Whether the act of buying a burrito is considered relevant (and admissible) or irrelevant (and inadmissible) does not change the fact that buying a burrito is evidence. In this proceeding, it appears to have been relevant evidence -- Houlihan couldn't pursue her claim (which was eventually unsuccessfully) that she got unintentionally doped via a burrito unless she presented evidence that she ingested a burrito. That evidence could be as little as her saying "I ate a burrito once." That is evidence. But as I recall, she presented a bit more evidence on that, like naming the burrito company, listing the burrito company's menu, evidence of the day she ate the burrito, and even corroborating evidence of third parties who saw he purchase a burrito. All of that is evidence.
We are differing over the meaning of the term "evidence". Evidence has to be supportive of what is claimed. Merely buying a burrito isn't; there is no necessary or even likely connection between consumption of a burrito and accidental contamination from a banned drug. That is what CAS heard, that the likelihood of her claim of contamination was "near zero". Evidence would have been a contaminated burrito. She didn't have it So she produced no evidence that actually supported her claim of food contamination. She may as well have said she bought an orange or a hamburger. So what.
No. You just have an evolving meaning of the word "evidence" and keep conflating it with the merits of Houlihan's claim.
Evidence is an item proffered by a litigant which makes the existence of a fact or claim more or less probable. The act of buying a burrito by Houlihan makes her claim that she was unintentionally doped more probable. In fact, if she can't allege that she bought (or at least ingested) a burrito within a certain time frame around her failed test, it is dispositive of her claim. Buying and eating the burrito IS evidence in the proceeding. In fact, it is relevant evidence and admissible (irrelevant evidence is not admissible).
Whether her claim that she failed a drug test because she bought and ingested a burrito with illegal drugs in it had any merit, which it clearly did not, is another issue. Buying and eating a burrito, however, is evidence.
So any speculation on the supposed saboteur, or are we still asking each other to read the CAS decision for the 17,465th time?
^^^^^^
This. I was hoping for a discussion from people who know more about BTC of the possible saboteurs, rather than another thread rehashing the CAS decision. We've been over that ad barfeum.
The purpose of this thread is to speculate about who could have slipped her a mickey ("it could have been someone around me"). We need to analyze things like motive, opportunity, access, knowledge and propensity for deviousness, in coming up with a list of possible saboteurs.
So any speculation on the supposed saboteur, or are we still asking each other to read the CAS decision for the 17,465th time?
^^^^^^
This. I was hoping for a discussion from people who know more about BTC of the possible saboteurs, rather than another thread rehashing the CAS decision. We've been over that ad barfeum.
The purpose of this thread is to speculate about who could have slipped her a mickey ("it could have been someone around me"). We need to analyze things like motive, opportunity, access, knowledge and propensity for deviousness, in coming up with a list of possible saboteurs.
I think it was a rhetorical question and one to illustrate the problems with trying to prove a negative. So it is still back to the CAS decision and the Wada Code it is based on….. sorry.
We are differing over the meaning of the term "evidence". Evidence has to be supportive of what is claimed. Merely buying a burrito isn't; there is no necessary or even likely connection between consumption of a burrito and accidental contamination from a banned drug. That is what CAS heard, that the likelihood of her claim of contamination was "near zero". Evidence would have been a contaminated burrito. She didn't have it So she produced no evidence that actually supported her claim of food contamination. She may as well have said she bought an orange or a hamburger. So what.
No. You just have an evolving meaning of the word "evidence" and keep conflating it with the merits of Houlihan's claim.
Evidence is an item proffered by a litigant which makes the existence of a fact or claim more or less probable. The act of buying a burrito by Houlihan makes her claim that she was unintentionally doped more probable. In fact, if she can't allege that she bought (or at least ingested) a burrito within a certain time frame around her failed test, it is dispositive of her claim. Buying and eating the burrito IS evidence in the proceeding. In fact, it is relevant evidence and admissible (irrelevant evidence is not admissible).
Whether her claim that she failed a drug test because she bought and ingested a burrito with illegal drugs in it had any merit, which it clearly did not, is another issue. Buying and eating a burrito, however, is evidence.
I am not changing or conflating the term, as you suggest. I have maintained that the mere claim she consumed a burrito isn't evidence of anything, except that she ate a burrito. It is merely a fact; it is only evidence if it materially supports an argument being made. For that to occur there has to be a causal connection between consuming a burrito and accidental doping. It was dismissed. I therefore don't see how you can say that consuming a burrito made her claim "more probable", as the Panel determined there was virtually no probability in her argument (it was deemed "near zero").
Similarly, she could have argued that someone might have spiked her drink. It is a claim - like the so called contaminated burrito - but in the absence of facts that support that claim it doesn't amount to evidence of what is claimed.
