Shelby broke the rules, interpret that as you may (premeditated cheater, inadvertent cheater, liar, misguided) - it doesn't matter. She's gone, so is your comically transparent logic.
+1
Fortunately. Drug cheats out! But, the facts won't stop rekrunner aka liar sorer aka twoggle from repeating his visibly nonsensical talking points. Over and over and over again, as history shows.
I'm happy to provide much needed balance to one-sided arguments.
Can't believe there are still so many people talking about food contamination. Say it with me 'the nandralone wasn't from a burrito!' The science showed the likelihood of it being from contaminated food was virtually zero. Ross Tucker told the Brojo's this and yet they are still talking about food contamination and Shelby getting off because of it if USADA tested her on their podcast. Shelby pretty much admitted they only used the argument of the burrito because they couldn't think of anything better. She had nandralone in her system above legal limits, the burrito excuse is BS, she got a ban. What other option was there, believe everyone who says they didn't cheat and let them off? There is nothing wrong the the anti doping system in this case. There was no other option. Trying to make out there are major problems with anti doping so one of your faves is looked upon favourably and you don't have to admit you were wrong is some weak ass BS.
Read the rules and the decision : she was not convicted of cheating.
USADA talk on a regular basis about contamination as do Wada.
Fortunately. Drug cheats out! But, the facts won't stop rekrunner aka liar sorer aka twoggle from repeating his visibly nonsensical talking points. Over and over and over again, as history shows.
I'm happy to provide much needed balance to one-sided arguments.
It is the Wada code you should be complaining about and not those who have read it.
Leading Nando’s have made similar points but you have ignored this.
You have missed the point. Guilty of breaking the rules but no guilt for cheating. I suggest you read the rules and then you may grasp what is being said.
What point exactly did I miss? I never even used the word "cheat" in what I wrote - you quoted it so go back and check. I used the word guilty, which she was found to be, and in this context it means guilty in breaking the rules which is enough for her to go bye-bye for 4 years.
So I suggest you read the post again and then you may grasp what is being said.
You know honestly the single biggest issue with this message board isn't peoples opinion or points of view - it's what you just did here. People like yourself don't even read other peoples opinions and concoct sh$t out of thin air to perpetuate their agenda/narrative. In this case your whole deal is suggesting that Shelby wasn't found to be a cheater, just a breaker of rules and that doesn't necessarily mean she cheated. Yeah yeah, f-ing yeah - what an doyen of policy interpretation and legislative nuance you are. What you are is an a$hole like Travis Tygart.
She was not found guilty of cheating.Are you now happy with that minor change of grammar?
What point exactly did I miss? I never even used the word "cheat" in what I wrote - you quoted it so go back and check. I used the word guilty, which she was found to be, and in this context it means guilty in breaking the rules which is enough for her to go bye-bye for 4 years.
So I suggest you read the post again and then you may grasp what is being said.
You know honestly the single biggest issue with this message board isn't peoples opinion or points of view - it's what you just did here. People like yourself don't even read other peoples opinions and concoct sh$t out of thin air to perpetuate their agenda/narrative. In this case your whole deal is suggesting that Shelby wasn't found to be a cheater, just a breaker of rules and that doesn't necessarily mean she cheated. Yeah yeah, f-ing yeah - what an doyen of policy interpretation and legislative nuance you are. What you are is an a$hole like Travis Tygart.
She was not found guilty of cheating.Are you now happy with that minor change of grammar?
Fortunately. Drug cheats out! But, the facts won't stop rekrunner aka liar sorer aka twoggle from repeating his visibly nonsensical talking points. Over and over and over again, as history shows.
I'm happy to provide much needed balance to one-sided arguments.
you know I believed Shelby when she was first caught. And then it became all but certain that she cheated. Just read the CAS report.
Shelby hasn't done anything but lie or omit important information since.
--she and her coaches lied about their continued relationship with training her.
--she didn't mention her salary or that she was not working when she set up a go fund me
You have missed the point. Guilty of breaking the rules but no guilt for cheating. I suggest you read the rules and then you may grasp what is being said.
What point exactly did I miss? I never even used the word "cheat" in what I wrote - you quoted it so go back and check. I used the word guilty, which she was found to be, and in this context it means guilty in breaking the rules which is enough for her to go bye-bye for 4 years.
