Repeating the fallacy of false choices is still unpersuasive. It is still a fallacy.
Your summary of the "express decision" of this panel of arbiters, essentially resolving a contract dispute, is not very accurate, and falls far short of your original claim of providing "proof she committed an intentional violation". Recall, I don't limit myself to criminal or civil standards of argument, often based on no supporting data, but apply a more rigid scientific and logical standard based on all of the publicly known data and reason. The CAS cannot apply such high standards, because it is subservient to the WADA Code, while I am free to apply higher intellectual standards that have been in place for centuries and millenia.
Unlike you, when I say "reasonable" it is because I still have reasons to doubt the case that was made before the CAS for both "intentional" and "doping"."
It.Just.Never.Ends. Oh My Gawwwd, just let it go. She didn't even eat pork, let alone boar nuts! 💉
That's irrelevant to the question raised by Armstronglivs: the proof she committed an intentional violation. There was no proof of intent, only presumption.
It.Just.Never.Ends. Oh My Gawwwd, just let it go. She didn't even eat pork, let alone boar nuts! 💉
That's irrelevant to the question raised by Armstronglivs: the proof she committed an intentional violation. There was no proof of intent, only presumption.
There doesn't have to be proof of "intent" and you know this.
Did anyone notice the way Shelby shifted the goal posts from "I didn't do it" to "I didn't INTENTIONALLY do it."? Did that strike anyone as strange?
The "intent" thing was something Shelby and her camp came up with to distract us from the issue at hand. The idea that the "system failed" because it didn't prove intent was always total BS. it was never the system's role to prove intent, or should it be. The system's role is to catch people who dope and the one way to do that is to drug test.
They had two positive tests. That's the equivalent of Shelby's DNA being all over a murder scene. And Shelby's still squawking about "intent". What does motive even matter? Your DNA was there!
I have long said this; Shelby absolutely knows where the nandrolone came from. Likely the culprit is what both CAS and Ross Tucker determined it was. But she realized that people weren't believing her story, she shifted slightly to intent. Because Shelby knows that no one can ever prove intent. That will make her sound like less of a liar.
I don’t care how many apologists there are for WADA out there, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out WADA was wrong from the very beginning.
Nandrolone in a person’s body does not mean they were using it as a performance enhancing substance.
No one has proved that the nandrolone was there in her body for the sake of enhancing performance. So some arbitrary, United States hating committee decides they have jurisdiction to ban an American athlete. That doesn’t mean she cheated. It just means they made a choice to ban her because someone else would “gain from it.”
If you’re not a hobby jogger or lazy finger pointer stop talking trash about Shelby and move on with your life.
Alberto Salazar doped athletes. Jerry Schumacher did not and NO, Shelby wasn’t some rogue one off. Use common sense and see that WADA is not an unbiased organization…it has motives and interests, just like any other body.
Use a little imagination in how you see Shelby’s case and don’t just assume that she cheated because WADA told you that she did.
WADA 100% gets some cases wrong, just as it gets some right. In this case they were wrong, but they will never admit as much, just like all political organizations and major figures…blame someone else for your own error.
You are not very bright. You sound as if you are indeed Shelby Houlihan, so if you care about your reputation, as bad as it is, you would have been better served by staying quiet. Your lies really need to stop. Otherwise they will eat you alive.
Hahahaha yes. 175 downvotes for the first post here, plus a few more with 80 - 100 downvotes from the OP. She indeed should have learned by now, over 3.5 years later, that all her desperate propaganda - whether it's a corrupt WADA, a kangaroo court, USA haters, or stupid or misleading scientists or whatever other ludicrous conspiracy theory - is backfiring. Think about it.
There doesn't have to be proof of "intent" and you know this.
Did anyone notice the way Shelby shifted the goal posts from "I didn't do it" to "I didn't INTENTIONALLY do it."? Did that strike anyone as strange?
