How does Shelby’s positive test shape your view of BTC?

Btc shell corp · 2022-03-19T05:31:15-04:00

I’ll give a couple multiple choice options but I’m mostly looking forward to the discussion that follows.A) Shelby’s innocent, so nothing changes.B) Shelby’s one bad apple, so nothing changes.C) I was not skeptical before, but I’m skeptical now.D) I was skeptical before, and I’m (still/more) skeptical now.For me, it’s D. I was skeptical before and I’m more skeptical now. The difference is, the original source of my skepticism was mostly based on the fact that I think all professional runners have the ability to cheat coupled with Jager’s likely doping leak.Now, Shelby’s weak excuse that was shot down by 2-3 different groups of experts, Jerry’s stance that he’s some naive coach (allegedly didn’t know what he was doing sending his athletes to Dr. Brown, allegedly never heard of nandrolone). Also, no one in the group has spoken out and the group is still letting her train. The optics of it all look extremely bad. Not to mention, the group has had the most outlier improvements seemingly in history in the last few years. Would love to get a pulse of the board on this.

Pro News/Info/Results Professional Training

Reply New New Thread

Moderation Moderation Information Moderation Information & Rules

Page 7 of 11

1 6 7 8 11

Next Last

4 years ago 04/02/2022 11:20am EDT

re: Chuby chappy

Chuby chappy wrote:
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.

1) I just cited CAS commenting on the elevated androgen levels. Are you just trolling for the fun of it? Did you also not see my reference to 107?

Here, for the 27th time:

The Claimant submits that the meat of a cryptorchid pig does not have elevated androgen levels but that the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples did contain elevated androgen levels.

Will you now stop denying her elevated androgen levels, and apologize for your ongoing lies that I am making that up? Of course not. You will play the same game over and over again.

2) There was no special time delay in notifying Houlihan. The sample was taken on December 15, which was then analyzed, and the doper was notified on January 14. The story with Valieva is very different.

4 years ago 04/02/2022 12:08pm EDT

casual obsever wrote:
Chuby chappy wrote:
109 and 107 have nothing to do with her androgens being raised,nothing, nowt, zilch, sweet f all.
You are either an utter liar or an utter incompetent; you decide.
What? Which 107 and 109 are you looking at?
107. The Claimant submits that the meat of a cryptorchid pig does not have elevated androgen levels but that the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples did contain elevated androgen levels. Therefore, even if the Athlete ate the meat of a cryptorchid pig (which to the Claimant is highly unlikely), it could not explain her reported androgen levels. Prof. McGlone gave evidence on behalf of the Claimant. His evidence on this point may be summarized as follows:
109. The Panel notes that the above evidence submitted by the Claimant remains in essence uncontested. The evidence presented by Dr Strahm was not very substantiated and does not alter the onus of proof, i.e. that is for the Respondent to show that her explanation of the analytical results is more likely than not. 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. The Panel – on a balance of probabilities – is not ready to accept this.
This is like stealing candy from a baby. Good bye.

You had made reference to her other raised androgen levels. There is no evidence

The metabolites found were not from her own production; that is the whole basis of the case against her.

109 refers to the androgens in the pork not her.You must have realised this and thus you have mislead to the point of lying.

4 years ago 04/02/2022 12:14pm EDT

casual obsever wrote:
Chuby chappy wrote:
109 and 107 have nothing to do with her androgens being raised,nothing, nowt, zilch, sweet f all.
You are either an utter liar or an utter incompetent; you decide.
What? Which 107 and 109 are you looking at?
107. The Claimant submits that the meat of a cryptorchid pig does not have elevated androgen levels but that the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples did contain elevated androgen levels. Therefore, even if the Athlete ate the meat of a cryptorchid pig (which to the Claimant is highly unlikely), it could not explain her reported androgen levels. Prof. McGlone gave evidence on behalf of the Claimant. His evidence on this point may be summarized as follows:
109. The Panel notes that the above evidence submitted by the Claimant remains in essence uncontested. The evidence presented by Dr Strahm was not very substantiated and does not alter the onus of proof, i.e. that is for the Respondent to show that her explanation of the analytical results is more likely than not. 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. The Panel – on a balance of probabilities – is not ready to accept this.
This is like stealing candy from a baby. Good bye.

