Shelby podcast today: "I want all the records", wants world record attempt in mile her first race back

She's a doper forever sir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can't believe anybody trusts this garbage and her coach Jerry Schumacher and the entire BTC team!!!!!! Out they go, no more sport for all these cheaters who have never failed a drugs test!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not quite accurate. There was no evidence before the CAS what "route" the nandrolone took, except for the burrito.

There is no doubt the foundational bases for the CAS decisions were in small part evidence, and in the remaining part, presumptions baked into the WADA Code. The CAS make that explicitly clear in their decision. Alleged confirmation by "WADA, AIU, WA, ... the Swiss Supreme Court (which you weirdoes call kangaroo), Tucker, and Tygart etc." cannot rewrite what the CAS clearly says are the bases for their decisions. Did the Swiss Supreme Court even hear the case? Did they rule on the conclusivity of the evidence? I thought they dismissed the appeal. Thanks in advance for their confirmation on the strength of the evidence.

Predictably, to support your inaccuracies, you mistate the presumptions. Presumption #1 is that the positive test was correctly reported by the WADA Lab without a deviation from WADA standards. The CAS Panel was split on that decision, with at least one of the "judges" convinced that a deviation had occurred. This split among the "judges" alone is standalone proof per se that the evidence before it was and is inconclusive (as does the applicable language of the TD2021NA). Presumption #2 is "intentional use/presence". Based on the totality of the evidence, we still cannot say the "nandro" was "synthetic", nor that the source wasn't a greasy burrito. We can only say Houlihan could not collect enough "specific and concrete elements" to meet the required threshold to convince a panel it "more likely than not" was.

Just because it is the "normal procedure" doesn't mean that the decisions based on these "normal" presumptions are the result of "conclusive evidence". The risk of injustice permeates all WADA sports -- that's what makes it so serious (see Tygart's criticisms of the 2015 WADA Code changes).

Your drunk driver analogy fails. Neither the crime nor the punishment of drunk driving hinges on the intent to drink, but on a measure of blood alcohol.

I make these (and similar) arguments where ever the threads pop up. It is others who create the threads. The frequency of Shelby threads over others are not determined by me.

The evidence is conclusive, except to those who have a road block in the cerebral cortex - as you do. Plato had no answer to that.

An exceptional post.

As ambivalent as I remain regarding individual athlete culpability (Asinga, Houlihan etc.), I'm just as torn about USADA/WADA's fundamental oversight philosophy.

I completely understand why athletes bear the burden of "proving" their own innocence after testing positive for a banned substance, but wrongful convictions are an inevitable byproduct.

Without the exculpatory equivalent of e.g., DNA evidence in criminal jurisprudence, maybe we'll never really have to answer the otherwise inevitable questions.

How many false positives is a guaranteed clean sport worth?

What about the sport we actually have?

And just for clarity's sake, why do we care so much about doping to begin with?

Can you help me decide which fallacy, or fallacies you are trying to employ here? I can't decide between "ad hominem", or "appeal to (false) authority", or "appeal to emotion/ridicule", or all of the above.

Getting back to telling the evidence based truth, the CAS makes it expressly clear in their own words that their main findings were not based on conclusive evidence, but rather unrebutted presumptions.

If I'm wrong, surely you could have argued by now with supporting evidence, or produced contradictory evidence, rather than resorting to baseless statements of faith and fallacies.

Speaking of fallacies ... I see "Appeal to authority", and "argument ad populum", seasoned with some implied "Ad Hominem" for good measure.

Getting back to the truth, none of these parties "confirmed" that the "evidence" of intentional exogenous doping was "conclusive".

I appreciate the rare appreciation.

I'm not so sure that "wrongful convictions are an inevitable byproduct", but even if so, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to avoid it by design.

Another follow-up on this point. You are right. There is nothing exclusive or unique about Shelby's case with respect to convictions with insufficient or inconclusive evidence. I have clarified many times that my bigger concern is the process based on presumptions and strict liability that can wrongly ban innocent athletes with ambiguous, insufficient, and/or inconclusive evidence (or worse, no evidence), that is defective and in need of reform.

