1 year since Shelby Ban: What have we learned?

of course she lied, she told a whopping great big one about a pork burrito. no one is stupid enough to believe that nonsense. Not even WADA. She lied cause she wanted to be like the thousands of other innocent athletes that get busted because of contamination. I don’t know why she wanted to be like them though cause contamination is not a defense so why lie Shelby? Why pay Twoggle (Keith) to write a big long pig blog to support the lie?

contamination never considered by bad WADA, ever. not even once. So Shelby told the big pig offal lie for nothing

Of course she did not lie!

Read the CAS decision.

A read of the WADA code would also stop you being so so mistaken.Try a read.

Wada test thousands on non professionals and I saw a major soccer game where they paid no regards to what water bottles they all swooped about.

Nados say that drug testing requirements should be the same as in basic life and thus not buying a cow which you would still not have clue what it was fed.

you can’t trust what CAS and WADA say. they are evil. the system is designed so they don’t have to call her a liar but every reasonable person knows she lied.

someone should have told her that contamination is not a defence though, maybe that Twoggle/Keith guy, cause then she’d just be a drug cheat instead of a liar and a drug cheat.

She never said contamination was a defence.

Nor is she a liar or been found guilty of cheating.

Do read stuff.

If they can’t be trusted then perhaps they manipulated the results; easily done.

so now you trust CAS and WADA even though they are evil organisations that can’t be trusted cause they just want to make money?

she cheated, she lied, she paid Toggle/Keith to write nonsense even though contamination is not a defence

according to Twoggle/Keith the results came from contaminated pork. but because contamination isn’t a defence and Twoggle/Keith is paid shill she is still considered a drug cheat just like thousands of other innocent athletes that suffer the same fate every day.

She did not lie nor was she found guilty of cheating.

Why make things up ?

She lied about pig burrito and cheated by doping. fact.
I don’t make this up. I’m not Twoggle/Keith.
contamination not even a defence so why bother? big fuss about pork for no reason.

She did not lie; she was not found guilty of cheating . I don’t make this up , it is all contained in the CAS decision.

There is good reason to plea contamination.Do read the Wada Code.

Why do you post when you have not read about the subject.

she screwed up her micro dosing.
she screwed up her authentic Mexican defence.
she tried to blame it on the system.

cheated, lied, busted, banned

Much more complicated than your inelegant tirade would suggest.

When Lance Armstrong was on top of the world in 2005, I truly believed he would never be caught. He would never admit to what he did. He was going to go down in history as the GOAT.

Watching him on Oprah in 2013 was truly one of the most satisfying sports moments. It was sad, of course, but we know doping is happening. Seeing him finally face up to what he did proved that we can get there.

I really hope Shelby comes clean. I really hope that this is figured out. I'm not looking to humiliate Shelby further--but she IS doing this to herself by continuing to lie. It's important for the sport to understand how this happened. Where did she get the nandrolone from? Who gave it to her? Was it a cocktail? How did that get to her? Is there someone supplying this stuff to other athletes along with Shelby? How does it work?

I'm not operating from a place of "but whaaa if she's innocent". She's simply not. And what has always been hard to accept is the notion that she "doesn't know where it came from!" She. Knows. Where. It. Came. From. Nandrolone of that amount doesn't just find its way into your system. She absolutely knows how it got there.

Why does she know?

And that tiny amount can be there without intent.

A whereabouts athlete on nandrolone …. come on!

post.spmailtechn.com

First athlete to fall foul of Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act banned

@insidethegames

Sabina Allen has been sentenced to a four-year period of ineligibility by the United States Anti-Doping Agency after testing positive for two banned s...

Link:http://post.spmailtechn.com/f/a/VZcAR9...

This is what a drug bust on a whereabouts athlete looks like.

These are not facts. "Cheating" and "lying" were made up by fans.

The question is whether you are operating from the right place.

I always think that "but but but ... because Lance" is one of the biggest signs of a failing argument. It's analogous to Godwin's law -- eventually someone will say "but I was fooled by Lance, so based on these credentials, you can trust me now to know the real truth."

That is partly why I say the WADA Code is broken, because it treats Shelby like Lance.

You really hope Shelby comes clean? What makes you think she was untruthful? The CAS didn't say that. The CAS did not because they cannot support such a conclusion from all of the facts and evidence. That suggestion only comes from fans without more facts who think they know better what the real truth is -- apparently on the basis that they were fooled before.

The CAS only found a failure to establish non-intent on the balance of probability. This was not a confirmation of the AIU's "near-zero" probability, but a finding of "less than 50%" likelihood that she proved the source with "specific and concrete elements". The problem with the AIU's "near-zero" argument is that people misunderstand what the "near-one" probabilty is. The "near-one" probability is that these pork eaters across the US test negative -- which doesn't apply to Houlihan's case. Some small "near-zero" fraction of those pork eaters who would test negative from pork, may test positive from another source. But most of them, with "near one" probability, will also test negative. By the same argument, testing positive for nandrolone, at those levels and isotopes, is also a "near-zero" probability event, as most athletes do not test positive for nandrolone, in that low amount, with a "pseudo-endogenous" isotope.

Researchers have known for decades that nandrolone -- of the small amount in question here, and with these pseudo-endogenous isotopes -- can come from pork. Prof. McGlone said that boars can slip past inspectors and into the market. WADA tells us that pork offal can produce values in the "low less than 10 ng/ml range", and occasionally much higher (as high as 130-160 ng/ml). WADA also tells us that the varying diets can produce a wide range of isotope values, making a GC/C/IRMS unusable for determining the endogenous/exogenous origin.

Houlihan's problem was two-fold: 1) "strict liability" means that, in an anti-doping process, there is no benefit of the doubt, and any uncertainty works against her bid to reduce or waive her sanction, and 2) many of the fans of the sport, including many who were fooled by Lance, don't understand that between certain guilt, and certain innocence, there is a group in the middle where the facts are lacking and cannot produce certainty. The WADA Code removes that ambiguity by pretending it doesn't exist.

It pretends that this middle ground does not exist as to admit such would be a huge administrative burden and financial cost.

In basic society strict liability is not allowed to be a reason to find the innocent guilty so as to make it easier to prosecute the guilty.