New Shelby training video: WOW

Ideally, as a condition for returning to competition, convicted cheaters should be subject to mandatory daily testing.

how can you possibly presume my intent being a discussion of the quantity of nandrolone in dry beef burritos when all presumptions point to no nandrolone presence in dry beef burritos? what is your intent here? Your whole intent all along has been presuming my intent is to disprove the presumption of nandrolone presence in beef burritos?? Why would your presume such nonsensical intent? You intend to accept the presumption of nandrolone in nandrolone-rich pork from a group that intends on banning an athlete from competition? How can you presume their presumption in this case is fact when you have no intention on presuming their other presumptions are fact, when your also presume their intent is to railroad an innocent athlete into an intentional ban? One has to then presume your intent is to accept certain presumptions as fact from a group that intends on banning an innocent athlete based on other presumptions that you intend to presume as non -fact. Your whole intent is farcical and based on presumptions of other's presumptions being fact when you intend to presume these presumptions are intended as fact, and presume the same group's presumptions as non-fact when your intent is to prove their presumptions as non-fact. As well you continue to presume my intent based on your presumption of my intent.

Then we are agreed -- if the claim was never morphed, the complete claim to be rebutted is "eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal".

What I know is that when the claim is "eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal", the only right way to evaluate in order to confirm or deny this claim is in terms of "a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal".

Any other way to look at it is the wrong way.

Any rebuttal inexplicably and artificially limited to pork meat and pork stomach is unpersuasive because it is incomplete. For example, chorizo, and grease were two candidates explicitly mentioned, but not rebutted or ruled out. The burrito can also contain other organs not identified (e.g. heart, liver, testes, kidneys, salivary glands). A robust rebuttal must first identify and then rule out all of the pork ingredients, in order to rule out "a burrito from a food truck containing offal".

I can't take responsibility for what others claimed, or didn't claim. I can only interpret the facts that are made public, and to a lesser extent, opinions supported by facts. The facts, as we know them 3.5 years later, are incomplete, and any conclusion carries a degree of uncertainty.

So you don't stand by your original claim of 3 burritos?

This game of presumptions is also not mine -- the CAS made it clear which presumptions follow from the WADA Code 2015.

She didn't run with a mic on.

After she'd completed the workout, she did a voice over the video, which is the best way to do a video like this.

I don't believe the burrito excuse but i admire that she's stayed motivated and in shape for four years.

Lifetime benefit...

Yes, yes, yes, and YES!

The only issue is that the evidence surrounding Lance and Marion is not open for debate or argument. Both admittingly cheated. There were no hearings or testimonies or doubt whatsoever. Shelby went through the process, paid a lot of money and was deemed guilty, thus serving a 4-year ban. The difference is she truly believes she unknowingly ingested the PED and used the most probable cause that of which was eating a potentially tainted burrito. I would not place her in the same category as Lance, Marion, Ben Johnson, and or Regina Jacobs.

1) Are you a female?

2) Can you do the workout at 4000+ altitude?

I have no idea as to whether or not SH was doping or not. But, she popped POS and has served her ban. What is impressive to me is that she has stayed as motivated as she has, and by all (limited) accounts has continued to train at a high level and in an organized way.

In the absence of a needle hanging out of her arm at the trial and Foolagain stating, "This syringe has nandrolone in it and I'm injecting it with the intent of improving my performance", presumptions have to be made. The CAS made very educated presumptions, as well as plugging in their BS Meters. I see your intent is to continue to spew differing presumptions about my intent. I never said she had to eat 3 beef burritos to get the values she pissed, that was a non-factual presumption that you concocted all on your own. You continue to presume she received a pork burrito, a wild pig burrito with, This Just In!, high levels of synthetic nandrolone. You continue to presume her friends weren't covering for her by saying she was served a gross greasy burrito and decided to eat it anyway. You continue to presume she doesn't even know what nandrolone is. You continue to presume she somehow maintained her elite-level fitness and body-fat percentage by eating nasty greasy food. Your continue to presume all these incredibly unlikely presumptions somehow all lined up and happened at the same time, creating an even more likely presumption, miraculously on the night before her OOC test, and somehow increased the odds of a non-intentional positive test. Apparently you have no intent of listening to The Voice of Reason, and your BSMeter is not functioning.

My BS meter is calibrated and working perfectly. That's what permits me to be skeptical of all decisions and opinions necessarily based on presumptions and unproven assumptions, regardless of who voiced them, and their credentials. You presume to speak for the Voice of Reason, but you are voicing no reasons.

You can save yourself space and time, by understanding that, unlike the WADA Code and the CAS, I simply presume all athletes are innocent until they are proven guilty. This long established principle is widely recognized and accepted as being on the right side of justice.

I initially presume that all alternatives are equally likely before the consideration of the specific facts. I do conclude from the evidence and the literature, that her positive test results, including carbon isotope ratio, have two equally valid explanations, neither of which are proven or disproven: an exogenous one considered doping, and an endogenous one not considered doping. Because of this scientifically proven ambiguity which factually remains unresolved, the WA/AIU hasn't yet met their burden (greater than balance of probabilities and less than beyond reasonable doubt) of their initial finding of doping, regardless of fault, negligence, intent, or knowledge.

