rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
So the experts have concluded that she " committed an intentional ADRV".
It's some people here ("arm-chair quarterback") who argue with whatever motivation they may have that they all got it wrong (the lab, AIU/WA, and CAS) because of lex mitior and special Oregon corn and pharmacokinetics and uncastrated boar and Shelby's innocence and Jerry's character.
Another argument is that the CAS interpreted the WADA code correctly, but it is the WADA code that is wrong and in need of reform. Not only armchair quarterbacks, but the head of USADA has argued for such reform.
Shelby’s team said the most likely source was the burrito. The question before CAS was whether the evidence before them rose to the level of “balance of probability”. No one offered a more likely source as an alternative, nor proved it to any legal standard. Because of the wording of the WADA code, Shelby was competing against a default presumption of guilt and intent, on the strength of the lab test results alone. Collecting the type of evidence required is not easy and not always possible. If you were in the same position, could you prove the content of a meal you ate last month, tracing it back to the meat provider, to the farmer, and testing the meat? What proof could there be that shows the food truck served the wrong burrito, or put extra ingredients in it?
Shelby's team said a lot of things. Have they even shown that she ate a pork burrito? Have they shown that she even ate any burrito? There is a lot of scientific discussion on this thread, all balanced on a pinprick assertion that is, at best, a "maybe she really ate some pork".