Don't you mean like stealing candy from a baboon?

4 years ago 04/02/2022 12:22pm EDT

re: Shtcoin gambler

Shtcoin gambler wrote:
Isn’t BTC bitcoin aka one of the many shtcoin

YouTube.com

One shitcoin for another shitcoin

1thousandx

https://twitter.com/1thousandxhttps://www.instagram.com/onethousandx/https://soundcloud.com/1thousandx

Watch on YouTube

ponzi games, casino games

4 years ago 04/02/2022 12:33pm EDT

re: casual obsever

casual obsever wrote:
Taro wrote:
Who besides Lawson has Greene "managed to get off"? He wasn't even able to make a persuasive case out of the fact that WADA had previously warned its labs about steroids and dietary pork intake. That tells me he's incompetent.
It's not Greene's fault that Shelby was caught with synthetic nandro, and too much nandro to have come from stomach muscle, and other too high androgen levels (pointing to a designer cocktail). Open and shut case.
By the way, looking for "relevant prohormones" is hardly a "trick." It's science. Hence the adjective "relevant."

Exactly my point. They really should have done that.
How do you call then "not checking for the relevant prohormones"? I call that a trick.
WADA screwed up and vilified an innocent athlete, Houlihan.

Is this a joke?

Here you refer to and other raised androgens pointing to designer drugs.
It is this I have been asking you for evidence and you have provided non.

Non I say.

4 years ago 04/02/2022 12:36pm EDT

re: Chuby chappy

Did she pay for steroid with the shtcoin wallet (hot wallet or cold wallet)

4 years ago 04/02/2022 2:11pm EDT

Chuby chappy wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Don't you mean like stealing candy from a baboon?

Another sly racist jibe from the the poster who proudly adopted links that said he uses racist terms.

4 years ago 04/02/2022 2:23pm EDT

re: Btc shell corp

Btc shell corp wrote:
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.

Emotions? Cute. You missed my point: how valid can your point be, if it is based on wrong information?

Indeed, the amount above a threshold was why she got the ban, but you said the amount was a factor in deciding "accidentally". It was not.

The burden of establishing "not intentional" is on the athlete, regardless, before any question of likelihood.

According to a study by one of the AIU experts, it is possible to "accidentally" ingest more than 20x the amount of nandrolone found in Houlihan's urine, from eating pork parts.

4 years ago 04/02/2022 2:25pm EDT

re: Btc shell corp

Btc shell corp wrote:
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.

This was a summary of the AIU's argument -- one of the parties in dispute.

4 years ago 04/02/2022 3:08pm EDT

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
Btc shell corp wrote:
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.
This was a summary of the AIU's argument -- one of the parties in dispute.

We have seen quoting from the prosecution and pretending it is the actual words of the panel many many times Now this is cheating.

4 years ago 04/02/2022 3:12pm EDT

rekrunner wrote:
First team all ugly wrote:
She took a ped, got caught, and couldn't prove her bullsh t lie. How is this not cheating?
When do we consider something cheating?
According to the definition of cheating, in order to be considered cheating, you need to establish that 1) she acted dishonestly, and 2) for the purpose of gaining an advantage.
No one has established either element yet.

Correct.

She did not lie; she provided her supposition about what the ate well over a month after the test. Wada mucked the results management system up but no sanctions for them.

Page 7 of 11

1 6 7 8 11

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.

Real Runners, Real Reviews

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.

What shoe are you reviewing?

Rate your shoe

Overall Rating

Appearance

Comfort

Cushioning

Durability

Value

I would buy this shoe again

Yes No

Would you buy this shoe again?

One-line review. Optional. Your written review provides information to readers that numbers can't.

Email Optional. Required for t-shirt drawing.

Real runner reviews • Community-powered rankings

How does Shelby’s positive test shape your view of BTC?

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

How does Shelby’s positive test shape your view of BTC?

Jump To A Page

Follow casual obsever

Block casual obsever

Follow Armstronglivs

Block Armstronglivs

Follow Shtcoin gambler

Block Shtcoin gambler

Follow Sh|tc0in gambler

Block Sh|tc0in gambler

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Follow rekrunner

Block rekrunner

Jump To A Page

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.

Real Runners, Real Reviews