So maybe 72 pace (30:00 10k target), had a camera guy, keeping it secret and releasing the video eventually
Prediction: She ran between ~29:55 and ~30:15 for 10k based on the camera guy's activity 1. He starts his watch around the gun 2. Alternates between walking around and running down the homestretch and backstretch to film 3. On his last run down the homestretch he slows down 29:55 into the activity, though he's behind the finish line
Good analysis - I agree. By around 30:25 into the activity he’s gone to the infield, likely meeting Shelby and others there. So she definitely ran faster than that.
My guess is right around 30 flat since it looks like he approaches the finish line at that point. What’s weird is that he run a few laps clockwise (instead of ccw) a couple times, including at the beginning. That’s odd if he’s following her with the camera
Yeah, actually the timestamps are based on moving time and not elapsed time so maybe disregard that. But we know she was aiming for 30:00 pace and they both seem upbeat about it after, so that's probably about what she ran.
Calling it "cheating" is more like Orwellian doublespeak designed as a rhetorical device to trigger emotions.
Pointing out the inapplicability applies in every case where any dishonest act for the purpose of gaining an advantage has not been established, including many of the athletes you listed.
Fans with bad faith want to call it "cheating" for their own personal reasons, and they want to believe things like "intentional" when, in this case, the CAS lacks sufficient evidence and could not know. WADA doesn't require the CAS to know, in order to treat the violation as "intentional" for the express sole purpose of deciding the length of the sanction.
The CAS also lacked sufficient evidence to "rule out that the nandro came from ... "commercial pork"". Even the AIU experts did not rule it out completely. Again, WADA doesn't require that, for the CAS to reach a determination that "not intentional" was not proved to the required standard by Houlihan.
And here we have the rekrunner/Houlihan equivalent to the argument that Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine, it is merely conducting a "special military operation".
Interesting (but weird) analogy. I guess the euphemism "special military operation" also counts as Orwellian double-speak, as it is not supported by the real-world observable facts and evidence. I agree with your implication that Putin's "doublespeak" is analogous to "fans" using the term "cheating", when the required elements of "dishonesty for the purpose of gaining an advantage" are unsupported by the evidence, and to WADA's "special definition of "intentional"", with the required elements of "athlete conduct" and "athlete knowledge" unsupported by the evidence.
As you like to frequently point out, the limited facts and evidence in this case are enough to establish rule violations and justify a 4-year ban, according to predefined rules codified in a contract written by WADA that require few facts to draw presumed conclusions. Nothing short of rule reform can change that. But these findings are not enough for a few fans, who want to project their own personal bad faith into the interpretation of facts and evidence which do not provide such support. This is bad for the sport.
And here we have the rekrunner/Houlihan equivalent to the argument that Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine, it is merely conducting a "special military operation".
Interesting (but weird) analogy. I guess the euphemism "special military operation" also counts as Orwellian double-speak, as it is not supported by the real-world observable facts and evidence. I agree with your implication that Putin's "doublespeak" is analogous to "fans" using the term "cheating", when the required elements of "dishonesty for the purpose of gaining an advantage" are unsupported by the evidence, and to WADA's "special definition of "intentional"", with the required elements of "athlete conduct" and "athlete knowledge" unsupported by the evidence.
As you like to frequently point out, the limited facts and evidence in this case are enough to establish rule violations and justify a 4-year ban, according to predefined rules codified in a contract written by WADA that require few facts to draw presumed conclusions. Nothing short of rule reform can change that. But these findings are not enough for a few fans, who want to project their own personal bad faith into the interpretation of facts and evidence which do not provide such support. This is bad for the sport.
It has been noted that other sports do not rip themselves up with this dirty cheat stuff that follows from strict liability.
In the second most popular sport on the planet; Cricket; a “ convicted doper” is to be given a State Funeral for his services to his sport and country.
And here we have the rekrunner/Houlihan equivalent to the argument that Russia hasn't invaded Ukraine, it is merely conducting a "special military operation".
Interesting (but weird) analogy. I guess the euphemism "special military operation" also counts as Orwellian double-speak, as it is not supported by the real-world observable facts and evidence. I agree with your implication that Putin's "doublespeak" is analogous to "fans" using the term "cheating", when the required elements of "dishonesty for the purpose of gaining an advantage" are unsupported by the evidence, and to WADA's "special definition of "intentional"", with the required elements of "athlete conduct" and "athlete knowledge" unsupported by the evidence.
As you like to frequently point out, the limited facts and evidence in this case are enough to establish rule violations and justify a 4-year ban, according to predefined rules codified in a contract written by WADA that require few facts to draw presumed conclusions. Nothing short of rule reform can change that. But these findings are not enough for a few fans, who want to project their own personal bad faith into the interpretation of facts and evidence which do not provide such support. This is bad for the sport.
You have your Orwellian double-speak around the wrong way.
"Cheating"=invasion.
"Special military operation"=Shelby is a victim and not a doper.
Pretty sure Shelby wasn’t running 9:30 min miles. So I assume all involved didn’t post this supposed TT and are keeping results private for now
Not only do her times not count for anything, they’re confidential as well? Why would she even bother to run a TT? As for the posters speculating she ran 30:00, I don’t think a banned runner would have the motivation to train hard enough to run that fast.
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.