A positive test means your blood chemistry contains performance enhancing drugs.
A four-year ban means a review board has decided that it is unlikely that the performance enhancing drugs in your system were accidentally ingested.
Still not correct.
The postive test meant that her urine contained nandrolone, not her blood.
The 4-year ban is a consequence prescribed in the WADA Code of Houlihan not being able to collect enough evidence to override the default presumption of "intentional".
Could you prove that a meal you ate 1 month ago contained an ingredient to a panel on the balance of probability, without a sample of that meal to test? Or is it more likely, because your career and reputation are at stake, you would make a great effort to collect a lot of evidence that falls short of meeting the burden of balance of probability?
Your emotions are having you miss the point. The amount she had in her system is why she got the ban.
In the other cases where runners had actually ingested the substance by food, the athletes had trace amounts.
The reason the burden of proof was on her because the amount of nandrolone in her system was highly unlikely to have come from food.
CAS never found her guilty of cheating.They never said that she intentionally doped.
Read the rules prior to posting.
They said the amount of nandrolone in her system couldn’t have been reached accidentally. The opposite of accidentally is intentionally.
Direct quote from CAS report:
“The Athlete’s explanation that the 19-NA in her sample resulted from her consumption of the meat of an uncastrated boar simply cannot be accepted. The explanation pre- supposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero.”
The probability of Shelby’s story being true in nearly 0.
She took a ped, got caught, and couldn't prove her bullsh t lie. How is this not cheating?
oh it’s cheating but the fact that CAS didn’t use that specific word to describe her behaviour gives some people a hard on. other words that CAS also did not use to describe her include fair, honest, believable and clean.
She took a ped, got caught, and couldn't prove her bullsh t lie. How is this not cheating?
oh it’s cheating but the fact that CAS didn’t use that specific word to describe her behaviour gives some people a hard on. other words that CAS also did not use to describe her include fair, honest, believable and clean.
The rules just don’t include the use of intent or cheat as such is never tested under the Wada code. Try reading it before you post.
And are wrong again; that did indeed say she was an honest and credible witness. Read prior to posting to stop some thinking you are a foolish chap person.
They said the amount of nandrolone in her system couldn’t have been reached accidentally. The opposite of accidentally is intentionally.
Direct quote from CAS report:
“The Athlete’s explanation that the 19-NA in her sample resulted from her consumption of the meat of an uncastrated boar simply cannot be accepted. The explanation pre- supposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero.”
The probability of Shelby’s story being true in nearly 0.
It was a supposition not a statement of fact.Thus is could not be a lie.
Do read the full decision or you will look foolish.
The postive test meant that her urine contained nandrolone, not her blood.
The 4-year ban is a consequence prescribed in the WADA Code of Houlihan not being able to collect enough evidence to override the default presumption of "intentional".
Could you prove that a meal you ate 1 month ago contained an ingredient to a panel on the balance of probability, without a sample of that meal to test? Or is it more likely, because your career and reputation are at stake, you would make a great effort to collect a lot of evidence that falls short of meeting the burden of balance of probability?
Your emotions are having you miss the point. The amount she had in her system is why she got the ban.
In the other cases where runners had actually ingested the substance by food, the athletes had trace amounts.
The reason the burden of proof was on her because the amount of nandrolone in her system was highly unlikely to have come from food.
No; wrong again.
Just read the rules and do try to understand them.
I wish to apologise to all and Shelly for saying she is cheat.I have now read the rules and she clearly is subject to wada braking the rules and not giving her the correct time to be able to deal with the overly unfair strict liability rules. Shame on cheating WADA,!
The reason the burden of proof was on her because the amount of nandrolone in her system was highly unlikely to have come from food.
Indeed it was too much to have come from 150 g of outer stomach muscle. It would have been fine, if it came from 150 g of kidney, but that wasn't served.
Let's not forget that the above is theoretical; CAS ruled that it was "improbable" that an intact boar made it into the burrito.
Plus, she had other inexplicably high androgen levels ("highly improbable", CAS wrote), and most importantly, the CIR was not, I cite, "consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States".
And for those who keep lying that CAS never said it was "intentional", I cite CAS directly again:
Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules. .... Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.
WADA Rule 2.1 and 2.2, fresh from the current code:
2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample ... 2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method
To summarize then, the presence of nandro was intentional, and so was its use or attempted use.
The reason the burden of proof was on her because the amount of nandrolone in her system was highly unlikely to have come from food.
Indeed it was too much to have come from 150 g of outer stomach muscle. It would have been fine, if it came from 150 g of kidney, but that wasn't served.
Let's not forget that the above is theoretical; CAS ruled that it was "improbable" that an intact boar made it into the burrito.
Plus, she had other inexplicably high androgen levels ("highly improbable", CAS wrote), and most importantly, the CIR was not, I cite, "consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States".
And for those who keep lying that CAS never said it was "intentional", I cite CAS directly again:
Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules. .... Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.
WADA Rule 2.1 and 2.2, fresh from the current code:
2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample ... 2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method
To summarize then, the presence of nandro was intentional, and so was its use or attempted use.
You have deliberately mixed up two sections of the rules and have applied 2.1, with 10.2.3 and then the decision. And then left the deemed out.
The application of rule 10 does not overrule that clearly set out in the rules that the conviction is not based on intent.
Shame on you.!
As for her high androgens ! You have been asked a dozen times to substantiate this.You refused; thus is is reasonable to conclude that you made it up.
As for the carbon isotope evidence, this is not disputed. I would have agreed with the panel that her food suggestions failed. But then so did Wada by breaking the notification rules.
You have deliberately mixed up two sections of the rules and have applied 2.1, with 10.2.3 and then the decision.
Stop lying. I have done no such thing. I have first directly quoted the CAS decision, and then quoted the titles of rules 2.1 and 2.2 to provide context. You are welcome.
As for her high androgens ! You have been asked a dozen times to substantiate this.You refused; thus is is reasonable to conclude that you made it up.
Stop lying. I have not refused. I have shown this before. Also, you should know this anyway, because you claimed that you read the decision. Evidently you never did.
Here it is again (read also 107 for context and more details). CAS wrote (109):
Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels.
Moving on...
But then so did Wada by breaking the notification rules.
You have deliberately mixed up two sections of the rules and have applied 2.1, with 10.2.3 and then the decision.
Stop lying. I have done no such thing. I have first directly quoted the CAS decision, and then quoted the titles of rules 2.1 and 2.2 to provide context. You are welcome.
As for her high androgens ! You have been asked a dozen times to substantiate this.You refused; thus is is reasonable to conclude that you made it up.
Stop lying. I have not refused. I have shown this before. Also, you should know this anyway, because you claimed that you read the decision. Evidently you never did.
Here it is again (read also 107 for context and more details). CAS wrote (109):
Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels.
Moving on...
But then so did Wada by breaking the notification rules.
Stop lying. I have done no such thing. I have first directly quoted the CAS decision, and then quoted the titles of rules 2.1 and 2.2 to provide context. You are welcome.
Stop lying. I have not refused. I have shown this before. Also, you should know this anyway, because you claimed that you read the decision. Evidently you never did.
Here it is again (read also 107 for context and more details). CAS wrote (109):
Moving on...
Say what? What’s your evidence for that?
I agree you have quoted sections of the rules and sections of the decision but they are not related.
I am still at a loss to see any reference to her abnormal androgens. Why do you lie? You keep refusing to show this anywhere even though asked a dozen plus times; this then becomes a huge lie.
The time delay in notification was similar to the Russian skater and that was enough to overrule her ban from the individual final.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.