The "intent" thing was something Shelby and her camp came up with to distract us from the issue at hand. The idea that the "system failed" because it didn't prove intent was always total BS. it was never the system's role to prove intent, or should it be. The system's role is to catch people who dope and the one way to do that is to drug test.
They had two positive tests. That's the equivalent of Shelby's DNA being all over a murder scene. And Shelby's still squawking about "intent". What does motive even matter? Your DNA was there!
I have long said this; Shelby absolutely knows where the nandrolone came from. Likely the culprit is what both CAS and Ross Tucker determined it was. But she realized that people weren't believing her story, she shifted slightly to intent. Because Shelby knows that no one can ever prove intent. That will make her sound like less of a liar.
What are you talking about?
What I know is that, if you want to claim there was proof of intent, as Armstronglivs did, there necessarily has to be proof of intent, or the claim is false. This is Logic 101.
Houlihan's camp did not shift goalposts with intent -- this goalpost has always been in place since WADA put it in the Code in 2015.
The most we can conclude from Houlihan's failure to establish the most likely source (a proxy for intent), is that we still don't know about intent. According to the Code, the athlete is not entitled any benefit of the doubt. But the doubt remains nevertheless.
The other question is not the presence of nandrolone in the "low ng/ml range", but how to report it. The panel was of two minds whether the test result was properly reported as an AAF. If there is no AAF, there is no ADRV, and no consequent burden to establish the most likely source or non-intent, only a burden for increased targeted testing, to gain more knowledge.
You are not very bright. You sound as if you are indeed Shelby Houlihan, so if you care about your reputation, as bad as it is, you would have been better served by staying quiet. Your lies really need to stop. Otherwise they will eat you alive.
Hahahaha yes. 175 downvotes for the first post here, plus a few more with 80 - 100 downvotes from the OP. She indeed should have learned by now, over 3.5 years later, that all her desperate propaganda - whether it's a corrupt WADA, a kangaroo court, USA haters, or stupid or misleading scientists or whatever other ludicrous conspiracy theory - is backfiring. Think about it.
Seems like someone who calls himself "facts are facts" should realize that you don't decide facts by a popular vote among those with limited competence in the domain.
What I can't stop thinking about is USADA Chief Tygart's criticisms of the current code which risks to treat athletes who have done nothing wrong as intentional cheats, and railroad them to 4-year bans, despite lacking a sufficient basis in facts.
Seems like someone who calls himself "facts are facts" should realize that you don't decide facts by a popular vote among those with limited competence in the domain.
What I can't stop thinking about is USADA Chief Tygart's criticisms of the current code which risks to treat athletes who have done nothing wrong as intentional cheats, and railroad them to 4-year bans, despite lacking a sufficient basis in facts.
USADA chief Travis Tygart’s job is to cover up doping by American athletes, while getting foreign athletes banned. By defending Shelby and complaining about “intent” he is doing his job.
What I know is that, if you want to claim there was proof of intent, as Armstronglivs did, there necessarily has to be proof of intent, or the claim is false. This is Logic 101.
Proof is "evidence sufficient to conclude" that a fact exists. "Evidence" is anything that makes the existence of a fact more or less likely. You seem to be demanding what is sometimes referred to as "direct" rather than "circumstantial" evidence (though there isn't really a clear line between the two categories). In any event, you seem to be demanding a standard of proof for intent that could never be met and would effectively make doping legal. There will never be a video of an athlete injecting herself with a big syringe marked, "WADA-banned substance," as she exclaims out loud, "I love cheating!"
The fact that a performance enhancing drug is in your system is absolutely evidence of intentional doping. If you take two people, one with glowing blood, and one with clean blood, it is obviously more likely that the one with glowing blood intentionally took a performance enhancing drug. That's what "evidence" means.
That "evidence" is also "proof" if there is no evidence going the other way because that means it's more likely than not that the person with the positive test took the drug on purpose.
