If Shelby was doping intentionally why wasn't she running super spikes?

You say "strong set of facts". I don't agree that the "set of facts" is all that strong. The few facts there are, are scientifically ambiguous. The rest of the report is a collection of unproven assertions, assumptions, and presumptions. For example, 1/10,000 was not a fact, but a brown tinged number plucked out of thin air. But the lack of a strong set of facts was no barrier for the CAS to make its findings, as the WADA Code permits a set of presumptions that favor the anti-doping organizations over the accused athlete.

Nothing in the 44 page report provides any details regarding how likely the doping hypothesis is.

I read the "Ross Tucker interview" as giving Ross a chance to respond to many points that several posters brought up in many Shelby threads up to that point -- either to validate them or debunk them.

Oh, but I have concluded many things: that the WADA Lab deviated from their guidelines when reporting the AAF; that the AIU did not meet their burden of establishing an ADRV; that the majority of the CAS incorrectly determined that the WADA Lab properly reported the AAF, and the AIU established an ADRV; that both of the AIU's "expert witnesses" made many unproven and/or invalid assumptions; and that there was no evidence of intent before the CAS.

If you want me to conclude Shelby doped, and furthermore, that she doped intentionally, someone has to make that case based on unambiguous, specific, concrete, sufficient, and conclusive evidence.

The CAS made it plainly clear that their findings were only made possible by presumptions lacking evidence.

Given the number of improved performances across the board in the last few years, I think we have a good idea.

A seasoned veteran, Nick Willis became a believer, saying the new spikes were worth 2-3 seconds over 1500m.

But there is a certainly a "your mileage may vary" element to how much any individual can expect to improve.

Huddle was 32 in 2016 when she set the AR in the 10K. That was here career peak. When the super spikes came out, she was 36 and already slowing down.

The shoe benefit is velocity based. The faster you go, the less time boost. A 3:30 1500 runner will get less than a 3:55 runner (Houlihan). But the shoes work even for the sub 3:35 group based on the yearly performance lists before and after they came out. In the NCAA, the record was 3:52.01 before shoes and a 3:55 was almost a guarantee of All American finish at NCAAs. This year 3:55 is 18th on the performance list with a month to go. That probably won't get someone into the NCAA Championship meet. Similar applies to all distance race indoors and out at every level of competition since the shoes came out. Nearly every record at every level has been broken and the 100th time is significantly faster than before the shoes.

The shoes were pretty new at the time and the effectiveness was not as clear as it is now.

Doping has always been effective. I don't subscribe to the "deep state" school of thinking about her tests. She tested positive for a synthetic banned drug. If they were out to get certain athletes, they could have gone after some of the more vocal ones in regards to changes in sport.

So we have a guess from one pro. The "good idea" you think we have is just a bunch of further guesses. (What's a "good idea" amount to - scientifically speaking?) But it is ironic how you're prepared to commit to the "good idea" that the new shoes greatly add to performance when you are desperately afraid of drawing any conclusions (that dread word!) about an athlete who is convicted of an ADRV for testing positive without a decent excuse. Not even a "good idea"? You always show your biases. A bit like the emperor's new clothes.

Just how effective are the new shoes when Marita Koch, Kratochvilova, Flojo, El G, Rudisha, Bolt and Bekele weren't using them?

Bruh, you need to add about 10,000 more names to this. Including those that are using the shoes.

We have a guess from one pro, in addition to "improved performances across the board in the last few years" worldwide, including college level athletes, and a number of scientific studies. My bias always leans towards objective observations.

Similarly, for ADRVs, I'm not afraid of drawing conclusions based on objective observations, rather than a set of baseless presumptions relying on a lack of evidence.

HMMMMM good question

maybe "super spikes" are just a marketing gimmick and don't make you any faster at all.

Maybe elites who do wear them are being paid to sell shoes

The point is that pretty much the fastest of all time (I would still put Bekele up there taking his times and achievements as a whole) didn't have the advantage of super shoes. The shoes may not make as much of difference as some think. Something else clearly will.

Your so-called "objective observations" still amount to little more than a "good idea": an opinion that is little more than a vague guess that can't be definitively quantified.

But when an athlete is actually convicted of doping your can't draw ANY conclusions. Of course you can't. But anyone without you ridiculous doping denial bias can.

The benefits can and have been quantified by a number of studies on the new shoes.

We have also seen a sizable improvement globally in recent years, which can and have been quantified, correlated to the wearing of the new shoes.

Of course there are confounders, like wavelights, that create uncertainty.

When athletes are found to have committed an ADRV, I can and have drawn many conclusions about what was, and wasn't, found, and what were, or were not, the bases of the findings. What you can "find" when you presume athletes are guilty is far more than what you can "find" when you presume athletes are innocent until proven guilty.

You show your ignorance when you mention pure sprinters when talking about supershoes.

So what are the proven measurable benefits of the shoes on performance, or do these still just amount to only a "good idea"?

Your waffle about Houlihan's ADRV continues to show you can't draw any conclusions about her violation. She tested positive without legitimate excuse. So a doper. But that's not a "conclusion" you can accept.

You show your ignorance when you suggest shoe technology doesn't sprinters. But El G was not a sprinter. 25 years on his times still beats those in supershoes.

Quantifying the reasons for the measured performance improvements is still a work in progress -- that's why we have a "good idea". Through objective observations, we can see that the times have clearly dropped across the board, regardless of gender, and country, for both national (including university) and elite athletes. These observed improvements are highly correlated to the wearing of new shoes, but scientists are still speculating the exact reasons and eliminating confounders.

If you are really interested, I linked to a 2022 study below.

Regarding Houlihan's ADRVs, I have drawn firm conclusions that both the rule violation, and the finding of intent, were only made possible by presumptions against the athlete. This was easy to conclude because the CAS made it clear in their report how significant the role of presumptions were.

Here is the study on quantifying the benefits of superspikes. It is dated 2022, so there may be a more recent study, but this should get you started with the many factors in this complex area:

link.springer.com

Can We Quantify the Benefits of “Super Spikes” in Track Running? - Sports Medicine

The recent and rapid developments in track spike innovation have been followed by a wave of record-breaking times and top performances. This has led many to question what role “super spikes” play in improving running performa...

Link:link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s402...

Thanks for telling us for the millionth faackin time what your conclusions are, based on your presumption. A presumption is based on evidence lending probability to a belief. Your 4 presumptions are 10,000x less likely than the CASes one presumption.

You are welcome. Armstronglivs keeps asking me for it. You should really thank him.