Good thing you said "if". (BTW, she argued "pig offal" and not "pig meat".)
She doesn't admit that in the podcast. She says she is not 100% sure where it came from.
Why should dedicated athletes have ever heard of nandrolone?
I just got pulled over for a DUI. I have one call to make. I call Rekrunner, my attorney. Rekrunner tells them my client has never even heard of alcohol…my client appears to be Amish…is there any proof he was actually driving?
There is no chance of accidental contamination in a DUI and in the Uk if you come up with an allowable defence you do not have a flip burden as in Wada as the police have to disprove your arguments as you don’t have to prove them.
I just got pulled over for a DUI. I have one call to make. I call Rekrunner, my attorney. Rekrunner tells them my client has never even heard of alcohol…my client appears to be Amish…is there any proof he was actually driving?
There is no chance of accidental contamination in a DUI
Of course there is. You could be at a party where you are assured your punch is non alcoholic and somehow you end up unknowingly getting something else.
I've already given you my reaction -- and rather than reading it for comprehension, you not so cleverly reworded it like a child -- I guess out of intellectual insecurity.
The CAS ruling was that she could not establish the source of the nandrolone, on the balance of probability.
This is consistent with Houlihan simply not knowing how it got there. She didn't 100% know then, when she told us that the burrito was the "most likely" explanation. And she still doesn't 100% know now.
There is no change of defense here. Ingestion by burrito during a pandemic remains a possibility, even if she was unable to prove it to 50% likelihood, despite expert estimates that most burritos across America wouldn't cause a positive result in normal times.
Because she doesn't know with 100% certainty, it could have been, and still can be, a burrito, or the vitamins, or sabotage, or any other possibility that still exists she hasn't thought of.
She is the only one in a position to know the probability of steroid pre-cursors, and claims it is not possible (probability=0) because she simply didn't ingest steroid pre-cursors. Prof. Ayotte didn't give us any estimated likelihood of this possibility.
No change of defense? Really? So sabotage is essentially the same as food contamination? Her varying rationale might be more accurately called the "defence of sheer desperation", of anything that she can think of that has no evidence to back it up.
"The CAS ruling was that she could not establish the source of the nandrolone, on the balance of probability.This is consistent with Houlihan simply not knowing how it got there."(quote)
You left out the bit where CAS also concluded she committed an intentional violation - on the same balance of probability. By that measure, her being unable to establish the source of the nandrolone is more consistent with her lying about it than not knowing about. But you will support any excuse she comes up with, no matter how flimsy.
You have put everything thus far into supporting the unproven and unprovable (for her) "possibility" of food contamination; I expect you to now make the same effort to show "possible" sabotage. I am sure if she said she had been abducted by aliens you would go with that, too.
CAS did not conclude she committed an intentional violation. One day you will read the decision and even the Wada code.
There is no chance of accidental contamination in a DUI
Of course there is. You could be at a party where you are assured your punch is non alcoholic and somehow you end up unknowingly getting something else.
Correct; I was more thinking that you would not be positive from an handgel.Sorry.
There is also spiking with date rape drugs that are also Wada banned.But I digress.
What is likely is that she won't run in any meets for some years as she is banned!
Why the double standard?
Where is the citation for the likelihood of intentional doping with a norsteroid precursor?
Simple, there is a lot more known causes of deliberate doping than known causes of doping due to burrito eating or by wrongdoings by a third party in the world and history of sports.
Congratulations with derailing another thread btw, impressive work. You are also arguing against the experts and against the rule of law in sports. You are also incredible biased as you wont even entertain the possibility that an athlete took drugs to become better, something that have happened time and time again. This is the simplest explanation and that you so fervently deny any possibility of it shows that you are not a rational actor, and despite what you try to frame yourself as - it would be a waste to discuss with you because of your onesidedness. What you motivation is for this, I dont know. Probably you are someone close to S.H.
Luckily S.H is still banned from the sport. Having athletes getting to participate in sports when caught with illegal substances in their body, without a good explanation to why it was there would mean that it could be incredible easy to dope without risk. She has be heard in two instances and convicted to be banned from the sport. Its time for her to accept this and it is also time for you to accept this. She is not behind bars, she has simply violated the rules in sports and is not permitted to participate. That is the final verdict.
Where is the citation for the likelihood of intentional doping with a norsteroid precursor?
Simple, there is a lot more known causes of deliberate doping than known causes of doping due to burrito eating or by wrongdoings by a third party in the world and history of sports.
Congratulations with derailing another thread btw, impressive work. You are also arguing against the experts and against the rule of law in sports. You are also incredible biased as you wont even entertain the possibility that an athlete took drugs to become better, something that have happened time and time again. This is the simplest explanation and that you so fervently deny any possibility of it shows that you are not a rational actor, and despite what you try to frame yourself as - it would be a waste to discuss with you because of your onesidedness. What you motivation is for this, I dont know. Probably you are someone close to S.H.
Luckily S.H is still banned from the sport. Having athletes getting to participate in sports when caught with illegal substances in their body, without a good explanation to why it was there would mean that it could be incredible easy to dope without risk. She has be heard in two instances and convicted to be banned from the sport. Its time for her to accept this and it is also time for you to accept this. She is not behind bars, she has simply violated the rules in sports and is not permitted to participate. That is the final verdict.
There are many interesting elements of “the rule of law in sports “ highlighted by this case.
Not least is the utmost and clearest oxymoron of the “rule of law in sports”.
I just got pulled over for a DUI. I have one call to make. I call Rekrunner, my attorney. Rekrunner tells them my client has never even heard of alcohol…my client appears to be Amish…is there any proof he was actually driving?
