New Shelby houlihan article out in WSJ. Big respect again to gds

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Meeting a standard according to "the balance of probabilities" isn't subjective. It is an objective test because it relies on facts and weighing the evidence. Because it is objective it would be appealable if the decision failed to meet that test. (Houlihan couldn't appeal on those grounds). It isn't a matter of mere opinion but a judgment arrived at based on the balance of probabilities. If you think that a subjective test (it isn't) then so is your oft-preferred test of "beyond reasonable doubt" (the criminal standard). Same process: a judgment arrived at through weighing up the evidence, but to a higher bar. What is clearly beyond reasonable doubt is that you understand none of this.

So you are saying that one of the CAS Panelists objectively found that the ADRV was not properly charged due to deviations from the WADA standards that reasonably caused the AAF?

Since nothing in this case was established to the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", it follows that there can be many reasonable doubts.

rekrunner wrote:

OED wrote:

Do you have proof that Rachel’s statement doesn’t accurately reflect Shelby’s position based on the interview she conducted with Shelby? I didn’t think so.

Shelby argued that the offal (“tainted meat”) caused her high levels. The Panel unanimously found that wasn’t the case.

That’s how every legal system works. If you don’t prevail, then the facts are established against you. Shelby wasn’t innocent.

The presumption of guilt with a positive test is the same in criminal proceedings in the US. If I’m arrested for drunk driving and the state conducts a blood test showing my blood alcohol level is above the legal limit, the presumption is that I am guilty. If I want to argue, however, that a bunch of Nazis actually forced a bottle of gin down my throat and then threw me in the car hoping I would drive off a cliff (a la Cary Grant in North by Northwest), I would have to prove this to rebut the presumption. This is not an unfair system.

The proof is the Shelby quotes in the rest of the article, not to mention the second half of Rachel's sentence, which clarify and establish what Shelby thinks. Notably Rachel didn't say "complete abandonment" or "she no longer believes in the theory" -- you did. That's two degrees removed from the original source, with two opportunites for bias and distortion.

Note "offal" is "entrails and internal organs", not "tainted meat".

The CAS Panel subjectively found that she didn't establish the source with specific and concrete elements on the balance of probabilities, based on the limited evidence and arguments before them. This is not a "factual finding" that the burrito was not the most likely source, but just the expected consequence of something else the CAS wrote: "Such proof (how the substance entered the body) is difficult to provide.

The popular drunk driving analogy fails, because there is not a state legal method for alcohol to enter your blood and then you getting behind the wheel. Ingesting large amounts of nandrolone from pork organs is WADA legal, and has produced levels up to 130 ng/ml and 160 ng/ml, in studies with small sample sizes, according to "expert witness" Prof. Ayotte. In such ambiguous cases, presuming "strict liability" and "guilty until proven innocent" has no fitting analogy in law.

OED wrote:

The quotes from Shelby do not mention the burrito and do not support your position. Her having different theories does not mean that they still include the burrito and her not knowing the source does not mean she still thinks it came from the burrito, especially where the prior sentence states SHE NO LONGER THINKS THE BURRITO WAS THE SOURCE. Every attempt you make ignores the prior passage so once again, unless you have proof that the WSJ made a mistake, you are just pulling stuff out of your backend. Basic reading comprehension failure.

Again, you don’t understand legal proceedings so nothing you say is accurate. “The Panel subjectively found” is something every panel, every court, every judge does. You think this is a flaw when it is in fact the intent of the system. There is no other system that would be any different.

The drunk driving analogy works because if you can prove how the alcohol entered the blood stream in a way that shows you weren’t at fault, then you can win your case. Putting the burden on the athlete to prove their innocence AFTER a positive test is not unfair, especially where the alternative would make it nearly impossible to ever ban anyone. Your crying changes nothing. Your agenda has been exposed.

rekrunner wrote:

OED wrote:

The quotes from Shelby do not mention the burrito and do not support your position. Her having different theories does not mean that they still include the burrito and her not knowing the source does not mean she still thinks it came from the burrito, especially where the prior sentence states SHE NO LONGER THINKS THE BURRITO WAS THE SOURCE. Every attempt you make ignores the prior passage so once again, unless you have proof that the WSJ made a mistake, you are just pulling stuff out of your backend. Basic reading comprehension failure.

Again, you don’t understand legal proceedings so nothing you say is accurate. “The Panel subjectively found” is something every panel, every court, every judge does. You think this is a flaw when it is in fact the intent of the system. There is no other system that would be any different.

