liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And she didn't test positive for a banned substance - but if she did it must have been the missing burrito - and CAS didn't ban her for 4 years for an "intentional ADRV". I can see your reasoning here - or attempts at it.
She never tested positive, get your terms right or go away.
Oh, right. There was no banned substance found in her body. What term do you have for that? Imaginary doping?
liar soorer wrote:
thoughts and prayers wrote:
just the facts
No evidence of being a doper; in fact the opposite was proven.Read the decision.
I wonder what a banned substance found in her body is evidence of? The only thing for which there is no evidence is the presence of intelligence in any of your arguments. Fortunately, CAS agrees or it would not have said she committed an intentional ADRV and banned her for 4 years.
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
No evidence of being a doper; in fact the opposite was proven.Read the decision.
I wonder what a banned substance found in her body is evidence of? The only thing for which there is no evidence is the presence of intelligence in any of your arguments. Fortunately, CAS agrees or it would not have said she committed an intentional ADRV and banned her for 4 years.
Read the decision and then go away
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
She never tested positive, get your terms right or go away.
Oh, right. There was no banned substance found in her body. What term do you have for that? Imaginary doping?
ATF or AAF at time of suspension.
Rules… read…. and then go away.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
There was only one possibility with evidence presented to the CAS — accidental ingestion of a small amount from a burrito without knowledge.
I asked what was probable, not what was possible. A "possibility" that cannot be proven, that has been described as being of "zero probability", remains mere conjecture, without convincing evidential support - little more than air. Do you understand the difference between possible and probable? It appears not. All of your arguments are mere conjecture, without convincing evidential support.
As you can see, you asked about "all the speculative possibilities" "on the basis of the evidence presented to CAS".
There was exactly one possibility presented with evidence to the CAS.
Out of all one of the speculative possibility presented with evidence to the CAS, the burrito is the most probable.
That is the answer to your question.
Contrary to your misrepresentation, neither the AIU nor the CAS described it as "zero probability".
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That was the subject of the post you responded to.
It brings you security, like a flannel blanket, to try and reword the decision to confirm your bias.
Speaking there of a flannel security blanket. Is she a doper?
Can you clarify your question? Didn't you just answer your own question in another thread?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Speaking there of a flannel security blanket. Is she a doper?
Can you clarify your question? Didn't you just answer your own question in another thread?
So you think I am asking myself the question? You are indeed peculiarly illiterate. I am asking you - "is she a doper"?
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I asked what was probable, not what was possible. A "possibility" that cannot be proven, that has been described as being of "zero probability", remains mere conjecture, without convincing evidential support - little more than air. Do you understand the difference between possible and probable? It appears not. All of your arguments are mere conjecture, without convincing evidential support.
As you can see, you asked about "all the speculative possibilities" "on the basis of the evidence presented to CAS".
There was exactly one possibility presented with evidence to the CAS.
Out of all one of the speculative possibility presented with evidence to the CAS, the burrito is the most probable.
That is the answer to your question.
Contrary to your misrepresentation, neither the AIU nor the CAS described it as "zero probability".
How does that which is rejected by the Panel (and the AIU) become the "most probable" explanation for the presence of a banned drug in her system? The AIU dismissed her possibility as having "near-zero" likelihood - in other words, utterly improbable. CAS did not dispute that. Do you actually understand what the word "probable" means?That which is only possible does not become probable if it isn't accepted as such.
liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Oh, right. There was no banned substance found in her body. What term do you have for that? Imaginary doping?
ATF or AAF at time of suspension.
Rules… read…. and then go away.
So CAS didn't apply the rules? She didn't have a banned drug in her body and she didn't commit an "intentional ADRV", as CAS said she did?
Armstronglivs wrote:
liar soorer wrote:
ATF or AAF at time of suspension.
Rules… read…. and then go away.
So CAS didn't apply the rules? She didn't have a banned drug in her body and she didn't commit an "intentional ADRV", as CAS said she did?
