You keep responding as if you believe you have something of substance to contribute, but still avoid answering a rather basic question. Your "if it were not so ..." pseudo-rationalization not only fails to answer the question, but is wrong, according to a long time anti-doping expert.
USADA Chief Travis Tygart has been warning us since 2015 that athletes can be treated like intentional cheats for doing absolutely nothing wrong.
From a SportsIntegrity Initiative article, Tygart is quoted: "... the Code in certain cases, railroads innocent athletes into four year sanctions. At our last count, we recorded 27 cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats."
Under the current WADA Code, it is not enough to say rules were violated to conclude she actually did something wrong.
Tygart is an apologist and totally wrong. If it were up to him she wouldn't have been banned but she should be banned. She had an illegal substance in her system. I don't believe for even a second she didn't dope on purpose but even if she didn't who cares? It was in her system, she benefited from having it in her system, she should be banned for having it in her system even if it was accidental.
The opinions of "q09348ur0q9eur" are noted.
It's not clear that the low range 5.x ng/ml found in her urine, uncontestedly from oral ingestion, would have provided any performance or recovery benefit, but what benefit do you suggest she received around 20 Dec. 2020?
We don't really know that she doped intentionally -- any "intentional" finding here was a direct result of not establishing the source on the balance of probability to a CAS Panel, rather than any affirmative establishing of intent. So all we really know is that she didn't establish the source on the balance of probability to a CAS Panel.
We also don't know that she doped with synthetic nandrolone, but just that it was "consistent with" some "pseudo-endogenous" norsteroid products which can be found on the market.
We also don't know if she "used" anything else, or whether there was any "doping program" for her or for anyone else, so many of your questions are premature, lacking any proper foundation.
We do know that USADA failed to catch her because her previous test results were negative.
None of this matters. None of it. not a single thing you mention.
The ONLY two things that matter are tese questions:
1: Did she have dope in her system? Yes.
2: Did he have a plausible reason that excused having dope in her system? no.
That's ALL that matters, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
I would disagree with #2: her stated reason is plausible, but plausibility does not factor into the decision. The AIU did not argue implausibilty and the CAS did not rule on implausibility.
And if that is all that matters, why are posters like "Wake Up Shelby" complaining that Shelby "refuses to accept that she did wrong"? and why are posters like "casual obsever" saying that "intention" and "synthetic" were "proved" for all to see, and suggesting she used something else and had a "doping program"?
Shouldn't you also respond to them telling them that none of that really matters?
None of this matters. None of it. not a single thing you mention.
The ONLY two things that matter are tese questions:
1: Did she have dope in her system? Yes.
2: Did he have a plausible reason that excused having dope in her system? no.
That's ALL that matters, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
I would disagree with #2: her stated reason is plausible, but plausibility does not factor into the decision. The AIU did not argue implausibilty and the CAS did not rule on implausibility.
And if that is all that matters, why are posters like "Wake Up Shelby" complaining that Shelby "refuses to accept that she did wrong"? and why are posters like "casual obsever" saying that "intention" and "synthetic" were "proved" for all to see, and suggesting she used something else and had a "doping program"?
Shouldn't you also respond to them telling them that none of that really matters?
No it isn't. It's entirely disproven. You just want it to be plausible so you can keep wanting about how it's possible she was railroaded.
She had drugs in her system when she was tested. Her excuse for why was disproven. The end.
Shelby probably just paired Nandrolone w/ EPO & Test because her coach thought it'd be a good way to stay injury-free before trials or that she just generally responds to it well.
Hope that clears things up.
+1
As for her standing out, drug cheat Houlihan is no. 14 all time over 5000 m, behind 9 Ethiopian-born runners including the Dutch Hassan, trained by drug cheat coach Salazar, 3 Kenyan, and the Russian drug cheat Shobukhova. No clean non-African born has ever run faster than Houlihan.
Similarly, drug cheat Houlihan is no. 16 all time over 1500 m, behind 3 Ethiopian-born runners including the Dutch Hassan, trained by drug cheat coach Salazar, 1 Kenyan, 7 Chinese from Ma's army, 3 out of the East bloc with state-sponsored doping in the 80s, and Muir with super spikes.
Thanks for helping me make my point. Nandrolone has been available since the '60s and yet "no clean non-African born has ever run faster than Houlihan" -- just one dirty Russian.
If orally micro-dosing 5.x ng/ml of nandrolone is so powerful, and can be kept hidden for years, seems like we shouldn't have had to wait until 2018 for Houlihan's level of performances from non-Africans, especially from countries without USDA inspectors or with wild boars, or that do not practice boar castration.