However, I think you are using the term in a different sense from me. You appear to be saying any fact that is presented or can be presented constitutes "evidence" in a technical sense, whereas I am saying it is only evidence if it adds significant factual veracity to the argument being made. Consuming a burrito doesn't of itself suggest food contamination.There has to be something more - much more - than that. And that is what the Panel concluded. It may have agreed with your point by accepting her consuming a burrito as admissable evidence but it concluded that it didn't amount to evidence of what she claimed, which is what I am saying. "Close to zero" probability is air, not evidence.
Dear me. The quaint literalism that afflicts your thinking. Here we are (from a previous post):-
"Point me to the "evidence" that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions. CAS found no such evidence. Nor could she."
The question then is as follows:
-So what was the evidence that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions?
(Evidence, by the way, is not merely speculation or that which is supposed - like a "contaminated" burrito).
To be crystal clear, you avoided answering my "question" by asking this "question", so it's rather hypocritical to accuse me of avoiding your question.
But this is one of several childish games you play, to avoid conceding that the CAS "finding" of "intent" is one they arrived at without any evidence, and by your own standard, must be considered pure fantasy.
Also, to be clear, you are asking me to point you to evidence of a claim I didn't make.
But for entertainment's sake, let's entertain your fantastic possibility:
In the context of a CAS hearing, the meaning of "intentional" is clarified in the WADA Code in 10.2.3 and Comment 59, as conduct that the athlete knew, or should have known, was risky, and would or could lead to a rule violation.
This highlights another problem -- the lack of instantiation. The CAS report does not identify any such athlete conduct, for any possibility, that meets the special meaning in the WADA Code. It is left to the fantasies of the readers. We could say that Houlihan's intentionally ordering, intentionally paying for, and intentionally eating a burrito is intentional athlete conduct, but this conduct does not reasonably constitute risky behavior that the athlete should have known could or would cause a rule violation.
What about other evidence outside of Houlihan's intentional conduct?
There was ample evidence before the CAS, that eating selected USDA inspected and approved pork offal, could/would lead to the same test results. Prof. McGlone gave testimony that, despite efforts from USDA inspectors, some intact boars regularly make it into the food supply undetected, and that during the pandemic pigs were fed more soy. From decades of research, including research from Prof. Ayotte, this is "consistent with" both the presence of the less than 10 ng/ml nandrolone and the depleted carbon isotope signature of -23. The improbability greatly increases with the 121,000,000 pigs that are slaughtered in the USA each year, creating many opportunities with up 12,100 intact boars per year slipping into the USA food supply undetected, according to Prof. McGlone's estimated intact boar penetration.
Any nandrolone in the urine of an athlete consuming such pork offal, would be the result of conduct from USDA inspectors, butchers, farmers, corn and soy suppliers, and several other parties in the chain. None of this can be described as the result of intentional conduct by Houlihan, until she ordered, paid for, and ate a greasy pork stomach burrito -- conduct not known to be risky.
So your response to my question of what is the actual evidence that argues against her intentionally doping is simply to rehearse arguments which were dismissed by the Panel as being of "near zero" probability. You have no case. She has no case.
Same question -- just point me to the evidence that the CAS used to decide "intent".
Crickets.
Intent was presumed from a banned drug being found in her system. The positive test and the failure to rebut the presumption through presenting an accepted defence of accidental contamination constitute evidence of intent. She was therefore deemed the author of her own breach of the rules, which necessarily requires intent.
To be crystal clear, you avoided answering my "question" by asking this "question", so it's rather hypocritical to accuse me of avoiding your question.
But this is one of several childish games you play, to avoid conceding that the CAS "finding" of "intent" is one they arrived at without any evidence, and by your own standard, must be considered pure fantasy.
Also, to be clear, you are asking me to point you to evidence of a claim I didn't make.
But for entertainment's sake, let's entertain your fantastic possibility:
In the context of a CAS hearing, the meaning of "intentional" is clarified in the WADA Code in 10.2.3 and Comment 59, as conduct that the athlete knew, or should have known, was risky, and would or could lead to a rule violation.
This highlights another problem -- the lack of instantiation. The CAS report does not identify any such athlete conduct, for any possibility, that meets the special meaning in the WADA Code. It is left to the fantasies of the readers. We could say that Houlihan's intentionally ordering, intentionally paying for, and intentionally eating a burrito is intentional athlete conduct, but this conduct does not reasonably constitute risky behavior that the athlete should have known could or would cause a rule violation.
What about other evidence outside of Houlihan's intentional conduct?
