It's a bit rich for rojo, a noted spewer of falsehoods (Exhibit 1: this thread) to clutch his pearls about a "known perjurer".
In point of fact, the known liar rojo is desperately defending known drug cheat Shelburrito Houlihan. Why? Doesn't make much sense.
NYDCRunner1 wrote:
sanootage wrote:
There can be no evidence; that is my point.
I look at all the possibilities and come to the conclusion that sabotage looks likely.
I am confused so please help me out. You said you looked at all of the possibilities and arrived at sabotage. Given Occam's Razor, would it not be more likely, that your look at all possibilities would drive you to the conclusion of she knowingly did it?
What's your rational for eliminating she knowingly did it?
Deca would be the last thing an athlete on whereabouts would go near.
Grand daughter metabolites would suggest detection after months.
I don’t eliminate that she is lying but low down on my likely list.
I just read Gault's column on the front page, jfc what a joke. Dude basically just consulted with Shelby's lawyer and repeated what he was told.
I expected that from the JoBros, but to read that from Gault is shameful! I thought he had more integrity.
But the real problem is that the sport is a joke. I'm sure they know Shelby is guilty. But it is easy to excuse and champion her cause, to argue that she should be let off, if you view the entire sport as dirty and her punishment as selective while more blatant dopers run free. We have runners making a complete mockery of the sport such as Hassan who is not just dirty but proudly so as she thumbs her nose at the sport (her falling in the 1500 and then effortless catching the leaders while going after three gold medals was easily as big an FU as anything Armstrong ever did) which is generally what the big time dopers do. They are chasing glory and fame and could not care less about any fair play or even how it looks. If you see the sport as dirty and doping penalties as grossly hypocritical given the state of the sport, then why not just drink the Kool Aid while arguing for a favored athlete?
curious to explore wrote:
So following your backwards logic, she is better off to tell the police she is completely unaware of the race of the person? Because in reality you are racist for picking and choosing which races can and cannot be reported. Following your logic, it is OK to state that it was a white man or an Asian American man, but God forbid it was a black man reported. That makes someone racist for stating the race of a black man. What an incompetent moron you are. You are racist toward any race you show discrimination toward, that includes caucasians.
By committing to misunderstanding and twisting my words, it's clear you want a fight (or maybe you just lack the ability to draw correct inferences and conclusions, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).
But what I'll give you, instead, is education.
What message the communicator chooses to send to the receiver depends upon what effect they believe that message will have on the receiver.
For instance, if the lady dialing 911 knows that emphasizing "Black man" will result in disproportionate and illegal force against him, then, yes, she is being racist by emphasizing that information. Moral people, I believe, have a duty to understand and carefully weigh the result of the messages they send with their desire to be accurate. It can be done.
Bringing this back to the matter of Shelby, I believe that, were she moral, she would have carefully crafted her message to avoid the invocation and resultant scapegoating of Brown people in her formal statement and statements made thereafter. Instead, upon reading these statements and their repeated use of the term "authentic," it's clear that these messages were carefully crafted to have the desired scapegoating effect upon the receivers.
I'd encourage you to use second- or third-level thinking when considering instances such as these and not use the reflexive, first-level thinking that you have been employing in this conversation.
And ad hominems are never a good way to communicate.
casual obsever wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
google it. she has a poor history. perjury might be a bit far, but not much, and in the context, relevant.
Thanks unbelief and pupil3142. Just making sure. In Lawson's full CAS decision, CAS was indeed critical of her testimony, but CAS did not call it a lie, not to mention a perjury.
Presumably points 62 + 63:
62. Nor was the Panel entirely persuaded by Professor's Ayotte's evidence. Before the Tribunal below, she testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low and therefore intentional cheaters could not be separated from athletes measured at levels of picograms consistent with food contaminated by
hormones.