Recall up until ~2004, the limit for women was 5 ng/ml, and even today, if you take the right kind of birth control, the limit is 15 ng/ml.
People don't like being lied to. She obviously doped and now she's making a big show of lying to everyone about it. That was why the try guys thing blew up a couple months ago. no one cared about those guys, but the second they realized that a "wife" guy lied about how much he loved his wife, they jumped on it.
She took that money and ran with it. She has had no job, and was still traveling with the team on altitude trips. And yet she was asking people who will never see the money she has made, for their hard earned money.
I actually don't believe that *every* American woman dopes. But Shelby definitely did.
Always interesting to go back to page 1, which was read by a lot more people than page 2, let alone page 5.
The above was the most upvoted post of the thread with currently 68 : 4. All the PR and trolling of the usual suspects does very little to help this doper, as it's completely unconvincing in such an obvious case.
But it does serve to keep this drug cheat up on page 1, so there is that.
I would disagree with #2: her stated reason is plausible, but plausibility does not factor into the decision. The AIU did not argue implausibilty and the CAS did not rule on implausibility.
And if that is all that matters, why are posters like "Wake Up Shelby" complaining that Shelby "refuses to accept that she did wrong"? and why are posters like "casual obsever" saying that "intention" and "synthetic" were "proved" for all to see, and suggesting she used something else and had a "doping program"?
Shouldn't you also respond to them telling them that none of that really matters?
No it isn't. It's entirely disproven. You just want it to be plausible so you can keep wanting about how it's possible she was railroaded.
She had drugs in her system when she was tested. Her excuse for why was disproven. The end.
"disproven" is the wrong word here. What's more correct is "not proven on the balance of probability".
I neither want nor don't want it to be "plausible" -- it is also just the wrong word here.
Like you said, that doesn't really matter no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
The reason we know it is plausible is because scientists like Prof. Ayotte have been studying the edible parts of boar scenario for decades, and the TD2021NA specifically foresees this very scenario.
No it isn't. It's entirely disproven. You just want it to be plausible so you can keep wanting about how it's possible she was railroaded.
She had drugs in her system when she was tested. Her excuse for why was disproven. The end.
"disproven" is the wrong word here. What's more correct is "not proven on the balance of probability".
I neither want nor don't want it to be "plausible" -- it is also just the wrong word here.
Like you said, that doesn't really matter no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
The reason we know it is plausible is because scientists like Prof. Ayotte have been studying the edible parts of boar scenario for decades, and the TD2021NA specifically foresees this very scenario.
No, that's wrong. There is no balance of probability here.
If Shelby was proven to have drugs in her system - which she was - she is guilty unless she can prove herself innocent. She couldn't, because the specifics of her excuse were not plausible. There's no parameter in this situation that calls for "proving her excuse on balance of probability;" she has to prove unequivocally that her excuse offsets the guilty test. She didn't even come close, because her excuse was proven to be impossible in this scenario.
No it isn't. It's entirely disproven. You just want it to be plausible so you can keep wanting about how it's possible she was railroaded.
She had drugs in her system when she was tested. Her excuse for why was disproven. The end.
"disproven" is the wrong word here. What's more correct is "not proven on the balance of probability".
I neither want nor don't want it to be "plausible" -- it is also just the wrong word here.
Like you said, that doesn't really matter no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
The reason we know it is plausible is because scientists like Prof. Ayotte have been studying the edible parts of boar scenario for decades, and the TD2021NA specifically foresees this very scenario.
Your investment in trying to exonerate a doping cheat knows no limits. It is hard to see what you get out of it, when the decision is unchangeable, and few outside a small band of doping apologists - of whom you lead the pack - think she is innocent. However, one thing I take from your unrelenting attacks on the antidoping processes is that it shows they work - your opposition to them is proof enough.
"disproven" is the wrong word here. What's more correct is "not proven on the balance of probability".
I neither want nor don't want it to be "plausible" -- it is also just the wrong word here.
Like you said, that doesn't really matter no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
The reason we know it is plausible is because scientists like Prof. Ayotte have been studying the edible parts of boar scenario for decades, and the TD2021NA specifically foresees this very scenario.
No, that's wrong. There is no balance of probability here.
If Shelby was proven to have drugs in her system - which she was - she is guilty unless she can prove herself innocent. She couldn't, because the specifics of her excuse were not plausible. There's no parameter in this situation that calls for "proving her excuse on balance of probability;" she has to prove unequivocally that her excuse offsets the guilty test. She didn't even come close, because her excuse was proven to be impossible in this scenario.
