Unsatisfying is an understatement, if this were indeed the case. Can you imagine if this were Shelby, and she had a moron boyfriend, and he said she is sleeping and you are not going to wake her up? I imagine the Brojos would be up in arms, and probably half the message board too. But again I don’t know the facts here.
Can you imagine if Shelby had a moron boyfriend who was using "supplements" and she wanted to get in on the action but he didn't both to tell her all the details of how to take them properly and she started taking them herself without knowing what could happen if she wasn't careful and then one day someone knocked on her door and she te.....
I have not followed this at all. If she was sleeping, do they attempt to wake her up? What if the husband is a moron? Surely she should be permitted to make the decision herself, and she should not be held accountable if she were unaware of the circumstances. Or am I wrong?
It’s obviously unsatisfying if this is the husband’s blunder most of all. Still, she has to be held accountable to some level if a doping officer went to her address and someone on her behalf blocked the test. It’s impossible for us to know if the husband went rogue or this was a tactic they agreed to beforehand, for instance. I’m OK with 2 years as a compromise here as it seems the DCO made some mistakes in their handling too.
But when dealing with Americans, the burden of proof is on CAS.
I will agree with you that going by evidence is smarter.
Now you are getting it, bravo! If you were smart, you would have come to that conclusion without my guidance.
And no, it does not look like "the CAS Panel chose to believe" - that is all your wishful thinking, or maybe what you chose to believe. The CAS Panel had strong arguments based on the evidence before them, which they detailed in each and every decision in this case. Look at Tygart's and Tucker's independent analyses, if you are too lazy to read the whole CAS report.
I will agree with you that going by evidence is smarter.
Now you are getting it, bravo! If you were smart, you would have come to that conclusion without my guidance.
And no, it does not look like "the CAS Panel chose to believe" - that is all your wishful thinking, or maybe what you chose to believe. The CAS Panel had strong arguments based on the evidence before them, which they detailed in each and every decision in this case. Look at Tygart's and Tucker's independent analyses, if you are too lazy to read the whole CAS report.
I arrived at that conclusion 50-some years ago. You weren't too clear what it was about the statement that still cracks you up, especially given that so many do choose what and whom to believe "every day, consciously or unconsciously, to be excited or cynical, elated or frustrated", rather than evaluate the evidence.
Whether the CAS arguments were strong or not hardly matters when the limited evidence before the CAS Panel wasn't that strong. In any case, the Panel didn't really directly answer the most important question.
Now you are asking me now to choose to believe whatever it is that you believe Tygart and Tucker said? Did they bring new evidence? Isn't it far smarter that I evaluate all of the available evidence independently, rather than choosing what to believe from the select few that you chose to believe?
Look at Tygart's and Tucker's independent analyses, if you are too lazy to read the whole CAS report.
In any case, I have looked at their statements when they said them, as well as the CAS arguments and decisions in their report, and much much more, and I don't find Tygart and Ross entirely helpful at removing all of my doubts. Neither of them brought new evidence to the case.
Tygart said many things such as the anti-doping process itself railroads innocent athletes who have done nothing wrong to 4-year bans, and reportedly said he was more skeptical of how the AIU handled the case then he was of Houlihan, and that he fears that Houlihan’s may be one of a growing number of "innocent positives". I agree.
Tucker, when asked point blank if the CAS ruling means "she was intentionally doping", said, "As for what happened, that is indeed the question. I genuinely don’t know." I agree. Ross also gives us a good idea of the high burden an innocent athlete has, suggesting if he were hired to prove her innocence, he would start hiring private investigators to do a deep-dive into pork farming, conduct a 6-month exercise with an army of people eating pork which still may not be enough to reproduce the answer she needs, and estimates spending mid-six figures on the whole process. Wow! Can most athletes afford mid six-figures just to clear their name?
Both of them did say that contaminated supplements were more likely in these kinds of cases, which may be true across the general athlete population, but inapplicable in individual cases.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
I thought it was Gault that said ""you have a choice" what and whom to believe".
Me doing me is going by the evidence -- something we agreed was smart -- and not asking Tygart or Tucker to help interpret for me things the CAS already made clear.
