Of course there is evidence for "B": the large amount of nandro in her system is the evidence.
That isn't evidence of tampering. It is evidence she took a banned substance. There was NOTHING that showed sabotage, or it would have been argued as a defence.
Of course there is evidence for "B": the large amount of nandro in her system is the evidence.
That isn't evidence of tampering. It is evidence she took a banned substance. There was NOTHING that showed sabotage, or it would have been argued as a defence.
No. The positive test result is only evidence that a very large amount of nando was in her system. Nothing more. How it got there is another story. Doping is not plausible, since it was too large for micro dosing. So the large nando test result either came from tampering, or incorrect lab procedures (forgot to clean equipment), or something else.
It was a low amount, neither a trace amount nor a macro amount.
For years, we've seen hundreds, if not thousands, of posts claiming it wasn't a low amount. Now, when I conclude that absolutely rules out micro-dosing, you reverse course and claim it actually was a low amount. You're changing the facts because you don't like the conclusion they lead to.
The facts are this: the test result was double the allowable amount. That's like driving 130 MPH in a 65 MPH zone and saying "I wasn't going that fast."
She absolutely could not have been micro-dosing. And macro-dosing for an established athlete that was tested every three weeks is absurd. There must be another cause.
Indeed! Yet here you are, trying to change the topic to "pork offal ingestion".
Sorry, Lloyd! The Rekbot is just too funny with her constant self-contradictions.
With all this talk of micro-dosing and macro-dosing and trace amounts and false positives and tainted food and sabotage and tampering and someone requesting to do better, I felt it best to remind everyone of WADA's words: "low" and "usual", applicable to the only scenario presented with corroborating evidence.
Indeed! Yet here you are, trying to change the topic to "pork offal ingestion".
Sorry, Lloyd! The Rekbot is just too funny with her constant self-contradictions.
With all this talk of micro-dosing and macro-dosing and trace amounts and false positives and tainted food and sabotage and tampering and someone requesting to do better, I felt it best to remind everyone of WADA's words: "low" and "usual", applicable to the only scenario presented with corroborating evidence.
Trying to change the topic again? Where did WADA say it "considers it "usual" from pork offal ingestion."? That sounds like your spin, just like your novel "only scenario presented with corroborating evidence", and not at all like a reminder of "WADA's words". Do better.
How about her physical appearance? She looked more like an MMA fighter than a runner.
That's mostly a result of low body fat percentage. Lots of people would look the same way if they reduced body fat down to 2 or 3 percent.
But you're missing the point. If she were micro-dosing, then she would not have had such a large amount of nandro in her system. So she absolutely was not micro-dosing. So if she wasn't micro-dosing, then you must think she was macro-dosing. But that doesn't sense because she would have known she'd be instantly caught and banned. People do not behave that way.
And even if you won't admit all that, and you still think she was macro-dosing, then she would have at least dodged the test like Salwa Naser. Try to grasp that. If she was macro-dosing, she would have dodged the drug test. But she didn't. The only plausible explanation is that someone tampered with her water bottle, or something like it.
It's physically impossible for a female to have a body fat percentage lower than about 10 percent.
Judging by all the athletes that have tested positive through testing, it appears that drugs are not 100 percent consistent in how they clear the body. If she didn't deserve a 4 year ban, then I guess nobody does.
You knew the split second she was busted that she would come back to the gills again to "vindicate" her good name. There has never been a doper in history that returns clean.
With all this talk of micro-dosing and macro-dosing and trace amounts and false positives and tainted food and sabotage and tampering and someone requesting to do better, I felt it best to remind everyone of WADA's words: "low" and "usual", applicable to the only scenario presented with corroborating evidence.
Trying to change the topic again? Where did WADA say it "considers it "usual" from pork offal ingestion."? That sounds like your spin, just like your novel "only scenario presented with corroborating evidence", and not at all like a reminder of "WADA's words". Do better.
I'm not trying to. Are you? This language can be found in the WADA TD2021NA guidance for the WADA approved labs. That is better than anyone else here can do.
It would be a terrible move for Nike to sponsors her, every post gets criticism on Instagram about her cheating so they’d be bringing that on themselves.
You knew the split second she was busted that she would come back to the gills again to "vindicate" her good name. There has never been a doper in history that returns clean.
She's probably clean these days.Not as fast,and much less muscled.Shelby still had to have natural talent in the first place to run 3.54,and 14.23 or whatever she ran in the past. Yes she doped,but the talent still had to be there. Her win in 15.16 tells me shes not on drugs anymore.
That isn't evidence of tampering. It is evidence she took a banned substance. There was NOTHING that showed sabotage, or it would have been argued as a defence.
No. The positive test result is only evidence that a very large amount of nando was in her system. Nothing more. How it got there is another story. Doping is not plausible, since it was too large for micro dosing. So the large nando test result either came from tampering, or incorrect lab procedures (forgot to clean equipment), or something else.
There isn't "another story". The nando didn't just magically materialise in her. Since she couldn't provide an acceptable explanation for how it got into her body she was deemed to have taken the banned substance. Nothing else could be shown. There was zilch evidence of sabotage by others. So that defence wasn't argued. None of your purely speculative arguments were either presented or accepted.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.