An elegant solution to the Shelby suspension problem

I’ll admit it’s not the ratio I was going for, but 19 is still better than none, which is what was claimed.

I’m also pleased to see that so many people were interested in reading my proposal.

In letsrun this ratio is a good sign. Almost nobody thinks anything before voting.

Did you get tired of liking your own post after 19 times?

Your question makes no sense. It’s not possible to like a post more than once.

It may be difficult to believe, but not everyone thinks the way you do. Whereas many people here embrace a rabid mob mentality when it comes to Shelby, there are some of us who are independent thinkers and who uphold principles like fairness and consistency of punishments.

How desparate, but predictable, to attack me when you feel your strategy of false arrogance failing.

I never "apologize" for any athlete doping with intent to improve performance, against the rules, nor any coach/agent/manager/husband/doctor/pharmacist/etc. doping an athlete with the same intent.

In Shelby's case, it was well within the rules for the WA/AIU to treat her result as an ATF, and target test her for a result with increased certainty. Intellectually, it would be much different if the WA/AIU had built a case for intentional doping "based on specific and concrete elements" to an intellectual standard stronger than a presumption of intentional doping with an exogenous banned substance.

19 likes? Covid-19? 19-NA/19-nor-DHEA? Coincidence?

Shelby's androsterone ERC ratio: -19.0‰

Where is a qualified numerologist when you need one?

When I read the thread title I thought it was about this car and problems with the suspension:

caranddriver.com

2022 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Review, Pricing, and Specs

Despite performance numbers that rival exotic sports cars, the Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 is easy to live with, making it equal parts pony car and thrill ride.

Open link

Your proposal was to let her compete this year, a year before her ban has concluded. That is reducing the effect of her ban. An athlete doesn't get exceptions made for them, which is what you are arguing for in her case. Hence your username, "Let Shelby compete" - and compete before her ban is up. If you weren't arguing for a reduction in her ban then you have no "proposal" to make. Making her catch up the last year of the ban after the Olympics reduces the effect of the ban, which is served continuously. It won't happen. It is a misplaced proposal on two counts - she isn't innocent and there is no quota on how many Olympic competitions an athlete may miss as a result of a ban. The overwhelming vote on this board is against what you suggest. For obvious reasons.

You continue to show that you are a doping apologist. You can't help yourself.

The overwhelming vote on this board is against all your behavior. For obvious reasons.

You obviously can't read or are flat out lying. his second sentence clearly shows his stance.

It's obviously both.

Although not true it wouldn't bother me if it was. I'm not making a proposal that I wish others to endorse, as the OP is. P*ssing people off like you I consider a bonus.

No, it doesn't. Saying he doesn't apologise for dopers is like Trump saying he's a "stable genius" and "loves" black people.

I guess I lost you at "intellectually":

Intellectually, it would be much different if the WA/AIU had built a case for intentional doping "based on specific and concrete elements" to a standard stronger than presumption.

It did. A presumption didn't determine her guilt. Her failure to rebut it, for the lack of evidence, did. But you can't intellectually follow the inferences that follow from the evidence before the Court - as well as the lack of evidence by the defence. You are also intellectually incapable of understanding that after a positive test the onus necessarily moved to the defendant to show legitimate cause or lack of fault for the banned substance in her system - she couldn't - and not for WA to prove how it got there and where it might have come from. WA, CAS and the sport understand how it works but you can't. That would mean your accepting CAS came to the right conclusion - impossible for a doping denier.

If "it did", then it should be a simple matter for you, or anyone, to point to the relevant paragraphs in the CAS decision where the WA/AIU built a case for intentional doping "based on specific and concrete elements" to a standard stronger than presumption.

Until then, none of your tossed lawyer buzzword salad makes any sense.

Exceptions should be made for exceptional circumstances.

Bans are framed in terms of years. My proposal still has her serving the same number of years.

Is there anyplace in the AIU rulebook that says the 4 years have to be served consecutively? I looked and couldn’t find it.

My proposal wasn’t based on guilt or innocence. Even if she’s guilty, she should receive fair treatment and a punishment that’s consistent with what other guilty people have received.

The intent of the penalty is to miss one Olympic year. Missing two goes against the documented history behind the intent of the rule.

I recognize there is a rabid mob mentality against Shelby. Doesn’t mean the mob is right.