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

Which actions? Ordering and eating a greasy burrito? These don't require any excusing.

She will run like a semi-pro for the rest of her career.

As documented in detail by the CAS, they determined this based on presumptions, rather than establishing as fact any knowingly wrong action by Houlihan.

Were they supposed to follow her around her whole life.

The question was "which action"? If it is a "presumed" action, there is no reason to think that it ever happened.

No reason to think that someone banned for intentional doping actually doped?

You gotta be either the worst troll or the most delusional drug cheat apologist ever. Or both.

Nice deflection. But the point is that you always argue in favor of the doper, even in this case here, where CAS had several unanimous decisions against her. One of those would have been enough to ban her for intentional doping. Yet in each and every one of these clear-cut decisions you argue and argue and argue that CAS got it wrong without actually any real arguments aside from your crazy often repeated delusional conspiracy theories of corrupt experts.

So much for you pointing out "facts" and fighting "myths" - the opposite is true - you were laughing out loud when you wrote that, right?

Except for the difficult to explain away presence of a banned substance in her body. She couldn't. Ergo, she doped.

Cheaters don't volunteer how they cheated.

Again, I was accused of excusing an "action". No one seems to be able to specify which "action" I am allegedly excusing.

But since you bring up reasons, the CAS gave us their reasons for their decision of "doping" and deeming it "intentional": two presumptions.

So you cannot say which "action" I am allegedly excusing.

Hmmm, deflection -- we were originally talking about the bases of the CAS decisions being presumptions rather than conclusive evidence, and now you are the one who changed the subject, I guess in order to avoid discussing the merits, or to muddy my message, or to feel better about clinging to your myths, and you accuse me of deflection.

Recall above I said that my evidentiary bar is much higher than the WADA Code, and therefore higher than the CAS'. This is the main difference. I do not make the same presumptions because I am not subject to the WADA Code. I am a subject of the scientific method, whose only presumption is the null hypothesis -- nothing is true until proven empirically. Every presumption is eventually subject to empirical scrutiny.

The weight of truthfulness in any and all of the CAS decisions is not that other people with titles said it, or that it was codified by WADA lawyers, but the extent to which there is specific and concrete evidence supporting it. The CAS opinions are just that, opinions and not facts. If there are no supporting facts (i.e. "intent"), the opinions are baseless and therefore meritless. Myths.

Your statement that "one of these would have been enough to ban her for intent" is flawed in several ways, but essentially only confirms that the evidentiary bar for banning an athlete for intentional doping is nonexistent. All of these intermediate decisions are similarly based on presumptions, i.e. baseless opinion.

Because the evidentiary bar is so low, I'm not sure yet which doper I have ever "argued for", if any. The WADA Code permits so many shortcuts that the umbrella of athletes considered "dopers" under a combination of expanded definitions and the lack of burden of proof, becomes much wider than the number of truly genuine dopers. I only argue when there is ambiguity in the evidence.

In this case of Houlihan, she is merely a vehicle in the larger argument against a balance of justice that is tilted against all charged athletes regardless of guilt or innocence, being presumed guilty unless they can establish otherwise based on "specific and concrete elements".

You asked why I spend so many words on Houlihan versus Wilson + Lawson + Knighton + Asinga + Jeruto + Decker + Lagat + Bol, if the message is really about a defective process in need of reform. This is mainly a product of the number of threads on these athletes. There have been maybe a hundred threads so far about Houlihan, while there are only a handul of threads about these other athletes. But rest assured, I consistently make the same arguments about the flaws in the process in these other threads too.

Why is anyone continuing to argue with the brick wall that is rekrunner?

Is anyone actually arguing with me? I often get the impression that we are arguing past each other.

Her doping.

That's because you can see nothing beyond your defense of a convicted doper.

That hasn't been established yet with conclusive evidence.