The drunk driving analogy works because if you can prove how the alcohol entered the blood stream in a way that shows you weren’t at fault, then you can win your case. Putting the burden on the athlete to prove their innocence AFTER a positive test is not unfair, especially where the alternative would make it nearly impossible to ever ban anyone. Your crying changes nothing. Your agenda has been exposed.

My position is that "complete abandonment" and "she no longer believes in the theory" are your quotes, and not Shelby's and not even Rachel's. Regardless of what you understood Rachel said Shelby no longer believes, the fact remains undisputed that we have seen no answers about the source, just unproven theories. The CAS proceeding did not provide us these answers, no prove any theories.

Saying I don't understand legal proceedings is not only wrong, but a copout. I'm sure the CAS understands legal proceedings, and they explained their thought process and justifications within the applicable standards quite clearly. Their primary findings were that Shelby failed to rebut presumptions on the balance of probabilities. As a consequence, it is the WADA Code that compels the CAS to deem intent and sanction Houlihan for 4-years, as if she were truly an intentional doper.

Note that judges in real courts have also been known to wrongly convict innocent people, and even sentence them to death, due to judgements made on incomplete evidence, and sometimes with the help of dishonest prosecutions withholding evidence. The real truth behind events cannot come from an abbreviated process that doesn't look for the truth.

With your DUI analogy, I'm not sure you can win a case by proving someone else gave you alcohol and threw you in a car. Laws may vary from state to state, but according to Neil Shouse, former Los Angeles prosecutor, intent is not an element to consider:

"Driving under the influence (DUI) is a good example of a strict liability crime. People commit DUI when they have a blood alcohol content (BAC) at or above the legal limit, usually 0.08%. They do not have to do this intentionally or even negligently because a culpable mental state is not an element of the crime. All that prosecutors have to show is the BAC level."

The DUI analogy fails because it is not sufficient to just show the level. According to WADA, "low" levels of 5+ ng/ml and CIRs of -23‰ can be "endogenous", and therefore would not be an AAF and not an ADRV.

OED wrote:

It’s ridiculous! He’s focused on the fact that the panel made subjective findings, despite the fact that every judge and every panel in every location ever since mankind has graced this earth has made subjective findings. Every court is confronted with a situation where two different parties offer two different versions of the facts, and the court then must weigh the evidence and make subjective findings as to what happened. Subjective does not mean wrong though. Unless the hearing is before a judge who was 1: present at every event relevant to the case; and, 2. had the ability to perfectly understand the hearts, minds, and intents of every party at all times relevant (I.e., unless the hearing is before God himself), every legal decision will always be subjective. He literally is arguing for a system that cannot exist. Heck, even if the burdens were reversed and WADA had to prove the source of the drug, the tribunal they would appear before would still be making subjective findings. I guarantee you though that he would not be complaining about subjectivity in that situation.

rekrunner wrote:

OED wrote:

It’s ridiculous! He’s focused on the fact that the panel made subjective findings, despite the fact that every judge and every panel in every location ever since mankind has graced this earth has made subjective findings. Every court is confronted with a situation where two different parties offer two different versions of the facts, and the court then must weigh the evidence and make subjective findings as to what happened. Subjective does not mean wrong though. Unless the hearing is before a judge who was 1: present at every event relevant to the case; and, 2. had the ability to perfectly understand the hearts, minds, and intents of every party at all times relevant (I.e., unless the hearing is before God himself), every legal decision will always be subjective. He literally is arguing for a system that cannot exist. Heck, even if the burdens were reversed and WADA had to prove the source of the drug, the tribunal they would appear before would still be making subjective findings. I guarantee you though that he would not be complaining about subjectivity in that situation.

While the CAS findings that arguments and evidence do not rise to some quasi-quantified standard are subjective, I focus more on the fact that the CAS findings in this case are necessarily based on presumptions, and the CAS findings would not be possible without them.

Perhaps it will help you to understand that in anti-doping cases, I am not bound by policies and constraints in the WADA Code and I am not required to make the same presumptions.

I presume athletes are innocent until proven guilty, and give athletes the benefit of the doubt. And more generally, I do not presume things or relations exist, until they have been established with evidence.

This is why I do not always arrive at the same conclusions as the masses.

Stronger findings could be made if Houlihan had preserved and was able to test the remaining portion of the burrito, or she had preserved and was able to test all of her vitamins/supplements from the very same batch, or if Prof. Ayotte produced a receipt from Amazon for a banned product, or Houlihan could obtain more detailed records for all pork ingredients, etc. Then the subjective findings would have more probative weight due to the specific and concrete evidence.