63. She said that athletes with high levels were rarely seen after the 1990s. But in fact, her lab records showed that some levels measured were large and that the Athlete's level was below 18 out of the 21 reported since 2013. Moreover, the data she produced for this appeal showed that, indeed, many urine samples in 2018/19 for athletes in America (where Trenbolone is legal as a muscle promoter in cattle) were positive for Trenbolone metabolities at low levels ( of less than 2 ng/ml).
A misunderstanding based on vague words like "low" and "high" and "large"? A poor memory? A lie?
Definitely not a perjury.
But I agree that that reflects poorly on her.
i must admit, from memory, i remember more to it than that, but its late. might look tomorrow, sorry.
flyingfrog wrote:
Cliff notes please
Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor, or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity", sometimes inaccurately paraphrased as "the simplest explanation is usually the best one." Wikipedia
Here it is... follow closely... She Doped
Lest We Forget wrote:
goontage wrote: I can do you one better, Captain Woke. Calling 911 actually comes from a place of privilege to begin with!
Ad hominem
Whataboutism
Straw Man
This is how I know I've won.
I didn't see Whataboutism or Straw Man in my response. Yes to Ad hominem. But, in any case, judging from your posts, you think you've won everything not matter what the response.
I cut your argument off at the knees, Spuds. Got out in front of you. Calling 911 is inherently racist ("privileged") to begin with, no matter what race you tell the operator the criminal was. You can even lie about the criminal's race, and you've already committed a racist act by picking up the phone and dialing 911. Of all the Wokers on this site, you should know this stuff. Slippage.
Not surprised. Just like the initial “reporting” —just a conduit for BS “takeaways”.
Surprised he wasn’t a character witness as well.
goontage wrote: I didn't see Whataboutism or Straw Man in my response.
Yes, well there's a lot that you can't see, sadly.
We're done.
Lest We Forget wrote:
goontage wrote: I didn't see Whataboutism or Straw Man in my response.
Yes, well there's a lot that you can't see, sadly.
We're done.
We're done when I say were done. You've got a lot of explaining (backtracking) to do with your 911-inspired racism allegations. Proceed.
It looks like Gault had given up any pretence of journalism and is now a spokesperson for Shelby's lawyers.
Did he read the reasoned decision or simply dictate what her lawyers asked him to
I used to like Jonathon's take on things, but now his credibility as a journalist has gone big time.
this is it wrote:
I just read Gault's column on the front page, jfc what a joke. Dude basically just consulted with Shelby's lawyer and repeated what he was told.
It’s more of the why nandrolone taken orally nonsense... It is widely the consensus on these boards that she took a dirty supplement or cocktail of drugs. Also just because they can’t technically say it’s a 0% chance to throw out that there’re thousands of tests as a oh she could just be unlucky. Come on, there are not thousands of athletes eating pork offal or mistakenly getting it. It remains exceedingly unlikely the right type of pig let alone the right part of the meat had anything to do with the finding. None of her story adds up.
goontage wrote:
Lest We Forget wrote:
Ad hominem
Whataboutism
Straw Man
This is how I know I've won.
I didn't see Whataboutism or Straw Man in my response. Yes to Ad hominem. But, in any case, judging from your posts, you think you've won everything not matter what the response.
I cut your argument off at the knees, Spuds. Got out in front of you. Calling 911 is inherently racist ("privileged") to begin with, no matter what race you tell the operator the criminal was. You can even lie about the criminal's race, and you've already committed a racist act by picking up the phone and dialing 911. Of all the Wokers on this site, you should know this stuff. Slippage.
He's using words without knowing what they mean. Someday he may have to call to 911, and the first thing he'll say when they ask about the assailant is his race. He won't come back and bump this thread and let us know, but our imagined voices will be in the back of his head yelling "told you so".
Take comfort in that.
twoggle wrote:
The first quote of 2-3 times higher is referring to *non-organ meat* and not pig offal. Even that is not a real study where they tested 10+ people, but they only looked at the results of a couple of people. Pig organ ingestion has been shown to lead to > 10 times the 19-NA found for Houlihan.
