bumpy bump wrote:
You crack me up. So you did not call the experts "corrupt", but "deceitful" and "dishonest".
And you did not call the panelists "incompetent", but "not competent".
And you "have never once complained about the Mexicans", but wrote in the WJS thread (google often shows how wrong your denials are about your troll posts):
"I don't assume that the food truck owner, the PI, or the receipts, are exhaustive, and don't assume the reasons for these omissions are nefarious, but could be due to other factors like inexperience, lack of time, lack of receipts, and a lack of ability to find the information."
I.e. you are the "anonymous troll" who assumes - completely baselessly out of nowhere, not at all covered by any facts - that the Mexicans were too stupid/inexperienced/incompetent/hasty/... to provide a list of ingredient without screwing it up.
And you prefer to talk about the WADA code, but other posters keep forcing you to talk about the "dishonest" experts and the "not competent" panelists and the "inexperienced" food truck owners and God knows what else. Poor you.
I think you are cracking yourself up. All these quoted words look like you quoting yourself, and notably absent from the quote you found in the WJS (sic) thread.
It is not unexpected that the scientific "experts" for one side of a dispute told the CAS parts of one side of the story. I don't assume it is complete, or exhuastive, or neutral, or even consistent with things they've said elsewhere. One kind of reform is that the CAS should use their own neutral experts, rather than picking a side to believe.
Regarding the competence of a panel of law professors and attorneys at law, I would consult their expertise on points of law, but would not ask them to develop software suites, or repair my car, or perform heart surgery on my mother. To borrow a quote from the great modern day philosopher Scott Adams: "Everyone is an idiot, not just the people with low SAT scores. The only differences among us is that we're idiots about different things at different times. No matter how smart you are, you spend much of your day being an idiot."
The quote you found was one where I denied some assumptions, and mentioned some possibilities. There are no conclusions or assumptions, beyond the assumption of inconclusiveness. When I spoke of inexperience, I was thinking of Team Houlihan preparing for the first time a defense of pork-based nandrolone. When I spoke of lack of ability to find information, I was thinking of the PI's inability to find where in the USA the pigs were slaughtered. When I spoke of a lack of time, I was thinking of the tight deadline to resolve the case in a few short weeks/months before the Olympic trials.
At no point did I assume or assert or conclude that "the Mexicans were too stupid/inexperienced/incompetent/hasty/... to provide a list of ingredient without screwing it up." Again, you are the only "troll" that said anything closely resembling that. I have no way of knowing if the food truck owners were even asked to provide such an ingredient list. This is just you being dishonest, because dishonesty is really your only argument.
Regarding my preferences, your posts here only prove my point. I would prefer to talk about the kinds of WADA Code reform needed to catch guilty athletes without punishing innocent ones who cannot prove it -- also relevant to factors that decided Asinga's case -- but here we are again, talking about Shelby, in an Asinga thread, solely because you brought up a series of false and dishonest allegations against me.