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

Only to a doping denier.

Most of the posters on this website have been conditioned to not care about conclusive evidence.

You must be one of them.

Lucky for you that you invented this weird soundbite giving you something unclever to post when you really have nothing worth posting.

Back on page 4, one week ago, we started discussing whether the evidence was "conclusive", and the challenge was laid out to "post the valid evidence, which no one has ever done on here".

The intellectual challenge to all you conclusive evidence believers is to simply post the evidence, and make the case to its conclusion, but most importantly, without presuming the conclusion.

The AIU did not do it, and could not do it, and the CAS explained to us that its decisions were based on presumptions that fill the evidentiary gaps, and the appeals courts said that the rules allow decisions based on presumptions.

No one has succeeded in this basic intellectual challenge. Not just here this past week but not anywhere and not ever. This includes "WADA, AIU, WA, CAS, the Swiss Supreme Court, Tucker, and Tygart etc."

However, inconclusive evidence is not a barrier to giving bans as the rules and procedures permit anti-doping bodies to ban athletes based on inconclusive evidence combined with presuming the conclusion.

Sadly it is not limited to just this website.

As the CAS decision shows, you're their leader.

This is about the 4001st time you have blathered on with saying essentially the same wrong thing.

Nothing beats your 33,646 times blathering on with saying essentially the same wrong things.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. But good use of the big word "intellectual". Hahaha

Several people have shown that the evidence was conclusive; your babbling about the WADA Code and the TDxyz has nothing to do with that. As expected, you failed to provide any actual argument to the contrary.

Here a definition for you (even for "clear and convincing evidence"):

law.cornell.edu

clear and convincing evidence

Wex - clear and convincing evidence

Open link

“Clear and convincing evidence” is a medium level burden of proof which must be met for certain convictions/judgments. This standard is a more rigorous to meet than preponderance of the evidence standard, but less rigorous standard to meet than proving evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The clear and convincing evidence standard is employed in both civil and criminal trials.
According to the Supreme Court in Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984), "clear and convincing” means that the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. In other words, the fact finder must be convinced that the contention is highly probable.

"highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue"

"In other words, the fact finder must be convinced that the contention is highly probable."

Get it? Doesn't even have to be beyond reasonable doubt (which it clearly was here though (although not required)).

Yes I know, the WADA Code only requires "preponderance" - meaning the fact alone, that the pig meat (IF she had pig which wasn't proven) more likely than not did not come from an uncastrated boar, was enough for the guilty verdict, but there was so much more additional evidence in this particular case - see the several following sub-decisions in the CAS report that made it at minimum "highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue" that the drug did not come from the burrito. Even Tygart admitted that!

As there were no other more likely "innocent" (unintentional use) alternatives than that, as even Shelby admitted, it is concluded that she doped intentionally.

Knighton (won at first instance, appeal still to be decided) and Lawson (lost at the first instance, won the appeal) are more interesting examples imho. There, the evidence was not conclusive, but may (might have been/was) enough for a conviction at one level or the other.

Houlihan of course lost everywhere, literally. Thank God she didn't get away because of a technicality.

Another Houlihan-apologist doping-denier weighs in.

160 : 4 votes. Funny how that has changed over the last 8 pages: now there are almost as many pro-doper votes as anti-doper votes, like 3 : 4 or 4 : 3. Looks like most anti-dopers left the thread, but none of the pro-dopers.

I guess the biggest intellectual challenge is understanding the assignment. It's not about rejustifiying CAS decisions based on presumptions, but about recognizing whether the accumulated evidence of "intentional doping" is "conclusive", without first presuming "intentional doping". Your post failed to specify any evidence.

The legal definition of "clear and convincing evidence" doesn't specify which evidence, if any, was considered "clear and convincing", and doesn't establish that the evidence collectively was "conclusive".

With respect to "intent", there simply was no evidence of intent to meet any standard, legal or scientific or otherwise.

With respect to "doping", the CAS panel was of two minds whether the AAF was properly reported and the ADRV properly managed -- because the evidence before the CAS Panel was "inconclusive".

I want to reform. What was in that post that was wrong? Can you be specific? Can you support what is "right" with facts or evidence? Thanks in advance for exposing the outer limits of your knowledge.

The CAS didn't rule that she was a cheater. Who is at fault then, if not the running fans?

Is Dominique still asking about the super shoes?

He did in the podcast.

CAS ruled she is an intentional doper. Only in your world is that not being a cheater. That's not surprising, since you are at least as big a liar as she is.

That's amusing. So you can't support any of your claims with facts or evidence.