Their are many known examples of close calls such that the same arguments can be applied to justify reconsideration of many cases, e.g. for Kenyan busts for low amounts of ingested nandrolone, or recent cases like Asinga and Knighton, or potential lab errors in execution and interpretation of EPO results (e.g. Kiprop), or prosecutions/convictions using a standard now considered faulty (e.g. Mary Slaney).

Given what is at stake for athletes, anti-doping bodies must be held to a high standard.

Speaking of fallacies ... I see "Appeal to authority", and "argument ad populum", seasoned with some implied "Ad Hominem" for good measure.

BTW, there were zero inaccuracies as you know. You rephrasing my text in a million more words doesn't make it so.

"at least one of the "judges" " hahahahahahaha. What a troll. Did anyone ever write

"at most one of the "judges" "???

It was one of the judges. And of course that doesn't mean that the evidence was "inconclusive", because she never said what she disliked. Maybe she didn't appreciate that the lab didn't ask for a 2nd opinion (because the case was so crystal clear).

And of course most likely she was wrong - note the fact that she was clearly outvoted - classical appeal to authority from you, now that you finally found someone who agrees in a small part with you.
"standalone proof per se" - it is standalone proof per se that literally all independent experts agree that is wasn't in the burrito. But in your fringe lunatic imagination you always call referring to independent experts "appeal to authority" - unless you are doing it of course.

If you wouldn't keep going on and on and on about clear cut cases like Kiprop and Houlihan, and focus on the real close calls (e.g., Wilson + Lawson + Knighton + Asinga + Jeruto + Decker + Lagat + Bol), and not always argue in favor of the athlete, people might actually listen to you. See whaletail for example. But you keep sabotaging yourself with your trolling for the obvious cheats while blaming the scientists and experts - see your history of upvotes/downvotes.

And your passive-aggressive personal attacks and obnoxious self-praises of your "logic" don't help your case either - see your history of upvotes/downvotes.

In the end, almost everyone agrees with "Given what is at stake for athletes, anti-doping bodies must be held to a high standard.", but, then again, you are sabotaging your own message (if that really is your message, otherwise, keep going).

It's part of their process of self-denial.

Kiprop, Manangoi, Bol, and now Katir and Shelby, all claiming they would come back even stronger to prove they were clean.

Then reality hits.

Every thread that concerns Houlihan is reduced to the same repetitious apologia from rekrunner that seeks to excuse her actions and blame antidoping procedures while raising absolutely nothing that he hasn't said in every other thread about her. It is like visiting an aged relative in a nursing home who repeats the same stories again and again as though they are completely fresh.

Every thread that concerns Jakob Ingebrigtsen is reduced to the same repetitious and ignorant posts from you. It is like visiting an aged relative in a nursing home who repeats the same stories again and again as though they are completely fresh.

You are guilty of the same crap you complain about. The fact that you don't see this just shows how mentally ill you are.

Yes. Army and Recky, two sides of the same coin.

Contrary to "zero inaccuracies as (I) know", I counted at least three inaccuracies in the first paragraph alone.

I don't use the "one judge" to weigh which side is more likely right or wrong, but as a demonstration of the inconclusive outcomes. On the question of whether Houlihan established that the WADA Lab deviated from WADA standards, based on all the evidence before them, the arbitrators within a 3 person panel drew opposite conclusions. On the question of intention, there simply was no evidence before the CAS affirmatively establishing intent.

With respect to "(I) finally found someone who agrees in a small part with you", I see it the other way around. Based on the available evidence, I agreed with the judge who found their was a deviation when reporting the AAF, before there was any charge to have to defend and before triggering any discussion of likelihoods. I also agreed with Prof. McGlone's concession of pigs being fed soy diets in the relevant time period. I also agreed with Profs. McGlone's and Ayotte's testimonies that high concentrations of nandrolone can be found in organs like kidney, testes, heart, and fat.