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.
No, it doesn't. It simply shows it was a tactical race, not a time trial.
No, it doesn't. It simply shows it was a tactical race, not a time trial.
Exactly. And that’s why the posters who think a runner with the best PB will win a championship are wrong! Those that win are tacticians with a strategy that can be changed depending on how the race develops. It’s obvious that certain women in that field didn’t have that skill regardless of their boasted PBs. A skill that’s hard to learn
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.
No, it doesn't. It simply shows it was a tactical race, not a time trial.
Fair enough but i think she's run 14.45 this year,and a 4.03 1500,or something like that. Tells me,she's either doing it natty,or she's doing less drugs.
And there is zilch evidence that she was doping. There is also zilch evidence that it was not sabotage. All we know is the test result was positive and there is no explanation why. Let's go through the options:
1) Micro-dosing: Not possible: high nando levels.
2) Macro-dosing: Not plausible. She was an established runner with 12 national titles and was tested every three weeks. No way she suddenly starts macro-dosing knowing she'll be caught instantly. And even if she did, she would have simply dodged the test.
3) Sabotage by others. Hasn't been ruled out. How long would it take to swap in a tainted water bottle? Five seconds? And there would no evidence.
4) Contaminated test equipment, or test procedures: Hasn't been ruled out.
And there is zilch evidence that she was doping. There is also zilch evidence that it was not sabotage. All we know is the test result was positive and there is no explanation why. Let's go through the options:
1) Micro-dosing: Not possible: high nando levels.
2) Macro-dosing: Not plausible. She was an established runner with 12 national titles and was tested every three weeks. No way she suddenly starts macro-dosing knowing she'll be caught instantly. And even if she did, she would have simply dodged the test.
3) Sabotage by others. Hasn't been ruled out. How long would it take to swap in a tainted water bottle? Five seconds? And there would no evidence.
4) Contaminated test equipment, or test procedures: Hasn't been ruled out.
If you want to explore all the possible options, ingestion from pork, or from vitamins and supplements hasn't been ruled out. There was also zilch evidence of ingestion from an oral nandrolone preparation, as suggested by the WADA Lab Director.
Now that there will be gene testing, a lot of these supposed dopers will be exonerated when it is found they are outliers with 10% or higher Neanderthal DNA.
Neanderthals are far stronger, faster, and have bigger brains than Cro-magnons. new theory is the cro-magnons beat them out by having dogs. That would really figure, dog owners are idiots but it's hard to fight them with those damn dogs on their side.
It's what led to the CAS decision, which is more relevant than the feeble excuses still being posed on threads like these.
More relevant doesn't mean it's relevant, or relevant here.
The CAS doesn't possess any special or specific knowledge, and they failed to address the most relevant questions.
CAS is a court which heard legal and expert arguments on the evidence. A social media site, as this is, doesn't get near that rigour of enquiry. Your "most relevant questions" are nothing more than your own partial and purely speculative claims. Courts are better than that.
And there is zilch evidence that she was doping. There is also zilch evidence that it was not sabotage. All we know is the test result was positive and there is no explanation why. Let's go through the options:
1) Micro-dosing: Not possible: high nando levels.
2) Macro-dosing: Not plausible. She was an established runner with 12 national titles and was tested every three weeks. No way she suddenly starts macro-dosing knowing she'll be caught instantly. And even if she did, she would have simply dodged the test.
3) Sabotage by others. Hasn't been ruled out. How long would it take to swap in a tainted water bottle? Five seconds? And there would no evidence.
4) Contaminated test equipment, or test procedures: Hasn't been ruled out.
The level of nandrolone in her body is evidence of doping unless she could show legitimate cause for its presence. She couldn't.
The rest of your arguments are unsubstantiated speculation. There was no evidence for any of those suggestions. Since the court didn't accept an argument for accidental contamination - the burrito - she was deemed responsible for the presence of the banned substance in her body. To enter her body it had to be consumed by her. That is why she tried the burrito argument. But the argument didn't wash so she necessarily had to have knowingly put it into her mouth for it to have entered her digestive system. Hence she was found to have committed a doping violation. There were no grounds for an appeal so she remains a convicted doper and nothing you say can change that.
And there is zilch evidence that she was doping. There is also zilch evidence that it was not sabotage. All we know is the test result was positive and there is no explanation why. Let's go through the options:
1) Micro-dosing: Not possible: high nando levels.
2) Macro-dosing: Not plausible. She was an established runner with 12 national titles and was tested every three weeks. No way she suddenly starts macro-dosing knowing she'll be caught instantly. And even if she did, she would have simply dodged the test.
3) Sabotage by others. Hasn't been ruled out. How long would it take to swap in a tainted water bottle? Five seconds? And there would no evidence.
4) Contaminated test equipment, or test procedures: Hasn't been ruled out.
If you want to explore all the possible options, ingestion from pork, or from vitamins and supplements hasn't been ruled out. There was also zilch evidence of ingestion from an oral nandrolone preparation, as suggested by the WADA Lab Director.
There was no evidence for either sabotage or contamination of supplements. If there was her defence would have presented it.
No, it doesn't. It simply shows it was a tactical race, not a time trial.
Fair enough but i think she's run 14.45 this year,and a 4.03 1500,or something like that. Tells me,she's either doing it natty,or she's doing less drugs.
Possibly but none of it changes the fact that she is a convicted doper.
There are those here who try to argue backwards from her latest performance that she wasn't doping when she was busted. It doesn't follow. Nothing she runs today changes the past and her conviction as a doper.
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.
Hahahaha. I was right: it was your spin, not at all "WADA's words". Thank you your admitting that. None of the words "offal", "corroborating", and "evidence" can be found in the WADA TD2021NA guidance for the WADA approved labs. None.
Now you are trying to change the topic again by claiming you used the same "language" as WADA... ROFL.... you are so ridiculous. Everyone else here can 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.
Hahahaha. I was right: it was your spin, not at all "WADA's words". Thank you your admitting that. None of the words "offal", "corroborating", and "evidence" can be found in the WADA TD2021NA guidance for the WADA approved labs. None.
Now you are trying to change the topic again by claiming you used the same "language" as WADA... ROFL.... you are so ridiculous. Everyone else here can do better.
I clearly indicated which words were WADA's with double quotes: "low" and "usual" (they said "usually".)
This meant to replace "trace amount", something I agreed wasn't correct.
I didn't attribute any other words to WADA, although I did paraphrase WADA's "consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs" to the more concise "pork offal ingestion".
More relevant doesn't mean it's relevant, or relevant here.
The CAS doesn't possess any special or specific knowledge, and they failed to address the most relevant questions.
CAS is a court which heard legal and expert arguments on the evidence. A social media site, as this is, doesn't get near that rigour of enquiry. Your "most relevant questions" are nothing more than your own partial and purely speculative claims. Courts are better than that.
These delusions don't contradict anything in my post.
If you want to explore all the possible options, ingestion from pork, or from vitamins and supplements hasn't been ruled out. There was also zilch evidence of ingestion from an oral nandrolone preparation, as suggested by the WADA Lab Director.
There was no evidence for either sabotage or contamination of supplements. If there was her defence would have presented it.
I didn't argue sabotage, or the existence of evidence.