Read what has been said; don’t invent nor contort and then go away.
liar soorer wrote:She never tested positive, get your terms right or go away.
You crack me up. Why do you keep lying so much?
CAS:
5. ...The analysis of the A-Sample revealed the presence of nandrolone
7. On 15 January 2021, the Athlete exercised her right to the analysis of her B-Sample. On 27 January 2021, the findings of the A-Sample were confirmed.
43. The testimony of the Athlete at the 4 June 2021 hearing can be summarised as follows:
· She had never even heard of nandrolone until she opened the documents sent by the AIU and saw that she was tested positive.
...
ON THESE GROUNDS
The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:
1. The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Shelby Houlihan is upheld.
2. Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
3. Shelby Houlihan is subject to a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting on 14 January 2021.
The ship has sailed.
liar soorer wrote:No evidence of being a doper; in fact the opposite was proven.
LOL. No it was not. Read the decision, and stop lying.
rekrunner wrote:
“theoretically” is your word.
“contamination” is your word.
“zero probability” are the AIU’s words.
“possible” is the CAS’s word.
1, 2) correct
3) wrong, that was World Athletics (the claimant) - just FYI - see 1
4) highly misleading, to be precise:
a) "possible" was CAS's word for that "she was handed a burrito containing pork meat" - see 101
and more importantly CAS also concluded
b) "possible but improbable that the meat of an uncastrated boar ended up in the burrito that the Athlete ate" - see 106
and
c) "possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels." - see 109
and
d) "possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples" - see 114
and
e) "that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature" - see 119
Armstronglivs wrote:
So you think I am asking myself the question? You are indeed peculiarly illiterate. I am asking you - "is she a doper"?
Do try to keep up. We can't advance if you don't move forward.
Each time you ask this ambiguous question, I ask you to resolve the ambiguity in your question.
Since you finally answered a "doper" is "Shelby Houlihan" in another thread, you seemed to have answered your own question with a tautology.
Armstronglivs wrote:
How does that which is rejected by the Panel (and the AIU) become the "most probable" explanation for the presence of a banned drug in her system? The AIU dismissed her possibility as having "near-zero" likelihood - in other words, utterly improbable. CAS did not dispute that. Do you actually understand what the word "probable" means?That which is only possible does not become probable if it isn't accepted as such.
Simple. Out of all 1 possibility with evidence, it was the top one.
The CAS ruled on Shelby's claims, not the AIU's claims.
I understand what "probable" means. Do you understand what "possible" means? Because you speak in absolutes.
Something can be possible but improbable, and that does not depend on acceptance.
casual obsever wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
“theoretically” is your word.
“contamination” is your word.
“zero probability” are the AIU’s words.
“possible” is the CAS’s word.
1, 2) correct
3) wrong, that was World Athletics (the claimant) - just FYI - see 1
4) highly misleading, to be precise:
a) "possible" was CAS's word for that "she was handed a burrito containing pork meat" - see 101
and more importantly CAS also concluded
b) "possible but improbable that the meat of an uncastrated boar ended up in the burrito that the Athlete ate" - see 106
and
c) "possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels." - see 109
and
d) "possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples" - see 114
and
e) "that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature" - see 119
World Athletics -- thanks for the correction. Sorry if "AIU" misled anyone.
Thanks for helping me demonstrate my point that "zero probability" incorrectly describes the CAS's statements.
Rekrunner's whole argument reminds me of a common, paranoid thought that a lot of people experience growing up: that you're very dumb, mentally handicapped, and and everyone else is aware of it and just puts on a charade around you. I've spoken to a lot of people who have experienced this, I remember thinking about it in first grade—what if everyone is just humoring me, this whole school is a fake, my brain works so slow compared to everyone else's, etc... I've heard this same thought in regards to friendship, something like "my parents just pay these people to be my friends." A more common riff that adults experience is "are these people actually my friends?" It's a common paranoid delusion with endless variations, interesting to read about, almost a shared human experience.