So I suggest you read the post again and then you may grasp what is being said.
You know honestly the single biggest issue with this message board isn't peoples opinion or points of view - it's what you just did here. People like yourself don't even read other peoples opinions and concoct sh$t out of thin air to perpetuate their agenda/narrative. In this case your whole deal is suggesting that Shelby wasn't found to be a cheater, just a breaker of rules and that doesn't necessarily mean she cheated. Yeah yeah, f-ing yeah - what an doyen of policy interpretation and legislative nuance you are. What you are is an a$hole like Travis Tygart.
What policy do you refer to as being interpreted?
I have provided the exact words and reference from both the Wada code and the Decision.
I suggest you take a few days to study them and resultant case law.
Can't believe there are still so many people talking about food contamination. Say it with me 'the nandralone wasn't from a burrito!' The science showed the likelihood of it being from contaminated food was virtually zero. Ross Tucker told the Brojo's this and yet they are still talking about food contamination and Shelby getting off because of it if USADA tested her on their podcast. Shelby pretty much admitted they only used the argument of the burrito because they couldn't think of anything better. She had nandralone in her system above legal limits, the burrito excuse is BS, she got a ban. What other option was there, believe everyone who says they didn't cheat and let them off? There is nothing wrong the the anti doping system in this case. There was no other option. Trying to make out there are major problems with anti doping so one of your faves is looked upon favourably and you don't have to admit you were wrong is some weak ass BS.
So many people? How many people do you think are talking about it?
Nandrolone from intact pork is not "food contamination", but, according to WADA, "endogenous".
I can't say that with you because even the CAS told us that it was possible that the nandrolone was in the burrito, but that Houlihan just coudn't get sufficient objective evidence to prove it.
There was no science showing any likelihood. "1 in 10,000" times 12,000,000 is significant enough not to pretend it can never happen.
Ross Tucker only re-explained in laymen's terms the CAS decision guided by the rules in the WADA Code, which Tygart tells us needs reform for these kinds of cases. Ross stayed within a system which Tygart tells us is "broken" (my word).
Shelby admitted that even today she still didn't know for sure -- this is why placing the burden on athletes to prove the sometimes impossible is not fair, and needs to be reformed.
There was another option. The other "WADA approved" option, was for the AIU work within its power, and within the WADA Code, to acknowledge the ambiguity and the near impossibility to prove it, and treat the positive result as an ATF, and collect more data, e.g. targeted testing, to reduce the uncertainty.
You have missed the point. Guilty of breaking the rules but no guilt for cheating. I suggest you read the rules and then you may grasp what is being said.
What point exactly did I miss? I never even used the word "cheat" in what I wrote - you quoted it so go back and check. I used the word guilty, which she was found to be, and in this context it means guilty in breaking the rules which is enough for her to go bye-bye for 4 years.
So I suggest you read the post again and then you may grasp what is being said.
You know honestly the single biggest issue with this message board isn't peoples opinion or points of view - it's what you just did here. People like yourself don't even read other peoples opinions and concoct sh$t out of thin air to perpetuate their agenda/narrative. In this case your whole deal is suggesting that Shelby wasn't found to be a cheater, just a breaker of rules and that doesn't necessarily mean she cheated. Yeah yeah, f-ing yeah - what an doyen of policy interpretation and legislative nuance you are. What you are is an a$hole like Travis Tygart.
What policy do you refer to as being interpreted?
I have provided the exact words and reference from both the Wada code and the Decision.
I suggest you take a few days to study them and resultant case law.
Travis Tygart led USADA while giving Galen Rupp 300 drug tests and all of them came back clean. The USADA also have Lance Armstrong numerous drug tests and never one tested positive, only Floyd Landis' big mouth spilled the beans. I think Travis Tygart should shut up and the USADA be disbanded as being as corrupt as the Russians and British Cycling.
I'm happy to provide much needed balance to one-sided arguments.
you know I believed Shelby when she was first caught. And then it became all but certain that she cheated. Just read the CAS report.
Shelby hasn't done anything but lie or omit important information since.
--she and her coaches lied about their continued relationship with training her.
--she didn't mention her salary or that she was not working when she set up a go fund me
--she lied about the type of burrito she ordered.