Not quite impossible, but "near zero" likelihood according to expert opinion.
"disproven" is the wrong word here. What's more correct is "not proven on the balance of probability".
I neither want nor don't want it to be "plausible" -- it is also just the wrong word here.
Like you said, that doesn't really matter no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
The reason we know it is plausible is because scientists like Prof. Ayotte have been studying the edible parts of boar scenario for decades, and the TD2021NA specifically foresees this very scenario.
Your investment in trying to exonerate a doping cheat knows no limits. It is hard to see what you get out of it, when the decision is unchangeable, and few outside a small band of doping apologists - of whom you lead the pack - think she is innocent. However, one thing I take from your unrelenting attacks on the antidoping processes is that it shows they work - your opposition to them is proof enough.
I didn't want to re-litigate this. This all started with a question that thus far no one has answered, including the AIU and the CAS.
"disproven" is the wrong word here. What's more correct is "not proven on the balance of probability".
I neither want nor don't want it to be "plausible" -- it is also just the wrong word here.
Like you said, that doesn't really matter no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
The reason we know it is plausible is because scientists like Prof. Ayotte have been studying the edible parts of boar scenario for decades, and the TD2021NA specifically foresees this very scenario.
No, that's wrong. There is no balance of probability here.
If Shelby was proven to have drugs in her system - which she was - she is guilty unless she can prove herself innocent. She couldn't, because the specifics of her excuse were not plausible. There's no parameter in this situation that calls for "proving her excuse on balance of probability;" she has to prove unequivocally that her excuse offsets the guilty test. She didn't even come close, because her excuse was proven to be impossible in this scenario.
"Balance of probability" comes directly from the WADA Code.
"Plausible" does not. Nor does "prove unequivocally".
Similarly "entirely disproven" and "proven to be impossible" cannot be found in the CAS report.
Maybe you can fool yourself, but I have already read the CAS report, and all the relevant WADA documents.
Messaged her through GoFundMe a little back when this happened. Attached is the message she sent me back. Had no interest in donating, but did want an answer so had to mention it. Cheers.
Messaged her through GoFundMe a little back when this happened. Attached is the message she sent me back. Had no interest in donating, but did want an answer so had to mention it. Cheers.
No, that's wrong. There is no balance of probability here.
If Shelby was proven to have drugs in her system - which she was - she is guilty unless she can prove herself innocent. She couldn't, because the specifics of her excuse were not plausible. There's no parameter in this situation that calls for "proving her excuse on balance of probability;" she has to prove unequivocally that her excuse offsets the guilty test. She didn't even come close, because her excuse was proven to be impossible in this scenario.
"Balance of probability" comes directly from the WADA Code.
"Plausible" does not. Nor does "prove unequivocally".
Similarly "entirely disproven" and "proven to be impossible" cannot be found in the CAS report.
Maybe you can fool yourself, but I have already read the CAS report, and all the relevant WADA documents.
That which fails on the grounds of probability necessarily lacks plausibility - whether that word is used or not. That is basic English. Hyperbole aside, Houlihan was unable to construct a convincing defense - one that satisfied on the grounds of probability - that would rebut the presumption of intent. Hence, the evidence available - of testing positive for a banned substance that she cannot show legitimate cause for - says she is a doper. She isn't your favorite example of Getzman, because, unlike him, she could not produce evidence showing lack of fault. Evidence is how cases are decided; not speculation about what is possible.
"Balance of probability" comes directly from the WADA Code.
"Plausible" does not. Nor does "prove unequivocally".
Similarly "entirely disproven" and "proven to be impossible" cannot be found in the CAS report.
Maybe you can fool yourself, but I have already read the CAS report, and all the relevant WADA documents.
That which fails on the grounds of probability necessarily lacks plausibility - whether that word is used or not. That is basic English. Hyperbole aside, Houlihan was unable to construct a convincing defense - one that satisfied on the grounds of probability - that would rebut the presumption of intent. Hence, the evidence available - of testing positive for a banned substance that she cannot show legitimate cause for - says she is a doper. She isn't your favorite example of Getzman, because, unlike him, she could not produce evidence showing lack of fault. Evidence is how cases are decided; not speculation about what is possible.
Your sideshow lecture falls far short of justifying "entirely disproven" and "proven to be impossible".
The CAS report repeatedly says "possible". "Possible" makes it "plausible". That's basic English.
"Likelihood" and "probability" are mathematical terms.
She is not Getzmann, because the possible, but unlikely, source was virtually unprovable without a sample to test or a chain of custody, but the "proven innocent" Getzmann would be like Houlihan had he consumed all of his prescribed painkillers, or thrown them away, like many people would have. This is why WADA Code reform is called for.