You suggest there is a lack of reading comprehension, but lack specificity. What is it that you allege I miscomprehended? It looks like you now realize and concede that I'm not lazy, so I never needed to consult Tucker or Tygart in the first place. I largely agree with both Tucker and Tygart anyway, given that both have admitted they don't really know and we are all just speculating anyway. But I find them superfluous and, like me and you and the CAS and the rest of the world, even they don't really know if Houlihan ever intentionally doped, as these specific CAS findings, according to the clear explanation from the CAS, weren't evidence-based but rather based on rules in the WADA Code that tied their hands when she failed to establish otherwise.
The WADA Code effectively codifies an either/or false dichotomy. And many fans choose to believe the results.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I have not followed this at all. If she was sleeping, do they attempt to wake her up? What if the husband is a moron? Surely she should be permitted to make the decision herself, and she should not be held accountable if she were unaware of the circumstances. Or am I wrong?
It’s obviously unsatisfying if this is the husband’s blunder most of all. Still, she has to be held accountable to some level if a doping officer went to her address and someone on her behalf blocked the test. It’s impossible for us to know if the husband went rogue or this was a tactic they agreed to beforehand, for instance. I’m OK with 2 years as a compromise here as it seems the DCO made some mistakes in their handling too.
Do you really believe the BS story they came up with. She must have been tested at least 5 times per year at their house and the husband didn't know the score
It looks like you don't know what constitutes a proof.
I will give your advice due consideration, yet will continue doing what I have always done, and go by the evidence, because, as you said, it is the smart thing to do.
To the extent you ask me to conditionally consult other opinions, like from Tucker and Tygart, I will note their own conclusions and opinions and gauge what they've said and written against all of the available evidence that exists.
This is also what I have done with the CAS, and with the respective WA/AIU experts.
It’s obviously unsatisfying if this is the husband’s blunder most of all. Still, she has to be held accountable to some level if a doping officer went to her address and someone on her behalf blocked the test. It’s impossible for us to know if the husband went rogue or this was a tactic they agreed to beforehand, for instance. I’m OK with 2 years as a compromise here as it seems the DCO made some mistakes in their handling too.
Do you really believe the BS story they came up with. She must have been tested at least 5 times per year at their house and the husband didn't know the score
Should have been 4 year ban
Exactly. Anyone who takes her excuse as true or even thinks there’s a possibility of truth is not at all bright. The thread is also a great example of rek’s OCD. He has to keep going, he must have the last word, no matter how silly or wrong.
It’s obviously unsatisfying if this is the husband’s blunder most of all. Still, she has to be held accountable to some level if a doping officer went to her address and someone on her behalf blocked the test. It’s impossible for us to know if the husband went rogue or this was a tactic they agreed to beforehand, for instance. I’m OK with 2 years as a compromise here as it seems the DCO made some mistakes in their handling too.
Do you really believe the BS story they came up with. She must have been tested at least 5 times per year at their house and the husband didn't know the score
Do you really believe the BS story they came up with. She must have been tested at least 5 times per year at their house and the husband didn't know the score
Should have been 4 year ban
Should be BANNED FOR LIFE
I don't really believe their story. But it is plausible, and if the DCO didn't do things by the book this is what happens. Let's see if Diribe Welteji returns like Salwa Eid-Naser, Tobi Amusan or is just not the same athlete. Her age is not an impediment.
Do you really believe the BS story they came up with. She must have been tested at least 5 times per year at their house and the husband didn't know the score
Should have been 4 year ban
Exactly. Anyone who takes her excuse as true or even thinks there’s a possibility of truth is not at all bright. The thread is also a great example of rek’s OCD. He has to keep going, he must have the last word, no matter how silly or wrong.
As it takes two to tango, it's also a great example of the OCD of those who need the first word, e.g. "fghhgf" baselessly calling me lazy, uninformed, not intelligent, while misgendering me and accusing me of trolling -- before my first word. Lately I've noticed an uptick in these kinds of direct personal insults come from a creative variety of new unregistered handles, like "LR Expertus" and "Zame ol Zong". Could they all be from one OCD stalker who wants to demonize the messenger?
But that's not really important -- back to the main topic.
Whether you believe Diribe or not, these questions remain: should we believe the DCO's account, and should we accept the findings of the Arbitrator? Allegedly the DCO gave testimony contradicting his account during the first hearing. And in this appeal the Aribtrator "accepted that certain technical and best practice departures occurred", "found that there were confirmed language barriers during the attempted sample collection", and "the Athlete established that her failure was not intentional".
