one-sided. It should not be that way.
I hate to comment on such nonsense, but this is. attacking the system, really? It sounds like you are trying to excuse . The system is designed that way for the protection of the system. This isn't a criminal trial, where there is a presumption of innocence. the are are number of reason for this. This isn't a criminal proceeded and if Houlihan WAS charged with a crime she would be presumed innocent. We have lower standards for all sorts of things.
Second, Shelby's team kept this under wraps for months and had a chance to present an appeal.
Focusing on this (especially because the doper is a nice, white American girl) is really just a red herring.
So we shouldn't want her to be clean because she's white? Kind of racist if you ask me. Attacking the system makes perfect sense if you don't know how you tested positive (which is what they originally said until they landed on the pig thing).
I'd want this guy as defense lawyer. Get everyone to lose the forest for the trees. Classic OJ stuff right there. Get people focused on tiny details enough and they forget...that she had MASSIVE amounts of nandrolone in her body.
SeattleSilver wrote:
T&F fans have to decide whether they want a clean sport. If CAS and AIU were to have the burden of not only detecting the presence of a banned substance, but also proving that it was deliberately and knowingly taken by the athlete, there will be zero drug bans. Not athlete will admit to doping, no suppliers will confess to supplying. Thus CAS/AIU will never have proof. Every athlete can just claim innocent consumption in a supplement/drink/burrito that someone handed to them. The athlete will have no real responsibility and no consequences.
Considering the sport probably isn't even close to clean now, actually cleaning it up would almost certainly sacrifice too many clean athletes for me to stomach.
Frankly, even one "wrongful conviction" is probably one too many for me, and that's already an issue under current policy.
I'd rather eliminate drug testing entirely, than pay what a truly clean sport demands.
This is the most credible discussion I've seen on this topic, because the author presents both legal & scientific FACTS and LOGICAL arguments as to why the CAS decision was flawed. The author appears to be objective, and everything that was presented can be verified. Unfortunately, many choose to believe narratives from the media or their own feelings without knowing or considering the facts (or wanting to know the facts) and details of how decisions are reached.
Samurai_Runner wrote:
This is the most credible discussion I've seen on this topic, because the author presents both legal & scientific FACTS and LOGICAL arguments as to why the CAS decision was flawed. The author appears to be objective, and everything that was presented can be verified. Unfortunately, many choose to believe narratives from the media or their own feelings without knowing or considering the facts (or wanting to know the facts) and details of how decisions are reached.
If such compelling facts and logical legal analysis has been presented then why didn’t her lawyers present it?
spinozza wrote:
If such compelling facts and logical legal analysis has been presented then why didn’t her lawyers present it?
Nice. LOL.
Actually, as pointed out several times in this thread by a number of people, the lawyers presented pretty much the same arguments, but CAS sided with the claimant's arguments (which are not mentioned in twoggle's editorial). The only notable exception is that the credibility of Dr. Ayotte was not discussed in the CAS report.
casual obsever wrote:
spinozza wrote:
If such compelling facts and logical legal analysis has been presented then why didn’t her lawyers present it?
Nice. LOL.
Actually, as pointed out several times in this thread by a number of people, the lawyers presented pretty much the same arguments, but CAS sided with the claimant's arguments (which are not mentioned in twoggle's editorial). The only notable exception is that the credibility of Dr. Ayotte was not discussed in the CAS report.
IF only Nike had hired Twoggle3 instead of Paul Greene. Bummer.
Yes. Maybe for the next appeal then?
Oh wait, there won't be one.
Maybe for the next roided BTC athlete?
This post was removed.
Oh my. The lengths some Americans will go to to defend their dopers. These same people are usually very willing to go on crusades against athletes they suspect of doping with far less evidence from other countries
runnER/DR wrote:
I'd want this guy as defense lawyer. Get everyone to lose the forest for the trees. Classic OJ stuff right there. Get people focused on tiny details enough and they forget...that she had MASSIVE amounts of nandrolone in her body.
She had very, very little
nandrolone in her body. Less than a quarter of one grain of salt in mass. Foolish for you
to comment what you did.