What have we learned? Nothing. This board still thinks that not getting caught=clean. Karissa and Cranny were on the same team, trained with her, have run suspect times and they are "clean." Gidey runs 14:06, a time that is radioactive, and we are supposed to dismiss suspicions based on some illusory East African running gene, an idea that was so easily demolished by the Chinese dopers who made the Kenyan runners look like hobbyjoggers. So not much.
Swiss Federal Court decisions are available to the public. I’m sure that JG or people from some other site will translate the ruling from French to English.
Do you realize that in the court of public opinion you have actually done Shelby more harm than good? You're a sketchy anonymous "source" that Shelby has used to her advantage. Do you know how suspicious that makes you--and her--look? You could have any motive, any agenda. You could be Shelby, know Shelby, or work for Shelby. No one puts a lot of stock into what you are saying substance wise because you have chosen to remain hidden.
This looks like a fault of some actors within the court of public opinion, who place an unmerited weight on who the author is before deciding if what they say is worth blindly following.
It is still possible to read someone's "editorial" without that knowledge, and apply appropriate skepticism and grains of salt, and still extract the substance from it. "twoggle's" editorial was heavily annotated with links to official sources, like WADA documents, other CAS cases, and various studies.
Do you realize that in the court of public opinion you have actually done Shelby more harm than good? You're a sketchy anonymous "source" that Shelby has used to her advantage. Do you know how suspicious that makes you--and her--look? You could have any motive, any agenda. You could be Shelby, know Shelby, or work for Shelby. No one puts a lot of stock into what you are saying substance wise because you have chosen to remain hidden.
This looks like a fault of some actors within the court of public opinion, who place an unmerited weight on who the author is before deciding if what they say is worth blindly following.
It is still possible to read someone's "editorial" without that knowledge, and apply appropriate skepticism and grains of salt, and still extract the substance from it. "twoggle's" editorial was heavily annotated with links to official sources, like WADA documents, other CAS cases, and various studies.
Sorry -- that response was snarky.
The point is, that the public should be capable of reading anything without knowing who wrote it, and separating personal opinion from statements annotated with third party sources for verification. It doesn't matter who "twoggle" is if he links to the WADA Code and Guidelines -- that is not "twoggle" saying that, but WADA. Likewise links to research, or to previous CAS findings, etc.
You can be skeptical, and look for bias, but these are not reasons to reject the "editorial opinion".
She appealed on the only grounds she could find. The facts couldn't be disputed. She lost two appeals. According to any standard, that shows there is no doubt about the outcome. Guilty.
No one can appeal a CAS decision to the Swiss Federal Court on factual grounds unless completely new and substantial evidence is found that hadn’t been raised at the CAS hearing. Therefore, Houlihan had one hearing where arbiters looked at the facts of the case. I go over some of the various appeal options to the Court in my editorial (https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html )
That is the nature of appeals. They are not rehearings of the facts unless significant new evidence can be raised. Appeals are generally based on an argument that there was a significant error of process or law in the earlier proceedings. Houlihan tried to relitigate previous issues of fact. It was rejected by the Court, on the grounds explained above. She'd had her chance at arbitration and had failed to take it.
She appealed on the only grounds she could find. The facts couldn't be disputed. She lost two appeals. According to any standard, that shows there is no doubt about the outcome. Guilty.
Wrong. Not two appeals. Why lie?
The hearing before CAS was an appeal from the AIU decision which had imposed the ban on her. She then appealed to the Swiss Federal Court. But I don't expect you to know this. It doesn't fit with your all-embracing ignorance.
I have learned that the doping apologists like yourself have not altered your position a whit but if anything have become more entrenched.
The points you raise are your own private fixations. They don't show you have learned anything but have continued to disappear down your own rabbit hole.
It seems to be your private fixation too.
My starting position was robust, based on all the established facts and evidence, as well as historical facts. It still is.
Like any good scientist, I would only consider altering my position when presented with a tangible contradiction. If I'm so wrong, that should have been easy.
Your "starting position" is a falsehood that disregards the established facts and evidence, and is based on unsubstantiated speculation.
You aren't a "scientist"; you are a self-declared "mathematician with a statistical bent" - a glorified bean-counter, in other words.
You wouldn't consider "altering your position" when "presented with a contradiction" because you are fixated on what might have been "possible" while disregarding what was established on the balance of probabilities.
It's been one year since the most shocking ban in US Distance running history.
What have we learned?
For me its:
….
