Shelby posts another time trial -- 4:01

Peach Pit wrote:

Are there any studies of how long you retain benefits from doping? In my mind, she made a mistake, and now she's paying the price. As long as she's not longer doping, she's got a clean slate in my book, so I'm glad to see her still running well. I wish she would be honest about what happened, but she really has nothing to gain from it. There's no one who's gonna be ok with her if she admitted to doping on purpose, but there's a lot of people who would turn against her, so I understand why she would still claim innocence.

Banning someone for 4 years is a harsh (still justified) punishment. Not to mention her brand has been irreparably damaged, and undoubtedly her personal relationships have been put through a ton of strain. Still, she knew the risks and doped anyway, and now she's living with the consequences. If she doesn't retain any benefits from doping after 4 years, I wish her the best of luck when her timer is up, and hope that she's learned her lesson. I know most people here will forever see her as a doper, but I think people can change.

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

No doorbell? wrote:

Of course they did. Read the decision!

Don't worry dude - you can't win against this r-tarded logic.

Because technically WADA, the AIU, the CAS won't and will never say that a positive doping test/result is the result of "cheating" or being a cheat and you don't have to be a genius to understand why that would be.

Instead they take the smart and less liable path of saying "We don't need to prove anything or come to any conclusion on an athletes motives, we just have rules and if you break them you need to show us that they were broken in a manner that were so inadvertent we still allow you to compete". Athletes know and sign documents saying they agree to these rules.

What this means is that no athlete ever banned from the sport has been called a cheat by WADA. They simply say that "we don't accept your explanation for how this ended up in you". And we all know that in 99.9% of cases with suspension verdicts the way that something ended up in someone's body was because they deliberately put it there and they were cheating. You will always find people who do the mental gymnastics and think they are smart (like this f-ing idiot you are responding to) for pointing things they think nobody else realizes and that are impossible to definitively prove. Same in life, same on these message boards. Just laugh about it.

Hvinzyzxsx wrote:

Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:

Don't worry dude - you can't win against this r-tarded logic.

Because technically WADA, the AIU, the CAS won't and will never say that a positive doping test/result is the result of "cheating" or being a cheat and you don't have to be a genius to understand why that would be.

Instead they take the smart and less liable path of saying "We don't need to prove anything or come to any conclusion on an athletes motives, we just have rules and if you break them you need to show us that they were broken in a manner that were so inadvertent we still allow you to compete". Athletes know and sign documents saying they agree to these rules.

What this means is that no athlete ever banned from the sport has been called a cheat by WADA. They simply say that "we don't accept your explanation for how this ended up in you". And we all know that in 99.9% of cases with suspension verdicts the way that something ended up in someone's body was because they deliberately put it there and they were cheating. You will always find people who do the mental gymnastics and think they are smart (like this f-ing idiot you are responding to) for pointing things they think nobody else realizes and that are impossible to definitively prove. Same in life, same on these message boards. Just laugh about it.

An other shallow misunderstanding of the rules. Actually not one reference to an actual rule

Peach Pit wrote:

Are there any studies of how long you retain benefits from doping? In my mind, she made a mistake, and now she's paying the price. As long as she's not longer doping, she's got a clean slate in my book, so I'm glad to see her still running well. I wish she would be honest about what happened, but she really has nothing to gain from it. There's no one who's gonna be ok with her if she admitted to doping on purpose, but there's a lot of people who would turn against her, so I understand why she would still claim innocence.

Banning someone for 4 years is a harsh (still justified) punishment. Not to mention her brand has been irreparably damaged, and undoubtedly her personal relationships have been put through a ton of strain. Still, she knew the risks and doped anyway, and now she's living with the consequences. If she doesn't retain any benefits from doping after 4 years, I wish her the best of luck when her timer is up, and hope that she's learned her lesson. I know most people here will forever see her as a doper, but I think people can change.

Witch burnt wrote:

Implovian wrote:

No. No, there is not, Heinz. If there were, you would have listed it. You had motive and opportunity to lust additional requirements. But you failed to list anything, Heinz. Absence, in this context, is equivalent to an admission of nonexistence.

With your admission above, YOU have de facto admitted that there is nothing else you or I need to know to determine that Houlihan is a drug cheat other than (1) she has tested positive for hot nandro urine, (2) she does not dispute the test showing her hot nandro urine and (3) she said the hot nandro urine resulted from eating a Mexican burrito. That is ALL that you or I need to conclude Houlihan is a drug cheat. We can pad the record with more evidence, but the above is ALL we need.

They burnt people cos they could not prove evidence they were not witches.

I am Sam wrote:

Implovian wrote:

With your admission above, YOU have de facto admitted that there is nothing else you or I need to know to determine that Houlihan is a drug cheat other than (1) she has tested positive for hot nandro urine, (2) she does not dispute the test showing her hot nandro urine and (3) she said the hot nandro urine resulted from eating a Mexican burrito. That is ALL that you or I need to conclude Houlihan is a drug cheat. We can pad the record with more evidence, but the above is ALL we need.

And in the court of science and public opinion, outside of WADA not calling her directly a 'cheat' or not, the IRMS results clearly indicate that the nandrolone did not come from a burrito, notwithstanding the actual improbability of finding and eating a burrito made from an uncastrated boar

Simpletons like Hvinzyz think they are lawyers and have soptted some smoking gun, or perhaps they are like lawyers, since SH's lawyer took her down the burrito defence

rekrunner wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

And in the court of science and public opinion, outside of WADA not calling her directly a 'cheat' or not, the IRMS results clearly indicate that the nandrolone did not come from a burrito, notwithstanding the actual improbability of finding and eating a burrito made from an uncastrated boar

Simpletons like Hvinzyz think they are lawyers and have soptted some smoking gun, or perhaps they are like lawyers, since SH's lawyer took her down the burrito defence

The court of public opinion is not probative. These issues are not decided by popular vote.

But in the court of "science", can the IRMS results indicate that the nandrolone did not come from a burrito?

According to WADA's TD2021NA "Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs, .... The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis ..."

Seems like this is not well understood in the court of public opinion.

I found another interesting paper from the "court of science", from Huslemann dated Oct. 2020, preceding Houlihan's positive sample:

"To our knowledge, synthetic pharmaceutical preparations of 19-norsteroids exhibit δ13C values between −33‰ and −21‰. Thus, to date, urinary NorA presenting more enriched δ13C values is more likely an indication for boar meat (or offal) ingestion than for the administration of a synthetic 19-norsteroid.

The fact of varying δ13C values of wild boar could also be problematic for people living in countries with a high consumption of C4-plants like the United States or Southern Africa. Human endogenous δ13C values in these countries are enriched in 13C compared with Germany, and for these, there is the possibility of adverse analytical findings after the consumption of the meat of 19-norsteroid producing C3-fed boars."

From the CAS report, Prof McGlone confirmed C3-fed (soy-fed) pigs during the pandemic, and that boars can slip through the cracks of the USDA inspectors (probably moreso during shortages of both pigs and inspectors and less strict "sniff tests" during the pandemic of an airborne virus).