Why are people here so certain that Shelby intentionally cheated?

Why aren't there any post like this about African Born runners?

Contrary to what you learned in DARE, no one is handing out free drugs - especially nandrolone.

We absolutely need more threads defending that convicted cheater.

Because her lawyer said there was no burrito, it was simply the best strategy to get cleared even though she had synthetic nandrolone in her system.

Uhh.. maybe because Shelby's situation is relatively unique? Or maybe because it's easier to learn more about a person who speaks fluent English and does frequent interviews? This seems pretty obvious.

Hello Shelby!

I’m of the opinion that there are three options:

1) She is cheating and got caught… seems unlikely unless she already had too many whereabouts misses, otherwise skip the test, or she messed up her dose so it showed when it shouldn’t.

2) Someone messed up her dose intentionally or otherwise. Ex. Someone was giving her something without her knowing and gave her too much so it showed on the test.

3) She accidentally took something. Ex. Someone else in the group was taking something and she accidentally grabbed the wrong drink.

I have no idea if she was intentionally cheating, but if she was, they all know that you just miss the test if you know you’ll test positive. So it feels like someone close might have known she was doping and sabotaged her (but how would they know when the test would be) or it was an accident. Anyway, only logical options seem to be accidentally taking too much, or getting someone else’s dose. Either way, that means she or someone else was doping but she was still surprised to be caught.

Her situation isn't unique. She's just another convicted doper. But her fans can't get over it. And nor can she, so the excuses never stop.

OK, OP. I’m not “sure she intentionally cheated.” Here’s the next part of the genuine conversation. I think the governing body made a decision and did not do so lightly. Am I “sure”? No. But do I think her excuse seems legitimate? Definitely not. If you were looking at the accusation and the response, wouldn’t you be looking for something much more substantial than “must’ve been the burrito”? I’m not saying that’s all there is to it, but if you’re going to initiate this discussion, you should be prepared to bring a lot more, ahem, meat to the discussion.

I wonder if Centrowitz, who she was living with at the time, was the one who was intentionally doping. Interesting to think about

My post wasn't about whether or not the court made the right decision. My post was about the oddity of people being convinced that Shelby intentionally cheated (the court did not rule on this) and is a psychopath. She didn't intentionally cheat, and therefore doesn't know the source of the nandrolone. The burrito was her best guess after a lot of thinking and investigating

The convicted doping cheater Shelby needs to be in prison.

The court did rule on it. It held she committed an intentional ADRV. Why do you morons never acquaint yourselves with the facts in the legal processes?

Maybe she intended to skip her test, but was noticed by a tester. How do you skip a test after making eye contact?

Ok, guess we aren't going to have a civil conversation. My understanding is that they only ruled that Shelby's team failed to provide sufficient evidence for the burrito defense. I think that in the ruling they even explicitly said that this does not mean that Shelby intentionally cheated. Can you quote the paper on the ruling that they released?

Edit: Never mind, I found it myself. You're correct. However, this is stupid. Per CAS, ADVR + failed defense = intentional ADVR. In reality, ADVR + failed defense = ADVR + failed defense.

You just stay away from the location for the hour you said you were going to be there.

If you testing window is 8-9pm at your house, you definitely shouldn’t be out mowing your lawn at 8 if you might test positive, be on the other side of town and if the tester calls, ignore it and call them back the next day and say your dog got sick and you had to go to the vet and you left your phone in the car or whatever. You know the one place not to be and the time not to be there.

You don’t get an assumption of innocence with WADA. You have to prove unintentional, or they assume it was intentional.

Huh? “I’m not saying that’s all there is to it.” is in my post. And I didn’t say therefore that anyone has made the right decision. I implied that you jumped to the conclusion that “people … are so certain,” when Instead I felt somewhat more in line with what many are thinking — that we have sufficient trust in the decision to be skeptical of her excuse.

So I don’t know why you’re drawing the lines the way you are. But if you’re wondering why this doesn’t make much sense to you, I’m starting to see the outlines of a theory about that.

Your "reality" is wrong. Since her defence failed that only left her as the author of her doping violation. There was no one else. Hence, on the basis of the balance of probabilities - which is the standard in civil courts - her violation was deemed intentional by CAS. It was the same process in a civil court that found OJ liable for the deaths of his girlfriend and lover. Are you going to dispute that as well?