Just like you can be convicted of drug possession based on testimony that drugs were found in your car. It's not because drug possession is a strict liability offense (it's not). It's because the fact that drugs are in your car is enough to conclude (beyond a reasonable doubt, no less) that you probably knew they were there, unless you have a credible alternative explanation.
Seems like someone who calls himself "facts are facts" should realize that you don't decide facts by a popular vote among those with limited competence in the domain.
Actually, that is EXACTLY how legal systems determine facts. The experts are the ones with expertise, and they present their cases to a group of neutral third parties who use common sense to decide who they believe. Sometimes it's a jury, sometimes it's a panel of arbitrators, but the arbitrators are not scientists. They're just smart people who carefully read the documents submitted to them. Heck, USATF's arbitration panels only have one lawyer on them.
Yes it is, when science becomes arbitrary in relation to common sense. Go ahead and take your Covid vaccine and then get Covid shortly after taking it because your immune system is weakened from so many vaccines and boosters. That’s where “science” becomes arbitrary.
There are a bajillion other scenarios in which it is not arbitrary, but when it becomes an equivalent to reason or common sense, as a means of convincing us of something not rooted in reality, it is then nearly worthless.
^ right... OP is an anti-vaxer lol this def checks out based on your opinion that shelby is somehow innocent (she isn't she is guilty as can be)
Hahahaha yes. 175 downvotes for the first post here, plus a few more with 80 - 100 downvotes from the OP. She indeed should have learned by now, over 3.5 years later, that all her desperate propaganda - whether it's a corrupt WADA, a kangaroo court, USA haters, or stupid or misleading scientists or whatever other ludicrous conspiracy theory - is backfiring. Think about it.
Seems like someone who calls himself "facts are facts" should realize that you don't decide facts by a popular vote among those with limited competence in the domain.
LOL. You have very poor reading comprehension. I used the downvotes in my response to the "reputation" comment, showing that the OP's "desperate propaganda" didn't work, not to decide facts.
Facts... well the facts have been ruled on by CAS, supported by the Swiss Supreme Court, supported by long time USADA CEO Tygart, supported by the independent scientist Professor Tucker. She got banned for four years for intentional doping - your propaganda does not help her reputation, and does nothing to change the facts.
Yes it is, when science becomes arbitrary in relation to common sense. Go ahead and take your Covid vaccine and then get Covid shortly after taking it because your immune system is weakened from so many vaccines and boosters. That’s where “science” becomes arbitrary.
There are a bajillion other scenarios in which it is not arbitrary, but when it becomes an equivalent to reason or common sense, as a means of convincing us of something not rooted in reality, it is then nearly worthless.
^ right... OP is an anti-vaxer lol this def checks out based on your opinion that shelby is somehow innocent (she isn't she is guilty as can be)
Is that logic for everything in life…person is “anti-vaxer” and therefore can’t be trusted? Are we still in 2021.
It’s nearly 2025 and you still haven’t figured out that the Covid vaccine didn’t work? Clown world.
You are arguing with a guy who wants Baldwin to walk free but also wants Shelby to go to jail.
Neither. I'll go with the facts. It was a criminal court that decided to dismiss all charges against Baldwin and an appeal court that decided Houlihan committed an antidoping offence and handed her a 4 year ban. Nothing you apologists say changes any of that.
Only to a disordered mind. If accidental cause is ruled out on the balance of probabilities that only leaves her as the agent of her doping. It must, on those facts, be deemed intentional according to the balance of probabilities. She didn't "accidentally" dope herself. No other measure is applied in a civil case, and not the criminal measure as it wasn't a criminal matter. You just show you would be incompetent to sit in a civil case since you fail to understand that distinction.
Repeating the fallacy of false choices is still unpersuasive. It is still a fallacy.
