1 year since Shelby Ban: What have we learned?

Pro News/Info/Results Distance

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 6 of 14

1 5 6 7 14

Honestly I was never shocked by this. Most/all of the top runners dope. That's it. We all want to see records broken, right? Many runners are willing to dope to escape poverty, I get it. Regimes are willing to set up elaborate doping schemes to show that their way of life is 'better', I understand. It is silly to see people get so heated about this. Doping is prevalent in all sports. All sports. When the US runners fall behind we criticize them/coaches/training plans (lol-why dont they train like the africans?ie-dope?), well if we want them to compete with dopers they have to dope. Accept it or go watch a clean sport like MLB or NFL

3 years ago 06/14/2022 9:35am EDT

re: flyingfrog

flyingfrog wrote:
Honestly I was never shocked by this. Most/all of the top runners dope. That's it. We all want to see records broken, right? Many runners are willing to dope to escape poverty, I get it. Regimes are willing to set up elaborate doping schemes to show that their way of life is 'better', I understand. It is silly to see people get so heated about this. Doping is prevalent in all sports. All sports. When the US runners fall behind we criticize them/coaches/training plans (lol-why dont they train like the africans?ie-dope?), well if we want them to compete with dopers they have to dope. Accept it or go watch a clean sport like MLB or NFL

Had me going a little until the last line “clean sport like MLB or NFL”. 9.5/10. Well done sir!

3 years ago 06/14/2022 11:56am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Much of the merry-go-rounds you start are you arguing with a cartoon you've created with your own veneer of projections.
For example:
- My starting position was neither falsehood, nor disregarding any established fact or evidence. Unlike the CAS, who is subservient to the WADA Code, I started with a presumption of innoncence, in the interest of fairness.
- It was you who declared me "mathematician with a statistical bent" (i.e. you created another cartoon) and now pile cartoon on top of cartoon ("glorified bean counter"). I do have degrees in science, which included many math courses, including statistics courses. This seems highly relevant in a discussion where probabilities feature so highly.
- We can only see what I will do once actually faced with a contradiction of merit and substance, but at this stage of the process, one year after the verdict, after all the appeals, that point has been rendered moot.
That you start with a presumption of innocence shows you are completely in the wrong ball-park. That is the principle that applies to criminal proceedings. These were not criminal proceedings. You have constructed an argument around a process that does not and did not apply. In sports terms - you have turned up for the wrong event.
In sports code proceedings, where it is established that the athlete has broken anti-doping rules, by returning an indisputable positive test for a banned substance, fairness is achieved by allowing the athlete to present a defence. A positive test establishes a breach of the rules; it doesn't require further proof of the breach and so the presumption of innocence is redundant. The onus quite properly shifts to the athlete to show they were not in breach of the rules or not careless in their obligations to observe them.
Despite your claims to have "science degrees" there is nothing scientific about your approach, as you continue to assert the primacy of what may be possible and unproven over what has been deemed likely according to the balance of probabilities. With that approach you would still be defending the Biblical account of creation in 7 days over Darwin's principle of evolution. Perhaps you would be more at home in the mid-19th century?
Of course you can't see how you have been contradicted by facts and events; you are in a ball-park playing all by yourself and according to your own rules.

These are indeed the wrong ballparks, and you will not find me in any of them. I'm out here in the real world, where the standards of science have been applied for centuries if not millennia.

The idea that people can be presumed guilty or innocent is not exclusive to crimes. If my wife finds the toilet seat up, my wife will presume I am guilty, and will presume my daughter is innocent.

But if you still prefer being moronic and pedantic, my starting position also does not presume intent, neglect, fault, or knowledge, for cases consistent with accidental ingestion.

The scientist says these things must be established based on evidence, in order to conclude them, and not on failures to prove the contrary on a balance of probabilities.

3 years ago 06/14/2022 12:09pm EDT

re: rekrunner

"But if you still prefer being moronic and pedantic,"...(quote)

- Said without a trace of irony.

"The scientist says these things must be established based on evidence, in order to conclude them, and not on failures to prove the contrary on a balance of probabilities." (quote)

- So a hypothesis that fails, as Houlihan's (and your's) does, does not lead in the direction of the truth, when there is only one alternative explanation? CAS got it - even if the self-proclaimed "scientist" doesn't.

3 years ago 06/14/2022 1:21pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
"But if you still prefer being moronic and pedantic,"...(quote)
- Said without a trace of irony.
"The scientist says these things must be established based on evidence, in order to conclude them, and not on failures to prove the contrary on a balance of probabilities." (quote)
- So a hypothesis that fails, as Houlihan's (and your's) does, does not lead in the direction of the truth, when there is only one alternative explanation? CAS got it - even if the self-proclaimed "scientist" doesn't.

