How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

Interesting. Copper runner said that a runner couldn't be sabotaged. But you claim it is very easy to do it.

It does. If not then it isn't a sound decision. But you wouldn't know anything about that.

You keep using a phrase you don't understand.

The source was known to her. That is the inference derived from the court's finding that her doping wasn't accidental.

I don't blindly follow anything. But I can follow the CAS decision, which is properly based on the facts and the law. The only blindness here is the denial by her fans, like you.

I didn't say this was a criminal case - you are either a liar or a moron, or likely both. I pointed out that presumptions in law can be based on the reasoning that a person has intended the natural consequence of their actions. You aren't intellectually equipped to debate any of this.

Athletes are required to know what is on the list. That is why banned substances are listed. WADA just does it for fun? Are you really that thick? Ignorance of what is listed is not an excuse. If it was Houlihan could have argued it by saying she had no idea nandrolone was banned. She didn't.

You argue as though a presumption is nothing more meaningful than a fart. You have no idea. The presumption of intent was confirmed by the facts, the facts in this case being the drug was in her system and she could not show that the cause wasn't her.

Exactly. It wasn't a sound decision.

The same as many of the other false doping accusations and bans that people like you and they make.

To make an analogy of how statistically unlikely Shelby’s story is, let’s create a roughly equally unlikely scenario that won’t invoke bias because it doesn’t have real characters or track and field.

Police are investigating a bank robbery in a rough part of town. People in this town are statistically more likely to commit crimes of theft due to poverty and their needs. Ever since the economic crash, theft/burglary/robbery has gone up a lot in the area. The bank in question was robbed for $1,680,000 in cash, all in 2024 printed $100 bills. The police get a tip on a man who matches the height/build descriptions. The police search this man’s apartment, and discover $1,679,800 stashed away under his bed, all of which are fresh 2024 printed $100 bills. These bills are also later traced back to the bank. Upon questioning, the man claims that he did not rob the bank, he actually just won the lottery and cashed his ticket a couple days prior, and the lottery company must have withdrawn the cash prize for him from the same bank. He is unable to provide evidence of his lottery ticket or the lottery company name. Upon further investigation, it is found that rent for his apartment has increased $500 per month over the past year, and many tenants have been evicted and replaced by those who can afford it. It was also found that through his regular income, he would have still been able to afford rent but his quality of life would be greatly reduced in order to afford it, and the rent trends would likely give him the option of either terminating his lease or being evicted later on. When investigating his social circles, the police found he had close relationships with 1 convicted bank robber, 1 racketeering convict, and 2 more who were suspected of burglary but acquitted due to a lack of evidence in 2 separate instances. Many others in his social circle seem to live far above their means, although much like him, have never been formally suspected/convicted of a crime.

After being arrested, the suspected bank robber sticks with his story that he won the lottery, and that’s where the money came from. One of his friends within that same social circle claims that he saw him purchase the ticket, but this friend also can’t give a company name nor specific location of where this ticket was purchased. The convicted robber remains silent, and the previously suspected robbers argue that he is innocent and being framed.

Do we believe this guy is innocent?

Aside from rekrunner not understanding what the word "evidence" means, it's also weird that he thinks his approach could possibly yield a functioning antidoping system. People could just dope themselves to the gills, test positive, and say, "no proof I did this on purpose," and they'd be off scot free.

I don't think he said that.

No wonder you studied to be a lawyer but ended up as a lowly journo.

The CAS decision does not show that she did. It only shows that nandrolone was in her body in a way that the CAS didn't believe was possible to have happened by accident.

You should stick to subjects you understand; hip replacements and insomnia.

I know what evidence means, as well as proof and presumption.

The system functioned quite well in 2015, before "intent" was something that had to be proved or disproved.

My comments speak to how we want to describe the conclusions of the system, and whether the conclusions descriptions are based in evidence.

I argued intent. WADA defines intent to be conduct that the athlete knew was a rule violation, or knew was risky and ignored the risk.

Your "fourfold" evidence was nonsense.

I let the facts speak for themselves. Even the CAS said intent was presumed, then deemed, while providing no evidentiary support.

The CAS ruled that she didn't establish the more likely than not source -- it is completely relevant.

No one is raising any "ignorance of the law" defense. The question here is whether WADA's special definition of intent has been established.

I agree it is hard to prove intent, as it is to prove non-intent.

The question here is whether it is correct for fans to say she intentionally doped when it hasn't been proven.