5. All the liberal running media (oh and I say this as a bleeding heart liberal) really failed us. They showed how biased they were and how they can't ever be trusted to tell the truth about dopers they like. Going to be very interesting to see how a lot of these people (Melly, Wade, Strout, etc) react when there is another doping bust.
Once every few threads on SH this term gets brought up. The hilarious part is the majority of her defenders (especially on this website) are supporters or the Orange Cheeto and antivaxxers.
Once every few threads on SH this term gets brought up. The hilarious part is the majority of her defenders (especially on this website) are supporters or the Orange Cheeto and antivaxxers.
Lol. That's evidently true for twoggle. Demonstrates his, ummm, understanding of science.
The hearing before CAS was an appeal from the AIU decision which had imposed the ban on her. She then appealed to the Swiss Federal Court. But I don't expect you to know this. It doesn't fit with your all-embracing ignorance.
Provisional suspension not a ban then first hearing.. Read the rules
My starting position was robust, based on all the established facts and evidence, as well as historical facts. It still is.
Like any good scientist, I would only consider altering my position when presented with a tangible contradiction. If I'm so wrong, that should have been easy.
Your "starting position" is a falsehood that disregards the established facts and evidence, and is based on unsubstantiated speculation.
You aren't a "scientist"; you are a self-declared "mathematician with a statistical bent" - a glorified bean-counter, in other words.
You wouldn't consider "altering your position" when "presented with a contradiction" because you are fixated on what might have been "possible" while disregarding what was established on the balance of probabilities.
But at least he has read the rules and knows the bladder is not part of the digestive system like some intellectually exposed posters 😅
No one can appeal a CAS decision to the Swiss Federal Court on factual grounds unless completely new and substantial evidence is found that hadn’t been raised at the CAS hearing. Therefore, Houlihan had one hearing where arbiters looked at the facts of the case. I go over some of the various appeal options to the Court in my editorial (https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html )
That is the nature of appeals. They are not rehearings of the facts unless significant new evidence can be raised. Appeals are generally based on an argument that there was a significant error of process or law in the earlier proceedings. Houlihan tried to relitigate previous issues of fact. It was rejected by the Court, on the grounds explained above. She'd had her chance at arbitration and had failed to take it.
My starting position was robust, based on all the established facts and evidence, as well as historical facts. It still is.
Like any good scientist, I would only consider altering my position when presented with a tangible contradiction. If I'm so wrong, that should have been easy.
Your "starting position" is a falsehood that disregards the established facts and evidence, and is based on unsubstantiated speculation.
You aren't a "scientist"; you are a self-declared "mathematician with a statistical bent" - a glorified bean-counter, in other words.
You wouldn't consider "altering your position" when "presented with a contradiction" because you are fixated on what might have been "possible" while disregarding what was established on the balance of probabilities.
Wrong against; you have still not grasped what the standard of proof is.
You have be been given the rules.You are either a liar or an incompetent… tell us which..
My starting position was robust, based on all the established facts and evidence, as well as historical facts. It still is.
Like any good scientist, I would only consider altering my position when presented with a tangible contradiction. If I'm so wrong, that should have been easy.
Your "starting position" is a falsehood that disregards the established facts and evidence, and is based on unsubstantiated speculation.
You aren't a "scientist"; you are a self-declared "mathematician with a statistical bent" - a glorified bean-counter, in other words.
You wouldn't consider "altering your position" when "presented with a contradiction" because you are fixated on what might have been "possible" while disregarding what was established on the balance of probabilities.
Much of the merry-go-rounds you start are you arguing with a cartoon you've created with your own veneer of projections.
For example:
- My starting position was neither falsehood, nor disregarding any established fact or evidence. Unlike the CAS, who is subservient to the WADA Code, I started with a presumption of innoncence, in the interest of fairness.
- It was you who declared me "mathematician with a statistical bent" (i.e. you created another cartoon) and now pile cartoon on top of cartoon ("glorified bean counter"). I do have degrees in science, which included many math courses, including statistics courses. This seems highly relevant in a discussion where probabilities feature so highly.
- We can only see what I will do once actually faced with a contradiction of merit and substance, but at this stage of the process, one year after the verdict, after all the appeals, that point has been rendered moot.
We have learned that not a single one of the anti-Houlihanites can honestly say that have been to a Mexican burrito truck since these events happened.
LMAO if you actually thought she tested positive from a burrito. I have hit up the local taco trucks 2-3 times a month in the last year and have been drug tested out-of-competition before
When it's a white athlete - sites like this demand that you believe the athlete's innocent, no matter how ridiculous the reason. And create several threads claiming the athlete is innocent and even raise funds to defend said athlete.