There is no irony.

Who said the hypothesis failed (according to accepted scientific standards), or that there was only one alternative explanation?

The WADA Code does not necessarily lead us in the direction of truth. By design, it takes shortcuts when it comes to finding the truth, in favor of quick, cheap, prosecutions.

3 years ago 06/14/2022 3:12pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
"But if you still prefer being moronic and pedantic,"...(quote)
- Said without a trace of irony.
"The scientist says these things must be established based on evidence, in order to conclude them, and not on failures to prove the contrary on a balance of probabilities." (quote)
- So a hypothesis that fails, as Houlihan's (and your's) does, does not lead in the direction of the truth, when there is only one alternative explanation? CAS got it - even if the self-proclaimed "scientist" doesn't.

You fully know there are loads of alternative explanations.They perhaps don’t suit you but they exist.

3 years ago 06/14/2022 5:57pm EDT

re: Shelby Shelbs

I have learned that some people just won't let go when an athlete is banned after an illegal substance found in her body. For me this is super clear cut, however there is people who just can't accept that reality. Wild.

3 years ago 06/14/2022 7:50pm EDT

re: LarsL11

LarsL11 wrote:
I have learned that some people just won't let go when an athlete is banned after an illegal substance found in her body. For me this is super clear cut, however there is people who just can't accept that reality. Wild.

Strange that the actual rules do not make the same assumptions as you.

Mary Decker and Shelby, America's 2 best 1500 m runners of all time, both busted.

Not a shrill but have read the rules.syyuigur wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"But if you still prefer being moronic and pedantic,"...(quote)
- Said without a trace of irony.
"The scientist says these things must be established based on evidence, in order to conclude them, and not on failures to prove the contrary on a balance of probabilities." (quote)
- So a hypothesis that fails, as Houlihan's (and your's) does, does not lead in the direction of the truth, when there is only one alternative explanation? CAS got it - even if the self-proclaimed "scientist" doesn't.
You fully know there are loads of alternative explanations.They perhaps don’t suit you but they exist.

There was only one explanation offered and the alternative - that her doping wasn't accidental - was met according to the balance of probabilities. Your "alternatives" are mere fantasies.

3 years ago 06/15/2022 1:43pm EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"But if you still prefer being moronic and pedantic,"...(quote)
- Said without a trace of irony.
"The scientist says these things must be established based on evidence, in order to conclude them, and not on failures to prove the contrary on a balance of probabilities." (quote)
- So a hypothesis that fails, as Houlihan's (and your's) does, does not lead in the direction of the truth, when there is only one alternative explanation? CAS got it - even if the self-proclaimed "scientist" doesn't.
There is no irony.
Who said the hypothesis failed (according to accepted scientific standards), or that there was only one alternative explanation?
The WADA Code does not necessarily lead us in the direction of truth. By design, it takes shortcuts when it comes to finding the truth, in favor of quick, cheap, prosecutions.

The only alternative to the explanation offered, that her doping was accidental, was that it wasn't. Her explanation failed, which left the alternative. Your "alternatives" don't exist outside your imagination.

The WADA Code doesn't take shortcuts; it holds athletes to account for the banned drugs found in their bodies. You would rather it didn't.

3 years ago 06/15/2022 3:16pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Not a shrill but have read the rules.syyuigur wrote:
You fully know there are loads of alternative explanations.They perhaps don’t suit you but they exist.
There was only one explanation offered and the alternative - that her doping wasn't accidental - was met according to the balance of probabilities. Your "alternatives" are mere fantasies.

Only one offered but others are possible, you said none others are possible.

3 years ago 06/15/2022 3:18pm EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
There is no irony.
Who said the hypothesis failed (according to accepted scientific standards), or that there was only one alternative explanation?
The WADA Code does not necessarily lead us in the direction of truth. By design, it takes shortcuts when it comes to finding the truth, in favor of quick, cheap, prosecutions.
The only alternative to the explanation offered, that her doping was accidental, was that it wasn't. Her explanation failed, which left the alternative. Your "alternatives" don't exist outside your imagination.
The WADA Code doesn't take shortcuts; it holds athletes to account for the banned drugs found in their bodies. You would rather it didn't.

Strict liability is a short cut.

3 years ago 06/16/2022 1:58am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
There is no irony.
Who said the hypothesis failed (according to accepted scientific standards), or that there was only one alternative explanation?
The WADA Code does not necessarily lead us in the direction of truth. By design, it takes shortcuts when it comes to finding the truth, in favor of quick, cheap, prosecutions.
The only alternative to the explanation offered, that her doping was accidental, was that it wasn't. Her explanation failed, which left the alternative. Your "alternatives" don't exist outside your imagination.
The WADA Code doesn't take shortcuts; it holds athletes to account for the banned drugs found in their bodies. You would rather it didn't.