Your summary of the "express decision" of this panel of arbiters, essentially resolving a contract dispute, is not very accurate, and falls far short of your original claim of providing "proof she committed an intentional violation". Recall, I don't limit myself to criminal or civil standards of argument, often based on no supporting data, but apply a more rigid scientific and logical standard based on all of the publicly known data and reason. The CAS cannot apply such high standards, because it is subservient to the WADA Code, while I am free to apply higher intellectual standards that have been in place for centuries and millenia.
Unlike you, when I say "reasonable" it is because I still have reasons to doubt the case that was made before the CAS for both "intentional" and "doping"."
Your "higher intellectual standards" are your biased and unsubstantiated speculation that seeks to exonerate a convicted doper. Nothing more. You're a joke.
There doesn't have to be proof of "intent" and you know this.
Did anyone notice the way Shelby shifted the goal posts from "I didn't do it" to "I didn't INTENTIONALLY do it."? Did that strike anyone as strange?
The "intent" thing was something Shelby and her camp came up with to distract us from the issue at hand. The idea that the "system failed" because it didn't prove intent was always total BS. it was never the system's role to prove intent, or should it be. The system's role is to catch people who dope and the one way to do that is to drug test.
They had two positive tests. That's the equivalent of Shelby's DNA being all over a murder scene. And Shelby's still squawking about "intent". What does motive even matter? Your DNA was there!
I have long said this; Shelby absolutely knows where the nandrolone came from. Likely the culprit is what both CAS and Ross Tucker determined it was. But she realized that people weren't believing her story, she shifted slightly to intent. Because Shelby knows that no one can ever prove intent. That will make her sound like less of a liar.
What are you talking about?
What I know is that, if you want to claim there was proof of intent, as Armstronglivs did, there necessarily has to be proof of intent, or the claim is false. This is Logic 101.
Houlihan's camp did not shift goalposts with intent -- this goalpost has always been in place since WADA put it in the Code in 2015.
The most we can conclude from Houlihan's failure to establish the most likely source (a proxy for intent), is that we still don't know about intent. According to the Code, the athlete is not entitled any benefit of the doubt. But the doubt remains nevertheless.
The other question is not the presence of nandrolone in the "low ng/ml range", but how to report it. The panel was of two minds whether the test result was properly reported as an AAF. If there is no AAF, there is no ADRV, and no consequent burden to establish the most likely source or non-intent, only a burden for increased targeted testing, to gain more knowledge.
Proof of intent is that she tested positive for a banned substance for which she could show no legitimate cause. When her defence of accidental contamination was ruled out that only left her as the cause of her doping violation. But that is logic that is impossible for the board's chief doping-denier to accept.
Repeating the fallacy of false choices is still unpersuasive. It is still a fallacy.
Your summary of the "express decision" of this panel of arbiters, essentially resolving a contract dispute, is not very accurate, and falls far short of your original claim of providing "proof she committed an intentional violation". Recall, I don't limit myself to criminal or civil standards of argument, often based on no supporting data, but apply a more rigid scientific and logical standard based on all of the publicly known data and reason. The CAS cannot apply such high standards, because it is subservient to the WADA Code, while I am free to apply higher intellectual standards that have been in place for centuries and millenia.
Unlike you, when I say "reasonable" it is because I still have reasons to doubt the case that was made before the CAS for both "intentional" and "doping"."
Your "higher intellectual standards" are your biased and unsubstantiated speculation that seeks to exonerate a convicted doper. Nothing more. You're a joke.
She is innocent and she will be back to dominating the American women in a few days.
You are obviously Shelby, as you are the only one who could state with assurance that you are innocent. Well a great wrong has been done unto you, and although you have aged some, since we know you were clean before, as you have told us, can we expect that you will be able to at least run 3:57 or 14:35, since you were clean then and are clean now?
Your "higher intellectual standards" are your biased and unsubstantiated speculation that seeks to exonerate a convicted doper. Nothing more. You're a joke.
Dude, you are literally a Letsrun joke...
That is a role assumed by the Shelby doping-deniers. CAS has shown that.