Malcolm Gladwell: Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying?

casual obsever wrote:

Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:

Well?

Well, USADA didn't tell me. But you have seen their criteria, so presumably it's a) the doped team-mate and b) some suspicious test data, because the other Shelby colleagues got tested less often (and neither Jager nor Centra had spectacular race results this year).

What criteria do you mean? Why were they targeted if they were not in great shape? It looks fishy to me. Why should I trust the testing system?

And why did they not have a quiet word with Sha'Carri? Why was she made an example of? Is she considered a bad influence on kids? So they made an example of her?

I think Andy Brown and Travis Tygart explains what is unsatisfying much better than Gladwell, and Abrahamson.

The problem isn’t the CAS, or the decision, per se, as their hands are tied by the WADA code, which can no longer guarantee justice for innocent athletes accidentally ingesting banned substances through no fault of their own.

The WADA code was modified in 2015 to make it easier to sanction more athletes with less burden, by shifting the burden to the athlete with a “guilty unless they can prove innocence” approach, in order to prove something known to be “hugely problematic” and “notoriously difficult”.

sportsintegrityinitiative article about the politics of WADA:

(Tygart): “… the Code in certain cases, railroads innocent athletes into four year sanctions. At our last count, we recorded 27 cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats.”

“As Tygart highlights, the Code treats athletes as guilty of a doping offence unless they can prove that they are innocent.”

“As a result, that 0.6% (of ADRVs) also includes athletes that were sanctioned as they couldn’t conclusively prove that they are innocent. Assessing intent in anti-doping is hugely problematic, as an athlete’s first line of defence will always be that they didn’t intentionally cheat. However from conversations with NADOs over the years, it is estimated that somewhere between 5% and 15% of cases are considered unintentional.”

More quotes from another sportsintegrityinitiative link about the recent history of “intent”, and the shifting of the burden of “intent” to the athlete:

“Proving intentional doping is notoriously difficult.”

“This difficulty in proving intent was why the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) abandoned the ‘aggravating circumstances’ provision within the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code that allowed the standard two-year ban to be scaled up to four years. The burden of proof in establishing ‘aggravating circumstances’ was so high that it was almost never used. Instead, the 2015 Code opted for a standard sanction of four years that could be reduced down if – for example – an athlete could prove that use of a substance was non-intentional.”

“In effect, the 2015 Code reversed the burden of proof from innocent until proven guilty. An athlete is now considered guilty unless they can prove that they are innocent.”

“This is dangerous to athletes.”

“Not every athlete that is sanctioned for doping intends to cheat.”

“For the same reasons that it is difficult to prove intentional doping, it is difficult to put an exact figure on the number of athletes sanctioned for doping who did not intend to cheat.”

“At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional.”

Power corrupts. The whole testing business is shady.

Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:

What criteria do you mean?

The ones cited yesterday in this thread by idkthisorthathuh (which aren't exactly new).

As for your other questions, ask USADA or ask the brojos to investigate.

And Shelby rhymes with Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is all just a plot by the Catholic Church to overthrow the Church of England!

That would be Travis Tygart, the guy who lets dopers serve secret bans but also still compete and win prize money. Way to capture the moral high ground

I admit it. I contaminated the sample.

rekrunner wrote:

The problem isn’t the CAS, or the decision, per se, as their hands are tied by the WADA code, which can no longer guarantee justice for innocent athletes accidentally ingesting banned substances through no fault of their own.

Do you really believe that it is that easy to accidentally ingest enough of a banned substance to have an analytical positive?

1) Tainted meat - a popular canard. Has not worked well from Contador to Houlihan with the occasional exception.

2) Supplements - why are you taking it to begin with? Is it really worth the risk?

3) Subterfuge - so we have the trickster masseuse, the beer-spiker, and the jealous coach.

You know what’s much more likely? I thought I was taking anabolic agent A and it got contaminated with Agent B. The problem is that you can’t use ‘that’s not the steroid I was on’ as a defense. Hence the skullduggery of the BTC crowd.

99% chance she was taking another anabolic that was tainted with Nandralone. This is an easy call.

Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No, it doesn't. A confirmed test is a violation. When no legitimate reason can be provided for the infraction - such as proven food contamination - then the infraction is deemed intentional, and hence the penalty. This is beyond the reasoning powers of doping apologists. And Gladwell. How many test results are needed? 2,3, 4 - 5?

In the case of a slight Nandrolone positive, I want to know the source. Here it is not clear and no-one on this thread knows anything about Nandrolone metabolism, so none of you can answer my questions.

Since it wasn't pork she was the source. That's what a doping violation means.

Finnished at 344 wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Still don’t understand the rules ; do you!

You continue mentioning the notes on the rules. Spell them out. Prove they mean what YOU say, or STFU for all intents and purposes as the song and dance you keep putting on with posters about not understanding rules and/or not reading them and/or not applying them correctly is old.

So many missing the point here. There was no accidental ingestion of nandrolone. The decision is that she broke the rules, which is an intentional act if it wasn't accidental contamination. So she has earned a ban. The rest is irrelevant. But understanding English eludes most here.

That was in response to sabotage.

Armstronglivs wrote:

That was in response to sabotage.

*sanootage.

Finnished at 344 wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Still don’t understand the rules ; do you!

You continue mentioning the notes on the rules. Spell them out. Prove they mean what YOU say, or STFU for all intents and purposes as the song and dance you keep putting on with posters about not understanding rules and/or not reading them and/or not applying them correctly is old.

All set out in the parallel thread on the CAS decision.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Finnished at 344 wrote:

You continue mentioning the notes on the rules. Spell them out. Prove they mean what YOU say, or STFU for all intents and purposes as the song and dance you keep putting on with posters about not understanding rules and/or not reading them and/or not applying them correctly is old.

So many missing the point here. There was no accidental ingestion of nandrolone. The decision is that she broke the rules, which is an intentional act if it wasn't accidental contamination. So she has earned a ban. The rest is irrelevant. But understanding English eludes most here.

Read the rules that have been explained to you and don’t use words from one specific context in an other without being clear and fair.

sanootage wrote:

Finnished at 344 wrote:

You continue mentioning the notes on the rules. Spell them out. Prove they mean what YOU say, or STFU for all intents and purposes as the song and dance you keep putting on with posters about not understanding rules and/or not reading them and/or not applying them correctly is old.

All set out in the parallel thread on the CAS decision.

You don't have a clue what any of it means. You have the intelligence of a wombat. The offence is not even a true strict liability offence, otherwise the only defence would be a false test. Because she had no valid defence intent was presumed.

Once again you highlight the problems inherent in a Doping Control system that purports to reflect high jurisprudence but has become that contorted that few can grasp the complexities and reliance on odd and various previous cases.

My view is that to do it properly is to too expensive and administrationly burdensome and such is a stated in the Wada Code.

high school xc coach wrote:

99% chance she was taking another anabolic that was tainted with Nandralone. This is an easy call.

This is what I think happened too. And it's why her excuse makes no sense.