Your speculated alternative that her doping was not accidental, wasn't argued before the CAS, nor supported by evidence, nor established by the CAS. That is why it is so weak, intellectually, when evaluated without the constraints and shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code, under long established real world standards used for centuries.

As we have seen before, in science, all possibilities exist, until they are proven or established not to exist.

I would rather the Code ensures innocent athletes are not punished. We know from cases like Getzmann, Lawson, and 27 USADA cases since 2015, that the Code ensures no such thing. It's more like "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

3 years ago 06/16/2022 2:14am EDT

re: LarsL11

LarsL11 wrote:
I have learned that some people just won't let go when an athlete is banned after an illegal substance found in her body. For me this is super clear cut, however there is people who just can't accept that reality. Wild.

I can't speak for "some people", but I haven't seen anyone not accept "that reality" that she was "banned after an illegal substance found in her body".

It's all the subsequent steps that crosses your super clear cut boundary. For example, the CAS did not find that she was an intentional cheat or a liar. This comes from posters who don't want to hear that this is their own inference from a process not robust enough to logically permit such inferences.

The reality is that prosecution under the WADA Code does not attempt to distinguish accidental but unprovable ingestion of a small quantity of a substance known for decades to be found in food, from intentional doping with the expectation of enhancing performance.

3 years ago 06/16/2022 4:40am EDT

re: Armstronglivs

Armstronglivs wrote:
Not a shrill but have read the rules.syyuigur wrote:
You fully know there are loads of alternative explanations.They perhaps don’t suit you but they exist.
There was only one explanation offered and the alternative - that her doping wasn't accidental - was met according to the balance of probabilities. Your "alternatives" are mere fantasies.

Once again you demonstrate that you have neither read nor understood the rules.

If it is all too complicated for your why don’t you just go away?

Not a shrill but have read the rules.syyuigurpp wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
There was only one explanation offered and the alternative - that her doping wasn't accidental - was met according to the balance of probabilities. Your "alternatives" are mere fantasies.
Only one offered but others are possible, you said none others are possible.

It is possible the moon is made of green cheese.

Not a shrill but have read the rules.syyuigurpp wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The only alternative to the explanation offered, that her doping was accidental, was that it wasn't. Her explanation failed, which left the alternative. Your "alternatives" don't exist outside your imagination.
The WADA Code doesn't take shortcuts; it holds athletes to account for the banned drugs found in their bodies. You would rather it didn't.
Strict liability is a short cut.

No, it isn't. It is holding the athlete accountable for the presence of banned drugs in their body.

3 years ago 06/16/2022 1:42pm EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
The only alternative to the explanation offered, that her doping was accidental, was that it wasn't. Her explanation failed, which left the alternative. Your "alternatives" don't exist outside your imagination.
The WADA Code doesn't take shortcuts; it holds athletes to account for the banned drugs found in their bodies. You would rather it didn't.
Your speculated alternative that her doping was not accidental, wasn't argued before the CAS, nor supported by evidence, nor established by the CAS. That is why it is so weak, intellectually, when evaluated without the constraints and shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code, under long established real world standards used for centuries.
As we have seen before, in science, all possibilities exist, until they are proven or established not to exist.
I would rather the Code ensures innocent athletes are not punished. We know from cases like Getzmann, Lawson, and 27 USADA cases since 2015, that the Code ensures no such thing. It's more like "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

"Your speculated alternative that her doping was not accidental, wasn't argued before the CAS, nor supported by evidence, nor established by the CAS."(quote)

- So a confirmed positive test for a banned drug meant nothing; it was just a curious incidental fact, like the colour of her running shoes? Fortunately, WADA and CAS correctly presume it is evidence of doping unless the athlete can show otherwise. She couldn't - and neither can you. So we have a finding of an intentional violation that produced a 4 year ban (and upheld in a subsequent appeal). But round and round the mulberry bush you still go - looking for everything except the truth.

3 years ago 06/16/2022 1:55pm EDT

re: rekrunner

"The reality is that prosecution under the WADA Code does not attempt to distinguish accidental but unprovable ingestion of a small quantity of a substance known for decades to be found in food, from intentional doping with the expectation of enhancing performance."(quote)

- If the ingestion of a banned substance is "accidental but unprovable" you have no evidence that it was indeed accidental and the athlete wasn't doping. You are merely guessing. Cases aren't decided by guessing.

Page 6 of 14

1 5 6 7 14

Next Last

What People Are Talking About On LetsRun

No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

1 year since Shelby Ban: What have we learned?

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

1 year since Shelby Ban: What have we learned?

Jump To A Page

Follow flyingfrog

Block flyingfrog

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow LarsL11

Block LarsL11

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.