Actually it is you who's irrelevant. You're so easy to see through that it's like you don't even exist.
With every post I am vindicated. Nobody cares about Shelby. She should try to have a kid or two and hope the father can teach the kids integrity. Shelby cannot.
Your post exemplifies the extreme low level of intelligence required to believe that toxic petro-chemical drug concoctions are the key to being fit and running one's best.
And yet he keeps coming back. Extremely frustrated he must be.
As in, for real? A friendly interview with the banned doper, where no new facts were given, no evidence presented, made people change their mind and all of sudden believe that INRS + AIU + WA + CAS + SFT all were wrong? Well let's hope that here, "multiple" < 4.
Sounds real to me.
Maybe what happened is that some open-minded fans who had previously drawn conclusions from only half the facts realized it wasn't so simple after all, after learning facts that were not new, but were either new to them, or that they had not properly appreciated.
It's not quite that "INRS + AIU + WA + CAS + SFT all were wrong", as each of these organizations had different questions before them, guided by the WADA Code and Standards. None of them were actually asked to investigate and establish the truth regarding the source of the nandrolone, and the nature and intent of the ingestion. So it is misguided to believe that all of these organizations established the answer to a question that was not before them.
The root of what is wrong for Houlihan's sample results is the WADA Code itself which:
- explicitly rules that presence and use are considered violations (before the athlete is asked to provide any "explanation") regardless of intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge, for these small amounts consistent with unknowing ingestion from selected USDA approved meat
- presumes these violations were intentional, placing a high burden on the athlete to find evidence at least one month after the fact, that may no longer exist, to a prosecution and adjudication panel who are guided by rules that disfavor the athlete
- is ambiguous whether the WADA TD requires her result be treated as an AAF or an ATF, and whether the GC/C/IRMS analysis can be used in this case to establish "exogenous"
The CAS Panel was not unanimous that the WADA Lab reported the test results correctly. At least a minority of the CAS Panel ruled that they got that decision wrong.
The most just outcome, given the lack of conclusive data, was to consider the lab results an AAF, and intelligently target test for more corroborative and conclusive data.
Let's hope they will use the actual facts to tear Houlihan's "arguments" apart.
This is rich, considering the WADA Code does not require "actual facts" to rule "intent" or "exogenous nandrolone", and neither the World Athletics, the AIU, nor their experts provided any facts directly related to Houlihan's samples.
If we need anyone to convince us further that she is a doper it is your predictable defence of a doper.
He quotes Shalane Flanagan who still defends her apparently:
As Shelby’s coach Shalane Flanagan stated, “We are living in a nightmare that we can’t seem to wake up from.” I will always stand for those who I believe in. I believe in Shelby Houlihan and you should too. Shelby Houlihan is a hill I’m willing to die on.
This dude is like 14 or something right? The folly of youth. He’ll learn.
That Shelby and her team chose this podcast to push their ridiculous narrative really speaks volumes. It's so incredibly cynical to use a teenager who's still learning the media ropes. He's gonna take a lot of heat for this, and while he should know better, so should Shelby's team. It's thoughtless and callous on their part.
This dude is like 14 or something right? The folly of youth. He’ll learn.
That Shelby and her team chose this podcast to push their ridiculous narrative really speaks volumes. It's so incredibly cynical to use a teenager who's still learning the media ropes. He's gonna take a lot of heat for this, and while he should know better, so should Shelby's team. It's thoughtless and callous on their part.
I don't think it was thoughtless, I think it was intentional. "Hey here's someone we can use for our own benefit."
Shelby's actions since her ban has revealed her lack of character.
--Attempting to seek an injunction that would allow her to run in the Olympic trials.
--Continuing to train with the team regularly as if nothing changed, even following them on altitude trips, not caring about how this could make her teammates and competitors uncomfortable.
--Not seeking any meaningful form of employment to fund this travel, yet setting up a gofundme asking "her community" for help in the appeal.
--Again, not seeking any employment though it's been 2 years since her ban.
--Taking advantage of a 16 year old kid's naivety instead of the myriad of adult podcasters she could have spoken to: Citius, CSC, Lindsey Hein, Emma Abrahamson, Emily Abbate, Letsrun, to name just a few.
--Doing article after article lamenting what a little victim she is, and those articles have poor timing with their release: right before the world championships for example, taking spotlight away from deserving athletes.
--Racing in non sanctioned road races, accepting places and prize money.
--Not apologizing to those runners who she egregiously stole titles, spots on teams and prize money from including Jenny Simpson, Colleen Quigley, Katie Follett, and Sinclaire Johnson.
Interesting that she has no shame. She continues to seek attention and ignores her scandalous status. She really doesn't care what the general public thinks of her while serving a drug ban.
rekrunner is clearly in Shelby's inner circle and everyone with common sense knows she doped and she's lying.
The CAS panel not being unanimous is meaningless. Shelby is allowed to put someone up for the panel and the AIU is too. So the fact that it is "not unanimous" basically means that the sycophant Shelby put up for the panel voted in her favor. Enough.
Even Shelburrito's pick for the CAS panel voted against her when it came to the question whether or not she intentionally doped, as one can tell from the unanimous 3 : 0 vote.