There was ample evidence before the CAS, that eating selected USDA inspected and approved pork offal, could/would lead to the same test results. Prof. McGlone gave testimony that, despite efforts from USDA inspectors, some intact boars regularly make it into the food supply undetected, and that during the pandemic pigs were fed more soy. From decades of research, including research from Prof. Ayotte, this is "consistent with" both the presence of the less than 10 ng/ml nandrolone and the depleted carbon isotope signature of -23. The improbability greatly increases with the 121,000,000 pigs that are slaughtered in the USA each year, creating many opportunities with up 12,100 intact boars per year slipping into the USA food supply undetected, according to Prof. McGlone's estimated intact boar penetration.
Any nandrolone in the urine of an athlete consuming such pork offal, would be the result of conduct from USDA inspectors, butchers, farmers, corn and soy suppliers, and several other parties in the chain. None of this can be described as the result of intentional conduct by Houlihan, until she ordered, paid for, and ate a greasy pork stomach burrito -- conduct not known to be risky.
So your response to my question of what is the actual evidence that argues against her intentionally doping is simply to rehearse arguments which were dismissed by the Panel as being of "near zero" probability. You have no case. She has no case.
Strict liability and the burden of trying to prove a negative makes your arguments moot.
You were said to use racist terms and found it impossible to prove that you were not a racist.
In such a case the "smoking gun" evidence would be overwhelming tending to show guilt. That is what the analogy means. The onus would still fall on the accused to find a defence. Good luck to them. Or her.
Still not grasped what strict liability is compared with usual law.
The prosecution have disprove the defence in the gun case and prove theirs as the onus is actually on the prosecution.
In doping it is the other way about.
Wrong. In a criminal case an argument in defence still requires evidence in support or it won't stack up.
In the metaphorical sense in which it is used, a smoking gun is the equivalent of a positive test - it strongly suggests guilt. The only relevant point about strict liability is that it isn't necessary for the prosecution to prove intent - although intent may be adduced from the facts.
You say an analogy is not reality and then you attempt to use the same analogy to present your fanciful version of reality. Self-contradiction comes easily to you.
This went way over your head, but you said I was evading reality, while you create unreal analogies. Your analogies are always broken.
Yet you sought to use it. That appears to have gone over your head.
Intent was presumed from a banned drug being found in her system. The positive test and the failure to rebut the presumption through presenting an accepted defence of accidental contamination constitute evidence of intent. She was therefore deemed the author of her own breach of the rules, which necessarily requires intent.
Non of the above matches either from the CAS decision or the Wada code.
Why is it that you continue to post without any consideration of the WADA code?
How on earth can you have the audacity to say that a rule breach require intent.This is a gross school child error that alone makes your contributions utterly worthless.
So any speculation on the supposed saboteur, or are we still asking each other to read the CAS decision for the 17,465th time?
^^^^^^
This. I was hoping for a discussion from people who know more about BTC of the possible saboteurs, rather than another thread rehashing the CAS decision. We've been over that ad barfeum.
The purpose of this thread is to speculate about who could have slipped her a mickey ("it could have been someone around me"). We need to analyze things like motive, opportunity, access, knowledge and propensity for deviousness, in coming up with a list of possible saboteurs.
The silence here on that point suggests that Houlihan was just blowing air.
So your response to my question of what is the actual evidence that argues against her intentionally doping is simply to rehearse arguments which were dismissed by the Panel as being of "near zero" probability. You have no case. She has no case.
Strict liability and the burden of trying to prove a negative makes your arguments moot.
You were said to use racist terms and found it impossible to prove that you were not a racist.
You were the only one to make such a claim. That is proof that it had no foundation in fact, as nothing you say has the slightest credibility.
Intent was presumed from a banned drug being found in her system. The positive test and the failure to rebut the presumption through presenting an accepted defence of accidental contamination constitute evidence of intent. She was therefore deemed the author of her own breach of the rules, which necessarily requires intent.
Non of the above matches either from the CAS decision or the Wada code.
Why is it that you continue to post without any consideration of the WADA code?
How on earth can you have the audacity to say that a rule breach require intent.This is a gross school child error that alone makes your contributions utterly worthless.
And I am beIng kind with saying worthless.
The rule breach presumed intent. As CAS said, she failed to rebut that presumption, so it found intent.
Intent was presumed from a banned drug being found in her system. The positive test and the failure to rebut the presumption through presenting an accepted defence of accidental contamination constitute evidence of intent. She was therefore deemed the author of her own breach of the rules, which necessarily requires intent.
Non of the above matches either from the CAS decision or the Wada code.
Why is it that you continue to post without any consideration of the WADA code?
How on earth can you have the audacity to say that a rule breach require intent.This is a gross school child error that alone makes your contributions utterly worthless.
And I am beIng kind with saying worthless.
Still can’t believe your knowledge of what you post about is if the very lowest order.