Shelby making 10000 record attempt at the Ten

Strongly disagree. You can only come to such a conclusion by ignoring all the evidence and by twisting what CAS actually said. CAS clearly ruled unanimously that the nandrolone did not come from the stomach burrito (and banned her for four years for intentional doping = cheating), and that was the only excuse Shelby came up with officially. Hence no doubt among the CAS panel, and no doubt for me and many others. All your spinning since now almost five years has done nothing to change that.

....

I don't care about her ban, she's cleared to compete now and all testing with Shelby now will be done with a microscopic vision. My only concern is can she run sub 30 minutes and give the USA a small glimmer of hope of having a possible female 10,000m medallist❓

You can’t be okay with Houlihan but not okay with African cheats? A cheat is a cheat no matter where they are from.

How can you possibly consider yourself someone who knows anything about this sort of thing and yet post what you posted? Shelby has no chance of running under 30. Could she at one time? Yes possibly she could. That ship has sailed and yet you cannot even understand this, which renders all of your takes questionable.

Since everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, you are more than free to strongly disagree. But you rely on a fundamental misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what the CAS decided when and why, and the resulting implications.

The doubt within the CAS Panel is made clear when the minority doesn't join the majority in paragraphs 75 (asking did the lab properly report an AAF?) and again in 84 (asking was the AAF proper, and was the ADRV proper?). Paragraph 85 closes the question on whether the CAS decided she doped.

No subsequent discussion eliminates this doubt.

The CAS discussion of the possible nandrolone content in the burrito came later, after the AAF and ADRV questions were settled, as part of the subsequent discussion of "B. What Consequences Shall be Drawn from the ADRV?" It is not relevant to the already decided question of whether doping was properly established, or not.

In any case, since we both value facts and evidence, any opinion about where the nandrolone came from, or didn't, must be treated as baseless, regardless of who holds it, as there is simply no evidence of the actual contents of the burrito to evaluate or ignore, beyond several eye-witness statements that it contained a lot of grease (which Prof. McGlone said can contain high androgen levels).

Note that "unanimous" doesn't appear in the CAS report either, but I'll concede that the unanimous decision (in 139) was that Houlihan "failed to establish the source of the 19-NA", with the consequence that she could not qualify for a reduced sanction. This unanimous finding of an evidentiary failure is not a unanimous finding that she undoubtedly doped.

CAS found that she violated the ADRV (Anti-Doping Rule Violation), which contains no reference to intent. It is not that they say she cheated but merely that there is the "presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete's sample." Cheating comes into the testimony only in Shalane Flanagan's testimony that Shelby Houlihan was not a cheater. The rule states that the athlete has "a personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters their body." They didn't get the atypical finding because they do not find any justification for the claim that it came from the burrito or that that contained wild boar offal, which would unlike farmed pork be built on an irregular diet that would vary widely from animal to animal.

Ever heard of Occam’s Razor? Tell me what Occam’s Razor suggests to you about the Shelby Houlihan doping case. Anybody can doubt anything. Even a fool can do that.

.....

Dude

Shut up I have more knowledge and experience at competitive track and field in my thumb than you have in your entire body. I'm past sick and tired of couch potato trolls getting on this message board disputing reputable and knowledgeable former athletes. Keep living in your fantasy world. Shelby has just as much chance at the 10000 AR as Monson or Kelati.

She may run under 30 for all we know (I don't see any evidence that she's in this kind of shape now), but she has no shot whatsoever at a 10000m medal in this era of sub-29 cheats.

I have.

It says we should prefer explanations with fewer assumptions, or in this case, fewer presumptions. According to Occam's Razor, we need a simpler decision process that doesn't presume too much.

Occam's Razor is a guide for preferring simpler theoretical models or hypotheses, rather than a law. In any case, it doesn't help, as I see three possible explanations with similar complexity. If anything, we have evidence she purchased and consumed a greasy burrito, and purchased and consumed vitamin supplements, and we need at least two additional assumptions to form the hypothesis that she purchased and consumed some exogenous oral nandrolone precursor.

30:33 plus/minus 10 seconds

The hypothesis which requires the fewest assumptions is that Shelby knowingly ingested Nandrolone. The burrito and vitamin supplement scenarios require several leaps into astronomically unlikely chains of causes which appear farfetched to the non-gullible.

The beauty of this is you will be proven incorrect again, just as you have been over and over again. But you never learn, presumably due to your need for attention. Let us revisit this thread after the race.

As predicted, you have to keep twisting what the CAS Panel actually said, then spin it, then "conclude" your wishful thinking from your spins. For example, "doubt" is your novel keyword that does not appear in the report.

For example, "asking was the AAF proper" is your spin. Voted was on the question whether the "AAF was properly reported", which is a huge difference. Neither proves that the lone dissenter on the CAS Panel had doubts that Houlihan doped (which in itself is an irrelevant and desperate and baseless distraction of yours, as they all voted for the 4 year ban for intentional doping in the end).

The rest is your typical mixture of falsehoods and distractions. For example, regarding "any opinion about where the nandrolone came from, or didn't, must be treated as baseless": distraction: it is irrelevant for her doping ban where the nandrolone came from (from Amazon, or Centro, or Schumacher, or Flanagan...), unless it came from the stomach burrito, and falsehood: it didn't come from the stomach burrito for many reasons—so much for "baseless". Among other reasons, recall that the restaurant used commercial pork, and remember the CAS statement that completely destroys the burrito theory:

119. The Panel finds that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature.

Face it: it was artificial nandrolone, and thus did not come from the stomach burrito (even if she ate one LOL).

"baseless" LOL - you are getting more and more dishonest in your spinning.

Yes "unanimous" doesn't appear in the CAS report, but each statement like "The Panel finds" as in 119 indicates a unanimous decision; otherwise it would be "The majority of the Panel..." You should really know this by now.

That is also not correct, because there was no 4 year ban before the arbitration, just a (secret) provisional suspension. Since our deer Rekster insisted on it, the exact wording is

Why four years? See:

and

Rekster, note: "the panel", not "the majority of the panel". Those are all unanimous decisions. No spin, just fact after fact after fact.

Correct. And then we get a new thread where the Rekster can start again with his revisionist history.

Whelp, that's why these decisions are made by more than one person. If you lose an election by 1 percentage point, you still lose the election. If you lose a race by .01, you still lose the race.

Before this completely descends into a doping circle jerk:

What happened to the meet this year? I bought $17 tickets a few weeks ago. Hunter, some OAC guys and Laura Galvan were on the heat sheets. Now tickets are $12 and all the "big names" have disappeared. NYC 1/2 poach everyone? Just a down year with no Olympics or WC?