That which fails on the grounds of probability necessarily lacks plausibility - whether that word is used or not. That is basic English. Hyperbole aside, Houlihan was unable to construct a convincing defense - one that satisfied on the grounds of probability - that would rebut the presumption of intent. Hence, the evidence available - of testing positive for a banned substance that she cannot show legitimate cause for - says she is a doper. She isn't your favorite example of Getzman, because, unlike him, she could not produce evidence showing lack of fault. Evidence is how cases are decided; not speculation about what is possible.
Your sideshow lecture falls far short of justifying "entirely disproven" and "proven to be impossible".
The CAS report repeatedly says "possible". "Possible" makes it "plausible". That's basic English.
"Likelihood" and "probability" are mathematical terms.
She is not Getzmann, because the possible, but unlikely, source was virtually unprovable without a sample to test or a chain of custody, but the "proven innocent" Getzmann would be like Houlihan had he consumed all of his prescribed painkillers, or thrown them away, like many people would have. This is why WADA Code reform is called for.
Merely possible isn't "plausible". That requires something stronger. But that is what you always lack. As did Houlihan.
Being lectured by you on points of semantics is like receiving advice on how to play the piano by one who has never learned.
No, that's wrong. There is no balance of probability here.
If Shelby was proven to have drugs in her system - which she was - she is guilty unless she can prove herself innocent. She couldn't, because the specifics of her excuse were not plausible. There's no parameter in this situation that calls for "proving her excuse on balance of probability;" she has to prove unequivocally that her excuse offsets the guilty test. She didn't even come close, because her excuse was proven to be impossible in this scenario.
"Balance of probability" comes directly from the WADA Code.
"Plausible" does not. Nor does "prove unequivocally".
Similarly "entirely disproven" and "proven to be impossible" cannot be found in the CAS report.
Maybe you can fool yourself, but I have already read the CAS report, and all the relevant WADA documents.
OK, in the context you're using it in, you're even more wrong. According to WADA's lax standards, she still couldn't prove her case; and the report laughed her out of the room.
You're implying that the "balance of probability" meant she fell just short of a 50/50 split of getting off the hook, but that's nowhere near the case here, and the report showed it.
Your sideshow lecture falls far short of justifying "entirely disproven" and "proven to be impossible".
The CAS report repeatedly says "possible". "Possible" makes it "plausible". That's basic English.
"Likelihood" and "probability" are mathematical terms.
She is not Getzmann, because the possible, but unlikely, source was virtually unprovable without a sample to test or a chain of custody, but the "proven innocent" Getzmann would be like Houlihan had he consumed all of his prescribed painkillers, or thrown them away, like many people would have. This is why WADA Code reform is called for.
Merely possible isn't "plausible". That requires something stronger. But that is what you always lack. As did Houlihan.
Being lectured by you on points of semantics is like receiving advice on how to play the piano by one who has never learned.
Being possible isn't the only reason it's plausible. I gave others. But it's sufficient.
But why are we discussing nuances of a word that was injected into the discussion by forum dwellers that doesn't appear in the CAS findings or the WADA Code?
If it's all the same to you, why not spare me your biased misinterpretations based presumably on a solid foundation of ignorance mixed with assumptions?
I have also learned to play the piano. Ask me anything.
"Balance of probability" comes directly from the WADA Code.
"Plausible" does not. Nor does "prove unequivocally".
Similarly "entirely disproven" and "proven to be impossible" cannot be found in the CAS report.
Maybe you can fool yourself, but I have already read the CAS report, and all the relevant WADA documents.
OK, in the context you're using it in, you're even more wrong. According to WADA's lax standards, she still couldn't prove her case; and the report laughed her out of the room.
You're implying that the "balance of probability" meant she fell just short of a 50/50 split of getting off the hook, but that's nowhere near the case here, and the report showed it.
How can I be wrong by quoting directly from the CAS reports and the WADA Code?
It seems you are the one admitting that you were wrong by using words like "prove unequivocally" and "entirely disproven".
Now you realize you have to backpedal to what I said all along, and curiously you say that makes me more wrong?
It breaks my heart a little that so many stupid stupid people gave her $16k.
What about a billion Christians donating to the Catholic Church? Do you want to call them "stupid stupid people", too?
You are only harrassing Houlihan because she is a defenseless woman.
I commend you for taking the moral high ground by standing up for someone who cheated and stole 16,000 dollars from her own supporters- that gave her that money on a false premise that she didn’t cheat.