--she lied about her certainty it was the burrito
lies and the lying liars who tell them.
I'm not so sure that reading the CAS report shows it is "all but certain that she cheated". The CAS didn't evaluate or rule on the likelihood of cheating.
The "near one" complement of the AIU's "near zero" argument is a negative test result -- which is inapplicable here. One alternative scenario is that a different "near zero" group would test positive because of a pseudo-endogenous norsteroid precursor, but this likelihood, although proposed by the AIU-expert, was not assessed by the CAS, and the two likelihoods were not compared.
Your list of "lies" look mostly irrelevant, or immaterial. It is not a lie to omit irrelevant information with no obligation or other reason to make it public.
What point exactly did I miss? I never even used the word "cheat" in what I wrote - you quoted it so go back and check. I used the word guilty, which she was found to be, and in this context it means guilty in breaking the rules which is enough for her to go bye-bye for 4 years.
So I suggest you read the post again and then you may grasp what is being said.
You know honestly the single biggest issue with this message board isn't peoples opinion or points of view - it's what you just did here. People like yourself don't even read other peoples opinions and concoct sh$t out of thin air to perpetuate their agenda/narrative. In this case your whole deal is suggesting that Shelby wasn't found to be a cheater, just a breaker of rules and that doesn't necessarily mean she cheated. Yeah yeah, f-ing yeah - what an doyen of policy interpretation and legislative nuance you are. What you are is an a$hole like Travis Tygart.
She was not found guilty of cheating.Are you now happy with that minor change of grammar?
What point exactly did I miss? I never even used the word "cheat" in what I wrote - you quoted it so go back and check. I used the word guilty, which she was found to be, and in this context it means guilty in breaking the rules which is enough for her to go bye-bye for 4 years.
So I suggest you read the post again and then you may grasp what is being said.
You know honestly the single biggest issue with this message board isn't peoples opinion or points of view - it's what you just did here. People like yourself don't even read other peoples opinions and concoct sh$t out of thin air to perpetuate their agenda/narrative. In this case your whole deal is suggesting that Shelby wasn't found to be a cheater, just a breaker of rules and that doesn't necessarily mean she cheated. Yeah yeah, f-ing yeah - what an doyen of policy interpretation and legislative nuance you are. What you are is an a$hole like Travis Tygart.
What policy do you refer to as being interpreted?
I have provided the exact words and reference from both the Wada code and the Decision.
I suggest you take a few days to study them and resultant case law.
Dude English clearly isn't your first language and you are out here lecturing us on the WADA code and "the decision" like you've a) read both of them in entirety and b) you actually understand it? I'm in tears. This is too good
And even more insufferable than the "don't read anything just pander my narrative" d-ckheads that pervade this forum are people like you who love playing the devils advocates of grammar and terminology and living in this grey area of "well if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it might be a duck but you can't say for sure because, well, what really constitutes a duck"
"the AIU does everything in its power to support honest athletes". Okay, and? There was a lengthy and elaborate process which I'm sure cost a lot of money to determine if Houlihan was honest or not. It was determined she wasn't. Maybe if she had just actually been honest about how 2.5 times the legal limit of nandrolone was found in her system the AIU would have then supported her (maybe a palatable 2 year ban vs 4 for example). But the statement reads "support honest athletes" and last time I checked she made the choice to go with a story that was thoroughly debunked which I'm pretty sure makes her dishonest. Like isn't this the way honesty works? If I steal a packet of gum from the store, I get caught and say I bought it then camera footage shows that I just pocketed it, am I not presumed in that instance to be have been dishonest?
So the AIU has not infringed on any of their "obligations" at all. But of course this is when someone like yourself gets to work right? "They could have ordered more tests, done more, asked more experts, turned heaven and earth upside down to support and protect this young woman". And when exactly does that end? Seriously. By that logic we would simply never weed out any rule-breakers in the sport because "doing everything" is simply an infinite f-ing landscape. What dream world do you live in? Your expectation is that WADA/the AIU does this for every rule-breaking athlete in their jurisdiction? So in this case your expectation of the AIU was that even though her story was shown to be dishonest they should keep going until someone says she's not dishonest?