It was the CAS Arbitrator who found that a "life" or "4 year" ban was too much, and a 2-year ban was most appropriate.
It will be interesting to see the more detailed report to shed more light on these aspects, if it ever gets published.
As it takes two to tango, it's also a great example of the OCD of those who need the first word, e.g. "fghhgf" baselessly calling me lazy, uninformed, not intelligent, while misgendering me and accusing me of trolling -- before my first word. Lately I've noticed an uptick in these kinds of direct personal insults come from a creative variety of new unregistered handles, like "LR Expertus" and "Zame ol Zong". Could they all be from one OCD stalker who wants to demonize the messenger?
But that's not really important -- back to the main topic.
Whether you believe Diribe or not, these questions remain: should we believe the DCO's account, and should we accept the findings of the Arbitrator? Allegedly the DCO gave testimony contradicting his account during the first hearing. And in this appeal the Aribtrator "accepted that certain technical and best practice departures occurred", "found that there were confirmed language barriers during the attempted sample collection", and "the Athlete established that her failure was not intentional".
It was the CAS Arbitrator who found that a "life" or "4 year" ban was too much, and a 2-year ban was most appropriate.
It will be interesting to see the more detailed report to shed more light on these aspects, if it ever gets published.
Funny, now you are the one who is playing the "childish" - isn't that what you said? - you-have-other-handles-game. While at the same time getting many posts deleted that highlight your nonsensical trolling.
Go ahead, get this one deleted too. Or are you a mod and delete so much in order to not look too bad?
Funny, now you are the one who is playing the "childish" - isn't that what you said? - you-have-other-handles-game. While at the same time getting many posts deleted that highlight your nonsensical trolling.
Go ahead, get this one deleted too. Or are you a mod and delete so much in order to not look too bad?
I guess that is just another one of my stupid questions, wondering out loud if some sort of deep-seated projection helps explain your unprovoked personal attacks. But since you are here, perhaps you can provide a better explanation for your behavior.
Another game that has long been played is blaming me for deleted posts.
Funny, now you are the one who is playing the "childish" - isn't that what you said? - you-have-other-handles-game. While at the same time getting many posts deleted that highlight your nonsensical trolling.
Go ahead, get this one deleted too. Or are you a mod and delete so much in order to not look too bad?
I guess that is just another one of my stupid questions, wondering out loud if some sort of deep-seated projection helps explain your unprovoked personal attacks. But since you are here, perhaps you can provide a better explanation for your behavior.
Another game that has long been played is blaming me for deleted posts.
If anyone projects, it’s you. Please. That fella pointing out your obvious OCD etc really got to you, didn’t he?
even worse, not just that the slow walked it through the court system so that it would get lost over time, the Spanish courts ordered the evidence DESTROYED so that it could never get tested for the DNA.
We literally have a doping coach who doped an entire family of runners who dominated events for over a decade caught red handed hiding syringes and other doping trash with DNA on the needles... and nothing ever came of it.
Makes you want to give up. Just...give up.
Yeah. That was so weird when it was pretty obvious Geneze Dibaba had to be doped to the gills based on her performances and her immediate degradation in performance once he was arrested and banned.
rekrunner crawls back into his mom's basement devastated
BARCELONA, Spain (AP) — The coach of world 1,500-meter champion Genzebe Dibaba and other long-distance runners was arrested near Barcelona on Monday after Spanish police raided his hotel room and found traces of EPO and other...
I guess that is just another one of my stupid questions, wondering out loud if some sort of deep-seated projection helps explain your unprovoked personal attacks. But since you are here, perhaps you can provide a better explanation for your behavior.
Another game that has long been played is blaming me for deleted posts.
If anyone projects, it’s you. Please. That fella pointing out your obvious OCD etc really got to you, didn’t he?
Yeah sure. That other fella.
Speaking of OCD -- all these posters playing all these games just derail this thread about Diribe Welteji to talk about me. Don't get me wrong. I'm more than happy to talk about me until the end of time, but just the same, wondering why so many of these unregistered one-time use handle posters are so obsessed about me rather than staying on point.
