Shelby making 10000 record attempt at the Ten

+1

It's also a relative soft AR, compared both to the 5,000 and the men's time differences:

W 5,000 m: AR 14:19.45, WR 13:58.06, diff. 21 s

W 10,000 m AR 30:03.82, WR 28:54.14, diff. 70 s

M 5,000 m: AR 12:45.27, WR 12:35.36, diff. 10 s

M 10,000 m: AR 26:33.84, WR 26:11.00, diff 23 s

This is a thread about a convicted doper and as such it has drawn the attention of a certain troll who does nothing but deny her doping. To point this out results in a post deletion for "encouraging violence"!!. What a total load of sh*te. The first half dozen pages were all about Houlihan's doping offence. But those posts all remain. The hypocrisy of this place and those who purport to administer it beggars belief. Clearly, they support American dopers.

Pot calling kettle black

Hardly. I don't seek to excuse convicted dopers. Nor do I celebrate their attempted come-back, as this thread tries to do.

No, you do the opposite and accuse nearly everyone of doping.

Houlihan was doping in 2021; I 100% believe that. She was caught and banned for four years. She served her ban and is now eligible to compete. I am actually impressed that she stuck with it for all that time and came back to win a World Indoor silver. Many people would have walked away from the sport and moved down a different pathway in life.

Huddle didn't have superspikes either.

She will never regain her credibility as a bona fide competitor. That's what a confirmed doping violation means. You might choose to ignore that stain but others won't. Some here argue there should be life-bans for doping.

My own view about doping has been recently expressed by the former head of WADA. He says dopers are getting away with it. That means we are watching a seriously compromised sport. Nothing can be trusted.

We was told Joy Cheptoyek was gonna be part of this; what happened? Because she wasn't there.

Once convicted, always suspicious.

If you put Shelby in shoes of "the day" Huddle might lap her.

Sorry. I’m not excited that a doper thay ran for the state sanctioned doping program (Nike) ran fast race.

This hypothesis also requires more assumptions and several leaps into astronomically unlikely chains of causes.

In any case, Occam's Razor is a tool for selecting a preferred starting point to investigate with the fewest unknowns, and not a tool of "rigorous arbiter between candidate models".

Proof by Occam's Razor is essentially another fallacy.

The CAS clearly laid out the sequential nature of their decision making process (see how 57 frames the rest of the report with sections A and B and C answering questions 57A, 57B, and 57C). This is a straight line going from A to B to C, with no spin.

If you want to eliminate "doubt" and strictly use the words of the CAS, then we must also conclude from paragraph 84 that a minority of the Panel finds that the Respondent either rebuts the presumption that the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL, or rebuts the presumption that the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM, or both.

If this weren't the case, the majority findings in 84 would also have been unanimous rather than majority findings.

Paragraph 119 does nothing to undo or reverse this minority opinion. In fact, nothing inside the CAS report, or outside of the CAS report, undoes or reverses this minority opinion.

If 119 had persuaded the minority panelist to change their mind in 84, the report would have not gone out of the way to say that 84 was just a "majority" opinion.

Furthermore, their is conflicting testimony before the CAS undermining 119: Prof. McGlone testified the increase of soy in the diets, which would alter the CIR to be "consistent with" "commercial pork"; and Prof. Ayotte found a similar CIR of -22.43 (note Prof. Ayotte testified to the CAS values range from -18.5 to -21) from one out of three volunteers measured in Prof. Ayotte's "Guay et. al" study, from local Canadian boar, without increased soy in the diets. (Note that Prof. McGlone also testified that pigs in the USA and Canada have similar diets in 115, as did Prof. Ayotte in 116).

It is unpersuasave to argue, in light of this conflicting and/or contradictory expert advise, that the CAS finding "completely destroys the burrito theory". In fact, the CAS only uses it to measure the theory against "more likely than not".

Just like in the movie "Minority Report", I think the minority got it right in paragraph 84. My conclusion is that the WADA Lab failed to demonstrate that the nandrolone was not of endogenous origin, to the higher standard required. And failing that, the WA/AIU cannot meet their burden to show that this positive test constitutes an ADRV, to the higher standard required.

This still presumes that the ADRV was "properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM."

"Must be deemed" isn't a very strong finding. In this case, "intent" was never established, but rather presumed and then unrebutted to the burden required, because Houlihan failed to establish the source.

Judge Jean-Paul Costa told WADA that "such proof [how the substance entered the body] is difficult to provide", later calling it "an impossible proof". The CAS Panel was aware of this.

The CAS Panel's hands are tied. Much about the CAS's decisions are imposed with the awkward way the WADA Code frames the questions, and presumes the worst to eliminate burdens on the anti-doping organizations, and then assigns burdens on the accused to prove the opposite.

Proof by Rekrunner never actually materializes. You could see your wife in bed with the neighbor guy and you would assume that they were just taking a nap together.

I was at the meet last night. 600m in, I told my friends "There won't be an AR tonight." Houligan was already 20m+ ahead of the field but was not tight on the pacers. Presumably, the pacers would go a maximum of 5k, then she would be on her own. One pacer stopped at 2k, the other at 3k, then Houligan immediately began to fall behind the lights. She ran a good effort solo, but it was not really close to the AR.

She served her ban and is legally eligible to run. However, after being caught doping every performance of an athlete's life is in question, before and after. There is no way to know how long she was doping. There is no way to know if that doping affects their ability now due to long term effects of getting stronger by cheating. This assumes they are clean now, which is a big question mark for someone who was willing before.

It surely doesn't when the "prosecution" is permitted by "law" to presume facts not in evidence without requiring proof.

Eye-witness testimony would be something specific and concrete. In this case, all of the eye-witnesses saw her purchase and eat a greasy burrito. No eye-witness saw her purchase and/or take an oral nandrolone supplement. The equivalent here would be the husband finding the bed unmade, and jumping to conclusions based on nationwide probabilities and reasons for unmade beds rather than considering specific and concrete elements.

But if the WADA Lab failed to comply with WADA's ISL, and/or the WA/AIU failed to comply with WADA's ISRM, asking what caused the alleged AAF and alleged ADRV would be premature and a moot point.

Didn't you say you passed the bar?

We discussed back on page 3 whether we can say she was "convicted" -- a term usually applicable in criminal trials.

The CAS does not require an unanimous decision.

The burrito story that Foolagain ('s presumptuous lawyer) concocted was unbelievably idiotic. Must be is very strong, as in, there is no other way.
Anywho, back on topic: Not Even Close