The second statement is not true in the sense that some supplements result in delta values tremendously diiferent than found for Houlihan and some result in similar delta values as Houlihan. In fact, that was spelled out in the CAS publication.
The important part of the report for me is the first half where the CAS voted 2 to 1 against Houlihan. The CAS accepted that the lab director took into account the latest WADA technical document even though there were no pharmacokinetic tests reported as suggested by that technical document to avoid the current 40% false positive rate (seen in very limited research). The CAS gave Ayotte the discretion to do the old testing protocol.
I found the “2-3 times higher” to be one of the misleading items in the CAS report. As you said, the statement is true for meat, but not for organs. A few studies (with small samples sizes) consistently showed small values for meat, with maximums of around 2.4 and 2.9 ng/ml. But (at least) one study, one with Prof. Ayotte’s name on it, showed higher values, like 14.4 (from 100g of kidney), and three subjects with 21.4, 62.6, and as high as 130 ng/ml (from 300g of heart, liver, and kidney mix).
The CAS report goes to great lengths to say any boar meat in the burrito was likely corn-fed, and must have been 6 month old piglet with internal testes. Maybe Houlihan’s team got it wrong looking for the pork-belly burrito, and instead, she might have eaten a burrito with a small amount of kidney and liver added from a soy-fed boar.
I also found your last point most interesting — one of the arbiters (the minority) thought that the WADA lab departed from the applicable procedure when reporting the result as an AAF. I found the CAS explanation confusing, since the latest TD2021NA says that the IRMS can be unreliable (depending on the diet of the boar), and recommends other tests, and reporting it as an ATF, but at the same time the TD2021NA gives the lab the discretion to rely on the IRMS result, and report it as an AAF, effectively ignoring the explicit changes. At the very least, this document should be revised once again to add more clarity and guidance for arbiters.
This board is so negative. She got tested over and over. She didn't add any supplements and she is not a cheater. Add it up and it is simple to conclude she is innocent. If you put up a list of 30 American athletes and do a poll, LRC would vote 29 of them as cheaters.
THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:
this is it wrote:
I just read Gault's column on the front page, jfc what a joke. Dude basically just consulted with Shelby's lawyer and repeated what he was told.
It’s more of the why nandrolone taken orally nonsense... It is widely the consensus on these boards that she took a dirty supplement or cocktail of drugs. Also just because they can’t technically say it’s a 0% chance to throw out that there’re thousands of tests as a oh she could just be unlucky. Come on, there are not thousands of athletes eating pork offal or mistakenly getting it. It remains exceedingly unlikely the right type of pig let alone the right part of the meat had anything to do with the finding. None of her story adds up.
+1
Ihatejoe wrote:
This board is so negative. She got tested over and over. She didn't add any supplements and she is not a cheater. Add it up and it is simple to conclude she is innocent. If you put up a list of 30 American athletes and do a poll, LRC would vote 29 of them as cheaters.
Hi Jonathan / brojo
honestly, just how accepting of drug cheats can thisboard, it members and owners be?
you are part of the problem.
goontage wrote: We're done when I say were done. You've got a lot of explaining (backtracking) to do with your 911-inspired racism allegations. Proceed.
Much, if not all, of your anger and frustration that you experience in your life, no doubt with regularity, is a direct result of four unfortunate traits that you've demonstrated in our encounter:
1- your failure to understand what is expressed and implied
2- your inability to determine what is factual and what is not
3-your inability to make logical inferences based on the information that you receive
4-your inability to recognize and account for the effect of your own biases upon the information you receive and the inferences and conclusions that you make.
This world is full of people and intuitions that prey upon those possessing these four weaknesses--using lies, misinformation, and disinformation to control and manipulate your emotions and using them against their common enemies, which include you and others like you.
If you work on overcoming these four things, I promise that you will cease to be a pawn of hate and start to see a drastic increase in your understanding of and satisfaction with life and a greater, more meaningful connection to the people around you. This is priceless. I truly wish you the best on your journey.