Once I saw the dashcam video, my recommendation is to plead no contest.
#TheOfficeUS #JohnKrasinski #CallOfDuty #RashidaJones'I'm gonna kill you for real!'Season 3, Episode 3 'After Jan busts Michael for having a "movie Monday," ...
I like the sarcasm and the concept of a "saboteur" (which is a great word btw!) but I have always maintained this hypothesis of events.
I believe that someone close to her, maybe someone that gee I dunno, possibly left another group because of certain factors associated with doping or "pushing the legal limits", who then never really got better, looked less ripped etc after coming to the group and then eventually left...^^, introduced her to these types of "supplements" (and I think we can be very sure from her recent comments and the findings of WADA that she wasn't ingesting nandrolone directly but instead the over-the-counter precursors) that ultimately she didn't really know how to use in the right way. Clearly "someone" had better advice and resources with respect to pushing up to but not above legal limits and Shelby didn't.
I think the reason this is is because BTC doesn't have a structured program in place of how to bend the rules as far as possible but not break them a-la other now defunct groups so she was left to her own judgements. So think about how difficult this is to get right - you are taking something that synthesizes into something that you are allowed to have in your body - but only to a certain amount. I mean good luck with that. The factors that are in play there are so wide-ranging and nuanced you have to be both pretty stupid and very desperate to roll the dice on - but I think Houlihan is/was both.
I still maintain that despite Schumachers outright dumb comments of "never having heard of nandrolone" and his vehement support of her in the face of her first ludicrous story, he didn't know what was happening or have things in BTC to support this kind of stuff. It is completely possibly and likely she was ultimately acting on her own accord (I mean ultimately in the sense of purchasing and using) - if we are talking 1-2 pills before bedtime each day this isn't exactly a big routine with chance of exposure. If anything the fact she was so far over the limit when she was busted points to someone not very intelligent doing things on their own. I doubt Jerry risks his group and his reputation letting her just do what she wants with stuff he introduced. On the flipside there is a reason none of the Oregon Project guys were busted despite their hematocrit, nandrolone, testosterone etc levels probably being about as optimum as humanly possible for half a decade - that's because Alberto had a crew in place making sure there was no way they would get impatient and just "pop and extra pill after feeling bad in a workout" etc.
Again, saboteur is a great word but "co-conspirator" is my bet ;)
Did this person you're alluding to put something else inside her other than drugs?
Where is the citation for the likelihood of intentional doping with a norsteroid precursor?
Simple, there is a lot more known causes of deliberate doping than known causes of doping due to burrito eating or by wrongdoings by a third party in the world and history of sports.
Congratulations with derailing another thread btw, impressive work. You are also arguing against the experts and against the rule of law in sports. You are also incredible biased as you wont even entertain the possibility that an athlete took drugs to become better, something that have happened time and time again. This is the simplest explanation and that you so fervently deny any possibility of it shows that you are not a rational actor, and despite what you try to frame yourself as - it would be a waste to discuss with you because of your onesidedness. What you motivation is for this, I dont know. Probably you are someone close to S.H.
Luckily S.H is still banned from the sport. Having athletes getting to participate in sports when caught with illegal substances in their body, without a good explanation to why it was there would mean that it could be incredible easy to dope without risk. She has be heard in two instances and convicted to be banned from the sport. Its time for her to accept this and it is also time for you to accept this. She is not behind bars, she has simply violated the rules in sports and is not permitted to participate. That is the final verdict.
So by your standard, no citation is needed after all.
Discussion threads are created to discuss.
I'm mainly arguing against non-experts in a discussion forum, who draw conclusions that go beyond what the rulers of law determined.
I'm happy to entertain many possibilties. Your simplest explanation is entertaining, but one lacking any specific evidence. I don't fervently deny it, but claim it lacks conclusive evidence.
It would be a waste of your time and mine, to repeat allegations without providing any supporting evidence.
Houlihan is still banned from the sport, but that doesn't mean she intentionally cheated, and it doesn't mean justice was served. To my surprise, she was prepared to take a 1-2 year ban from the sport, with no showing of intent, like it used to be before 2015. Considering all the known facts in the case, I think the fairest result would be to declare it an ATF and collect more data, as described in the WADA guideline.
Simple, there is a lot more known causes of deliberate doping than known causes of doping due to burrito eating or by wrongdoings by a third party in the world and history of sports.
Congratulations with derailing another thread btw, impressive work. You are also arguing against the experts and against the rule of law in sports. You are also incredible biased as you wont even entertain the possibility that an athlete took drugs to become better, something that have happened time and time again. This is the simplest explanation and that you so fervently deny any possibility of it shows that you are not a rational actor, and despite what you try to frame yourself as - it would be a waste to discuss with you because of your onesidedness. What you motivation is for this, I dont know. Probably you are someone close to S.H.
Luckily S.H is still banned from the sport. Having athletes getting to participate in sports when caught with illegal substances in their body, without a good explanation to why it was there would mean that it could be incredible easy to dope without risk. She has be heard in two instances and convicted to be banned from the sport. Its time for her to accept this and it is also time for you to accept this. She is not behind bars, she has simply violated the rules in sports and is not permitted to participate. That is the final verdict.
Considering all the known facts in the case, I think the fairest result would be to declare it an ATF and collect more data, as described in the WADA guideline.
OK but then without an admission or smoking gun, it seems that for you, the vast majority of cases would be classified as atypical findings and then this would serve to potentially encourage more doping.