Your gimmick is so transparent. Just smart enough to pick apart the statement you did and think you are asking poignant questions that point to some kind of conspiracy. Just smart enough to push a topic into that grey zone of infinite ambiguities and sit back in the rocking chair and say "so you can't say for certain it's really that duck can you". But for every person like you there is always someone smarter than can pick you out in a crowd and in this case it's me. Shelby broke the rules, interpret that as you may (premeditated cheater, inadvertent cheater, liar, misguided) - it doesn't matter. She's gone, so is your comically transparent logic.
I don't think it even walks or quacks like a duck. I interpret it as she broke rules that do not require establishing intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use, and she was not able to prove "not intentional". She's gone for 4 years, but the question is, was the process just?
For all your lecturing, it looks like you didn't read any of Tygart's statement before your initial post. For example: "We need to work just as hard to exonerate the innocent as we do pursuing the true cheaters." This is where the AIU failed Houlihan in a big way. My expectation is what USADA anti-doping chief Tygart has done for 27 US athletes since 2015 -- help them navigate through the WADA Code around this nearly impossible athlete burden to prove what is caused by the various meat industries, or in other cases (e.g. Getzmann) during manufacture of prescription drugs. Because on face value, the standard of "strict liability" is quite a convenient shortcut for organizations prosecuting ADRVs, but it is not a fair process for athletes who have innocently ingested small amounts of a banned substance. We have seen this in the cases of Getzmann, Lawson, and 27 USADA athletes.
Tygart doesn't speak about all rule-breaking athletes, but just this small class of athlete who tests positive consistent with unknowingly ingesting small amounts a banned substance, e.g. from normal meals, who are suddenly forced to become experts in the world of meat processing, and in Houlihan's case, the temporary but signficant deviations from the normal practices during the pandemic.
The lengthy and elaborate process was according to the WADA Code, which, if you had seen any of his statements, is precisely what Tygart has repeatedly claimed needs to be reformed, for this small class of USDA approved meat eating athlete.
For all these calls of honesty, from "fans", the process is so one-sided, that there is just no way to tell from the AIU prosecution and the CAS report that Houlihan was not being honest. (And the CAS did not find her dishonest, but rather "credible"). The AIU did not "debunk" Houlihan's story, but gave the equivalent argument of "people struck by lightning rarely happens". All we can say is that Houlihan was unable to obtain "concrete and specific" evidence she needed to clear her name to the burden required, and "guilty until proven innocent" did the rest. The AIU "near-zero" argument fails in the public domain for the same reason the AIU says Houlihan's arguments should fail: it is not "based on specific and concrete elements". None of the AIU arguments, or speculated alternative, are connected to Houlihan, except for the unexplained presence of a small amount of nandrolone, which can be of endogenous, or exogenous origin.
All you "smart persons" may have fallen for it, but I'm not going to pretend "2.5x the limit" is a large amount, when, according to studies on small sample sizes, including by Prof. Ayotte's own study, eating pork offal can put you 65x-80x above the limit, and intentionally injecting nandrolone can put you 1000x-1500x above the limit. The 2 ng/ml threshold is too small a threshold for intact pork offal ingestion -- something WADA explicitly considers "endogenous" and will give positive values of the low ng/ml range of less than 10 ng/ml.
So this is the last response to you because actually I'm concerned. I'm concerned that you are almost as unhinged and derailed as Shelby is on this. Do you even read the stuff you write? I feel like you have crossed over to this bizzaro world of your (irrelevant in this case) pork offal implications according to "Prof. Ayottes" studies and your interpretations of "burdens of guilt" and legal comprehension of documents and policy I am almost certainly you have never read. And this vociferous arguing over and over again in support of a woman you probably have never ever met and have no real vested interest in? Dude you yourself need help, I mean this game is actually too easy for me not only because I am legitimately smarter than you are, I am actually on the side of the scientists (like Tucker) and the administration (WADA, AIU) that put this cheat (there I said it, she's a lying cheat) away. You on the other hand are just a lunatic arguing infinitesimally small possibilities beyond the realm of plausibility and your arbitrary interpretation of organizational rules and procedure you have no idea about. You're sick man - get help.
I have provided the exact words and reference from both the Wada code and the Decision.
I suggest you take a few days to study them and resultant case law.