One panelist simply didn't agree that all details of Wada's relevant technical document (it wasn't even clear which TD applied) was followed, without actually clarifying which one(s).
This is a curious implication -- I hadn't given that much thought, but are you suggesting that CAS arbitration is not the right forum to deliver justice because the CAS panelists can be corrupt based on who chose them?
I was only ever arguing for WADA Code reform, like USADA CEO Tygart has dozens of times, in these subset of cases of potential unknowing ingestion of small amounts of banned substances that can be found in USDA approved meat.
But here you are suggesting that the CAS needs reform too? You may have a point I have not fully explored, as you are not the first one to question the integrity of the CAS.
To clarify what is in the CAS report, we can understand that the minority of the CAS Panel did not disagree "with the Respondent's assertion that the Laboratory departed from the ISL/TD2021NA". The claim here is that the WADA Lab departed from the required standard.
Whether it was the lab, or the AIU, which should have treated the result as an ATF, I am in agreement with the minority CAS panelist that 1) there was a material departure from the ISL/TD2021NA, and 2) the majority of the CAS Panelists got that decision wrong.
If the results are properly reported as an ATF, there is no follow up question of intent, or any need to identify the source. As Tygart repeatedly argues, this is another area of necessary WADA reform as the high burden placed on the athlete, to establish non-intent, by establishing the source, even to the lower threshold of balance of probability, is not always possible even for the most diligent athletes, when they are put on notice 1 month after the fact. Once again, one only need to see what it took for Jarrion Lawson and Simon Getzmann to meet this standard, and what it cost them to establish their innocence.
Even Shelburrito's pick for the CAS panel voted against her when it came to the question whether or not she intentionally doped, as one can tell from the unanimous 3 : 0 vote.
One panelist simply didn't agree that all details of Wada's relevant technical document (it wasn't even clear which TD applied) was followed, without actually clarifying which one(s).
This is a curious implication -- I hadn't given that much thought, but are you suggesting that CAS arbitration is not the right forum to deliver justice because the CAS panelists can be corrupt based on who chose them?
I was only ever arguing for WADA Code reform, like USADA CEO Tygart has dozens of times, in these subset of cases of potential unknowing ingestion of small amounts of banned substances that can be found in USDA approved meat.
But here you are suggesting that the CAS needs reform too? You may have a point I have not fully explored, as you are not the first one to question the integrity of the CAS.
To clarify what is in the CAS report, we can understand that the minority of the CAS Panel did not disagree "with the Respondent's assertion that the Laboratory departed from the ISL/TD2021NA". The claim here is that the WADA Lab departed from the required standard.
Whether it was the lab, or the AIU, which should have treated the result as an ATF, I am in agreement with the minority CAS panelist that 1) there was a material departure from the ISL/TD2021NA, and 2) the majority of the CAS Panelists got that decision wrong.
If the results are properly reported as an ATF, there is no follow up question of intent, or any need to identify the source. As Tygart repeatedly argues, this is another area of necessary WADA reform as the high burden placed on the athlete, to establish non-intent, by establishing the source, even to the lower threshold of balance of probability, is not always possible even for the most diligent athletes, when they are put on notice 1 month after the fact. Once again, one only need to see what it took for Jarrion Lawson and Simon Getzmann to meet this standard, and what it cost them to establish their innocence.
This is just a word salad. There was a positive test. It wasn't a trace amount. Ross Tucker explained that it was probably a nandrolone precursor she was taking. Her progression was sketchy. She has looked and behaved like an entitled liar since. Case closed.
I truly do not understand why an event like this would choose to promote her. Even if they believe she is clean, they have so much more to lose by promoting the episode than not promoting it.
He quotes Shalane Flanagan who still defends her apparently:
As Shelby’s coach Shalane Flanagan stated, “We are living in a nightmare that we can’t seem to wake up from.” I will always stand for those who I believe in. I believe in Shelby Houlihan and you should too. Shelby Houlihan is a hill I’m willing to die on.
and Shalane is a shoe cheater who got away with it. Shame on Shalane.
This is just a word salad. There was a positive test. It wasn't a trace amount. Ross Tucker explained that it was probably a nandrolone precursor she was taking. Her progression was sketchy. She has looked and behaved like an entitled liar since. Case closed.
This is just word salad. Which case are you closing? Because there is a lot of stuff that doesn't fit in your case.
I'm always talking about the need for WADA Code reform, while "casual obsever", and you, curiously just called the CAS arbitrators corrupt as you stand by their decision.
According to WADA guidelines, a positive test can be an ATF or an AAF.
Who said "trace amount"? WADA calls less than 10 ng/mL the "low ng/mL range".
Ross Tucker just parrotted what the AIU expert thought -- not adding any real intellectual value to what was already written in the report.
Neither Ross nor the AIU expert are in any authoritative position to explain the source of the nandrolone.
Science tells us that orally ingested nandrolone in the "low ng/mL range" cannot explain a "sketchy progression".
She looks like one of many victims of the WADA Code that Tygart has described a dozen or more times, and continues to be a victim of irrational fans who think she is lying and treats her like an intentional cheat, as if there were any evidence beyond a set of presumptions to draw any such conclusion.