The deal is, most people get older and put the pieces together. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that I'm not being hyper-sheltered: I've gone on to graduate college, get jobs, travel, etc... With each of these feats of independence, coupled with years of observation, the possibility of me being absolute dumb as dirt diminishes. I can finally, and proudly, say that I am not mentally handicapped and everyone in the world is not "in on it".
Now, what if I really am just that dumb? I guess it's possible. Everyone would just have to be that much smarter than me. After all, in this scenario, I'm super dumb. I can not rule out entirely, with 100% certainty, that that's the way it goes. But I'm so positive that's not the case. I do all the same things that functioning, well-adjusted adults do, they can't keep up the charade this long, this well, right?
Rekrunner's entire argument hinges on my final question mark. The near-zero probability that something , anything else could be true. I never seriously entertain this idea that I'm being coddled by society anymore (outside of entertaining a conversation), because I've seen the evidence and it's overwhelming.
Basically the Truman Show, lol.
FartKing69 wrote:
Rekrunner's whole argument reminds me of a common, paranoid thought that a lot of people experience growing up: that you're very dumb, mentally handicapped, and and everyone else is aware of it and just puts on a charade around you. I've spoken to a lot of people who have experienced this, I remember thinking about it in first grade—what if everyone is just humoring me, this whole school is a fake, my brain works so slow compared to everyone else's, etc... I've heard this same thought in regards to friendship, something like "my parents just pay these people to be my friends." A more common riff that adults experience is "are these people actually my friends?" It's a common paranoid delusion with endless variations, interesting to read about, almost a shared human experience.
The deal is, most people get older and put the pieces together. I've seen an overwhelming amount of evidence that I'm not being hyper-sheltered: I've gone on to graduate college, get jobs, travel, etc... With each of these feats of independence, coupled with years of observation, the possibility of me being absolute dumb as dirt diminishes. I can finally, and proudly, say that I am not mentally handicapped and everyone in the world is not "in on it".
Now, what if I really am just that dumb? I guess it's possible. Everyone would just have to be that much smarter than me. After all, in this scenario, I'm super dumb. I can not rule out entirely, with 100% certainty, that that's the way it goes. But I'm so positive that's not the case. I do all the same things that functioning, well-adjusted adults do, they can't keep up the charade this long, this well, right?
Rekrunner's entire argument hinges on my final question mark. The near-zero probability that something , anything else could be true. I never seriously entertain this idea that I'm being coddled by society anymore (outside of entertaining a conversation), because I've seen the evidence and it's overwhelming.
Great post! The last few pages of this thread have been taken over by the usual suspects. I'm confident that the silent majority agree with you 100% on this subject and feel it's just beating a dead horse to continue debating her guilt and whether she actually "cheated."
casual obsever wrote:
liar soorer wrote:She never tested positive, get your terms right or go away.
You crack me up. Why do you keep lying so much?
CAS:
5. ...The analysis of the A-Sample revealed the presence of nandrolone
7. On 15 January 2021, the Athlete exercised her right to the analysis of her B-Sample. On 27 January 2021, the findings of the A-Sample were confirmed.
43. The testimony of the Athlete at the 4 June 2021 hearing can be summarised as follows:
· She had never even heard of nandrolone until she opened the documents sent by the AIU and saw that she was tested positive.
...
ON THESE GROUNDS
The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:
1. The request for arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Shelby Houlihan is upheld.
2. Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
3. Shelby Houlihan is subject to a period of ineligibility of four (4) years starting on 14 January 2021.
The ship has sailed.
A quite reasonable summary and one devoid of interpretations that go beyond the decision; which I repeat that I agree with.And one devoid of the appalling requirement that she should be set fire to.
The ship has not sailed in relation to strict liability and food contamination; as USADA has noted on several occasions.
And finally; I have asked several times for your evidence
that her hormone levels were altered.