Dude English clearly isn't your first language and you are out here lecturing us on the WADA code and "the decision" like you've a) read both of them in entirety and b) you actually understand it? I'm in tears. This is too good
I have read them in entirety and all the previous codes.Also,legal comments from such as Taylor from Bird and Bird.How do you see his views?
Now, old bean, what policy do you refer to as being interpreted?
I don't think it even walks or quacks like a duck. I interpret it as she broke rules that do not require establishing intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use, and she was not able to prove "not intentional". She's gone for 4 years, but the question is, was the process just?
For all your lecturing, it looks like you didn't read any of Tygart's statement before your initial post. For example: "We need to work just as hard to exonerate the innocent as we do pursuing the true cheaters." This is where the AIU failed Houlihan in a big way. My expectation is what USADA anti-doping chief Tygart has done for 27 US athletes since 2015 -- help them navigate through the WADA Code around this nearly impossible athlete burden to prove what is caused by the various meat industries, or in other cases (e.g. Getzmann) during manufacture of prescription drugs. Because on face value, the standard of "strict liability" is quite a convenient shortcut for organizations prosecuting ADRVs, but it is not a fair process for athletes who have innocently ingested small amounts of a banned substance. We have seen this in the cases of Getzmann, Lawson, and 27 USADA athletes.
Tygart doesn't speak about all rule-breaking athletes, but just this small class of athlete who tests positive consistent with unknowingly ingesting small amounts a banned substance, e.g. from normal meals, who are suddenly forced to become experts in the world of meat processing, and in Houlihan's case, the temporary but signficant deviations from the normal practices during the pandemic.
The lengthy and elaborate process was according to the WADA Code, which, if you had seen any of his statements, is precisely what Tygart has repeatedly claimed needs to be reformed, for this small class of USDA approved meat eating athlete.
For all these calls of honesty, from "fans", the process is so one-sided, that there is just no way to tell from the AIU prosecution and the CAS report that Houlihan was not being honest. (And the CAS did not find her dishonest, but rather "credible"). The AIU did not "debunk" Houlihan's story, but gave the equivalent argument of "people struck by lightning rarely happens". All we can say is that Houlihan was unable to obtain "concrete and specific" evidence she needed to clear her name to the burden required, and "guilty until proven innocent" did the rest. The AIU "near-zero" argument fails in the public domain for the same reason the AIU says Houlihan's arguments should fail: it is not "based on specific and concrete elements". None of the AIU arguments, or speculated alternative, are connected to Houlihan, except for the unexplained presence of a small amount of nandrolone, which can be of endogenous, or exogenous origin.
All you "smart persons" may have fallen for it, but I'm not going to pretend "2.5x the limit" is a large amount, when, according to studies on small sample sizes, including by Prof. Ayotte's own study, eating pork offal can put you 65x-80x above the limit, and intentionally injecting nandrolone can put you 1000x-1500x above the limit. The 2 ng/ml threshold is too small a threshold for intact pork offal ingestion -- something WADA explicitly considers "endogenous" and will give positive values of the low ng/ml range of less than 10 ng/ml.
So this is the last response to you because actually I'm concerned. I'm concerned that you are almost as unhinged and derailed as Shelby is on this. Do you even read the stuff you write? I feel like you have crossed over to this bizzaro world of your (irrelevant in this case) pork offal implications according to "Prof. Ayottes" studies and your interpretations of "burdens of guilt" and legal comprehension of documents and policy I am almost certainly you have never read. And this vociferous arguing over and over again in support of a woman you probably have never ever met and have no real vested interest in? Dude you yourself need help, I mean this game is actually too easy for me not only because I am legitimately smarter than you are, I am actually on the side of the scientists (like Tucker) and the administration (WADA, AIU) that put this cheat (there I said it, she's a lying cheat) away. You on the other hand are just a lunatic arguing infinitesimally small possibilities beyond the realm of plausibility and your arbitrary interpretation of organizational rules and procedure you have no idea about. You're sick man - get help.
Have you thought about the concept of paragraphs? This should not be too hard for someone who claims to be “legitimately smarter”. Now,I am pleased you mention Tucker with such legitimate admiration as he does not know if SH cheated or not.
Perhaps you could actually quote some of the organisational rules that others have no idea about.Could you even say what this new concept of “ organisational rules” is.