When it's a black athlete - sites like this demand that you discard any belief of the athlete's innocence, irrespective of how reasonable the reason, the athlete provides.
LMAO if you actually thought she tested positive from a burrito. I have hit up the local taco trucks 2-3 times a month in the last year and have been drug tested out-of-competition before
Indeed. We also learned that no one at BTC warned the other athletes to not eat at that food truck before the CAS decision - apparently neither Schumacher nor Flanagan really believed that the synthetic nandro was in the burrito.
Your "starting position" is a falsehood that disregards the established facts and evidence, and is based on unsubstantiated speculation.
You aren't a "scientist"; you are a self-declared "mathematician with a statistical bent" - a glorified bean-counter, in other words.
You wouldn't consider "altering your position" when "presented with a contradiction" because you are fixated on what might have been "possible" while disregarding what was established on the balance of probabilities.
Much of the merry-go-rounds you start are you arguing with a cartoon you've created with your own veneer of projections.
For example:
- My starting position was neither falsehood, nor disregarding any established fact or evidence. Unlike the CAS, who is subservient to the WADA Code, I started with a presumption of innoncence, in the interest of fairness.
- It was you who declared me "mathematician with a statistical bent" (i.e. you created another cartoon) and now pile cartoon on top of cartoon ("glorified bean counter"). I do have degrees in science, which included many math courses, including statistics courses. This seems highly relevant in a discussion where probabilities feature so highly.
- We can only see what I will do once actually faced with a contradiction of merit and substance, but at this stage of the process, one year after the verdict, after all the appeals, that point has been rendered moot.
That you start with a presumption of innocence shows you are completely in the wrong ball-park. That is the principle that applies to criminal proceedings. These were not criminal proceedings. You have constructed an argument around a process that does not and did not apply. In sports terms - you have turned up for the wrong event.
In sports code proceedings, where it is established that the athlete has broken anti-doping rules, by returning an indisputable positive test for a banned substance, fairness is achieved by allowing the athlete to present a defence. A positive test establishes a breach of the rules; it doesn't require further proof of the breach and so the presumption of innocence is redundant. The onus quite properly shifts to the athlete to show they were not in breach of the rules or not careless in their obligations to observe them.
Despite your claims to have "science degrees" there is nothing scientific about your approach, as you continue to assert the primacy of what may be possible and unproven over what has been deemed likely according to the balance of probabilities. With that approach you would still be defending the Biblical account of creation in 7 days over Darwin's principle of evolution. Perhaps you would be more at home in the mid-19th century?
Of course you can't see how you have been contradicted by facts and events; you are in a ball-park playing all by yourself and according to your own rules.
Much of the merry-go-rounds you start are you arguing with a cartoon you've created with your own veneer of projections.
For example:
- My starting position was neither falsehood, nor disregarding any established fact or evidence. Unlike the CAS, who is subservient to the WADA Code, I started with a presumption of innoncence, in the interest of fairness.
- It was you who declared me "mathematician with a statistical bent" (i.e. you created another cartoon) and now pile cartoon on top of cartoon ("glorified bean counter"). I do have degrees in science, which included many math courses, including statistics courses. This seems highly relevant in a discussion where probabilities feature so highly.
- We can only see what I will do once actually faced with a contradiction of merit and substance, but at this stage of the process, one year after the verdict, after all the appeals, that point has been rendered moot.
That you start with a presumption of innocence shows you are completely in the wrong ball-park. That is the principle that applies to criminal proceedings. These were not criminal proceedings. You have constructed an argument around a process that does not and did not apply. In sports terms - you have turned up for the wrong event.
In sports code proceedings, where it is established that the athlete has broken anti-doping rules, by returning an indisputable positive test for a banned substance, fairness is achieved by allowing the athlete to present a defence. A positive test establishes a breach of the rules; it doesn't require further proof of the breach and so the presumption of innocence is redundant. The onus quite properly shifts to the athlete to show they were not in breach of the rules or not careless in their obligations to observe them.
Despite your claims to have "science degrees" there is nothing scientific about your approach, as you continue to assert the primacy of what may be possible and unproven over what has been deemed likely according to the balance of probabilities. With that approach you would still be defending the Biblical account of creation in 7 days over Darwin's principle of evolution. Perhaps you would be more at home in the mid-19th century?
Of course you can't see how you have been contradicted by facts and events; you are in a ball-park playing all by yourself and according to your own rules.
One day you will read the rules and get round to apologising for contaminating this thread.