There was plenty of evidence before the CAS, from both sides supporting the burrito containing intact boar offal explanation, including testimony and literature from the opposing expert witnesses, but collectively, it failed to meet the required standard.

Importantly, a failure to establish one explanation to a certain standard does not constitute proof of any alternatives. This is the fallacy that everyone is falling for, that I find completely unpersuasive.

Outside of the Panel's determination that Houlihan's proof fell short of the required standard, there was no evidence, let alone proof, of any suggested alternatives -- these alternative candidates are not yet ripe for my consideration, except as speculative hypotheses that now need to be argued with supporting evidence, established, and then proved.

With respect to three burritos, just where do you stand, then? You are the one who said three burritos were necessary, and I countered that as little as 14 grams (half an ounce) are necessary. I initially said you accepted pork burritos for the sake of discussing the necessity of three burritos to produce her numbers, and you objected, saying that that was my presumption. I then asked you to clarify if you meant beef, and you still object, also saying that that is my presumption. What kind of burritos were you referring to then? Chicken? Bean? Cheese? Note that eating beef was not my concoction, but comes from the anonymous poster "she is ready".

They should've maintained that 2020-2022 level of testing.

All those tests is why she got popped. That's the amount of testing it takes!

Cool.

As a fresh hobby jogger (when i started training running) in my early 20s i used to do a similar session regularly with a few differences:

Ran in thick jogging shoes (pre super shoes)

The session was 3 x (5 x 300 m)

Rest was 100 m walk between reps and I think 5 min between sets

We ran indoors on a 200 m circuit

Times (according to my coach) was 45 sec to 51 secs. We used to start with 50+ and finish with 45-47 secs. If I remember correct.

So very similar. At that time I was in 1.55/4.05 shape (maybe a bit slower due to the fact that it was "base training phase" - in the winter, January-February i think).

Anyways, she should definitely be ready to deliver some interesting (top notch) times, given her training record.

You presume all athletes with doping products in them are innocent?

If i recall, i said if she ate a greasy, wild uncastrated pork burrito with synthetic nandrolone in it, she would need to eat 3 greasy, wild uncastrated pork burritos with synthetic nandrolone in them to get to the levels of the dope in her sample. It doesn't really matter, I don't think there's any way she got a pork burrito after she ordered a beef burrito, and she would not eat a greasy burrito because she is a super nice skinny record-setting runner that wouldn't put that crap in her body.

Let's set up a simple balance scale:

On one side is a little receipt for a beef burrito. <≠>

on the other other is a positive test mere hours after that beef burrito truck meal, A and B samples, for a doping drug; a super nice skinny record-setting runner with friends that say she ate a greasy burrito; the runner's coach who has never heard of the drug; the runner's world-renowned tainted-food doping defense lawyer who figures the greasy burrito must actually be pork; the runner's world-renowned tainted-food doping defense lawyer who figures the greasy burrito must actually be 100% wild uncastrated boar; and the wild uncastrated boar was infested with synthetic nandrolone...which side of the scale plops to the table top?

Actually rather well over 10 greasy burritos. The 3 was just the factor between the max of the study and her value.

It turns into 10 when you add that her 🌯 was much smaller, she ate only 2/3 of it, and the max of that story was after 5ish hours, and decreased to 1 ng/ml after 10 hours - her alleged time frame.

Then add a not quantified factor because her pig was only 6-7 months old, and the ones in the study were fully matured, 3 years of age.

Then remember that it was synthetic nandro, and her 🌯 🌯 joke turns into one of the most ridiculous excuses ever.

That's why Team Shelby is now claiming sabotage - they just haven't told all their PR trolls yet.

Beautiful! 👏👏👏💯

That is essentially what I said the first time -- you accepted pork for the sake of discussing three burritos. This doesn't mean I said you accepted pork otherwise.

This looks like you have a good foundation for baseless speculation. The next step to establishing intentional doping with a synthetic substance is to provide some evidence, e.g. that she purchased a nor-steroid precursor (recall the receipt says beef burrito), or an empty bottle in the trash. For example, a recent receipt would easily be interpreted as the likely source, as well as evidence of intent.

Currently, we have only seen testimony (and concesssions) for soy fed intact boar -- which could be as old as 8-9 months due to delays in slaughter -- and literature that suggests as little as 14 grams of offal will give the values that WADA says are "usual" "in the low 10 ng/ml range", and the soy will invalidate the measure used to determine exogenous ("synthetic").

There was no evidence that she purchased any banned product, e.g. from Amazon, nor any estimation of the likelihood that any endurance would take small doses of steroids orally. If we apply the same approach, this alternative explanation presupposes a cascade of improbabilities whose composite probability is near zero. It is exactly zero, if she never purchased any such product.

If we put all the evidence on the scales -- on one side all the evidence of soy-fed pork, and on the other side, all the evidence of a pseudo-engodenous oral nor-steroid precursor, we find that the scale only tips towards pork because the other side is still empty.

The result of the process is that the source was not identified to any standard, which works against the athlete due to the presumptions.