We merged two threads on the same subject into 1 and kept the title of the 1st one posted. The 2nd thread title was, “Whether you believe me or not, I’m coming back,” Shelby says. “I’ve served the time.”
Well whoop-de-doo for you. Let me introduce you to the real world where that isn’t how things work. Houlihan is a convicted doper who no longer blames the burrito nonsense. It’s time for you to move on.
She was convicted by a process that presumes the AAF was reported correctly, and the ADRV was properly charged, and presumes the ADRV was intentional.
But that doesn't mean that in the real world she doped, or that she doped intentionally.
Well whoop-de-doo for you. Let me introduce you to the real world where that isn’t how things work. Houlihan is a convicted doper who no longer blames the burrito nonsense. It’s time for you to move on.
She was convicted by a process that presumes the AAF was reported correctly, and the ADRV was properly charged, and presumes the ADRV was intentional.
But that doesn't mean that in the real world she doped, or that she doped intentionally.
It literally does. That’s why she served a suspension. Logic 101, as you would say.
It takes two to tango, and right now you are the one asking me to dance.
Can you help me understand why it is important for "Nike PR" to misrepresent what I say without any provocation on my part?
Your posting history shows you are trying to dance with everyone. Don’t pretend otherwise.
I didn't seek you out -- you first replied to me. The history of this thread shows that "Nike PR" trolled me, unprovoked, and then "CAS readerer" and you responded directly to me, as I tried to correct the record.
She was convicted by a process that presumes the AAF was reported correctly, and the ADRV was properly charged, and presumes the ADRV was intentional.
But that doesn't mean that in the real world she doped, or that she doped intentionally.
It literally does. That’s why she served a suspension. Logic 101, as you would say.
Now it is you who doesn't understand how anti-doping arbitration proceedings work. These are presumptions based on ambiguous test results and incomplete evidence.
Your posting history shows you are trying to dance with everyone. Don’t pretend otherwise.
I didn't seek you out -- you first replied to me. The history of this thread shows that "Nike PR" trolled me, unprovoked, and then "CAS readerer" and you responded directly to me, as I tried to correct the record.
Nobody seeks you out. You respond to every doping post involving Kenyans or Shelby. You literally insert yourself into every such discussion. You can’t now cry about it when people respond to you.
It literally does. That’s why she served a suspension. Logic 101, as you would say.
Now it is you who doesn't understand how anti-doping arbitration proceedings work. These are presumptions based on ambiguous test results and incomplete evidence.
She was banned for four years. You understand that right? That’s why she wasn’t at the Olympics the last two times. Presumption or not she is a convicted doper. Nothing you argue changes that. She had her day in court and lost. That’s the way legal proceedings work. You may not like the presumption or the evidence, but the judgment was final and her fate was sealed.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
We have an answer about the source. She doped. She did not rebut the presumption. You consistently overlook this. But way to avoid addressing the obvious that you continue to deny in the WSJ article.
You don’t understand legal proceedings. That is why you continue to cry about the “subjective” findings even though that is the case in every single legal proceeding ever. Your opinion on the fairness of the proceeding is irrelevant and your solution would almost always prevent doping agencies from punishing anyone. Your system sucks. I’ll stick with the better system we already have.
“Strict liability” simply means that the prosecution doesn’t have to prove intent (wait, where have I heard that before?). It doesn’t mean you are guilty no matter what. If you can prove you are not at fault for the positive test, you can be acquitted. Strict liability is merely burden shifting, just like with WADA. My analogy works. You are so out of your league here.
That is not an answer, but another presumption. The source would be something specific, like nandrolone precursor, or vitamins/supplements contaminated during manufacture, or consumption of edible parts of intact boar, or beef injected with nandrolone.
Out here in the real world, outside the artificial context created by WADA for anti-doping, it is impossible to conclude she intentionally doped with a banned product for performance enhancing reasons without first establishing the source was a banned product.
I think it is you who does not understand how this arbitration proceeding worked.
She did rebut the presumption, but the CAS subjectively ruled that her rebuttal didn't meet the required standard, lacking necessary "specific and concrete elements". This is well known to be a difficult proof to provide.
My expressed opinions about the injustice of cases like Houlihan's is narrowly limited to cases consistent with accidental ingestion, e.g. from eating meat known to contain banned substances. Houlihan's low values and CIR in the endogenous range, are consistent with ingestion of intact boar, creating an ambiguity that cannot be resolved by arguments based on national statistics, or presumptions of guilt until proven innocent. But if, for example, her result was 300 ng/ml (twice the amount Prof. Ayotte published in the literature), and/or the CIR was -27‰, clearly exogenous, these would not be consistent with ingestion of pork.
Note that anti-doping bodies were always able to punish athletes for unintentional doping. If Houlihan had established non-intent, she would still be looking at a 2-year ban. This is what routinely happened before 2015. In order to eliminate the ban, she would have had to establish no (significant) fault or negligence.
"Strict liability" in anti-doping means that the athlete will be found to have violated rules, regardless of fault, negligence, intent, or knowledge. The athlete is responsible not only for their own conduct, but also the conduct of others they choose to associate with, e.g. spouse, coach, staff, in cases of sabotage, and apparently the complete supply chain of all the meat they eat and supplements/vitamins they take.
Even if an athlete is able to prove no-fault, no-negligence, non-intent, and lack of knowledge, they will not be acquitted -- it is still considered a rule violation. This is explicit in the Code. The next violation will be considered the second one. What happens is that the sanction for the guilty verdict can be reduced or eliminated, but it still counts as a first strike. They also cannot recover lost time served under a suspension, lost prizes and sponsorship, and legal, investigative, and scientific expenses.
We have an answer about the source. She doped. She did not rebut the presumption. You consistently overlook this. But way to avoid addressing the obvious that you continue to deny in the WSJ article.
You don’t understand legal proceedings. That is why you continue to cry about the “subjective” findings even though that is the case in every single legal proceeding ever. Your opinion on the fairness of the proceeding is irrelevant and your solution would almost always prevent doping agencies from punishing anyone. Your system sucks. I’ll stick with the better system we already have.
“Strict liability” simply means that the prosecution doesn’t have to prove intent (wait, where have I heard that before?). It doesn’t mean you are guilty no matter what. If you can prove you are not at fault for the positive test, you can be acquitted. Strict liability is merely burden shifting, just like with WADA. My analogy works. You are so out of your league here.
That is not an answer, but another presumption. The source would be something specific, like nandrolone precursor, or vitamins/supplements contaminated during manufacture, or consumption of edible parts of intact boar, or beef injected with nandrolone.
Out here in the real world, outside the artificial context created by WADA for anti-doping, it is impossible to conclude she intentionally doped with a banned product for performance enhancing reasons without first establishing the source was a banned product.
I think it is you who does not understand how this arbitration proceeding worked.
She did rebut the presumption, but the CAS subjectively ruled that her rebuttal didn't meet the required standard, lacking necessary "specific and concrete elements". This is well known to be a difficult proof to provide.
My expressed opinions about the injustice of cases like Houlihan's is narrowly limited to cases consistent with accidental ingestion, e.g. from eating meat known to contain banned substances. Houlihan's low values and CIR in the endogenous range, are consistent with ingestion of intact boar, creating an ambiguity that cannot be resolved by arguments based on national statistics, or presumptions of guilt until proven innocent. But if, for example, her result was 300 ng/ml (twice the amount Prof. Ayotte published in the literature), and/or the CIR was -27‰, clearly exogenous, these would not be consistent with ingestion of pork.
Note that anti-doping bodies were always able to punish athletes for unintentional doping. If Houlihan had established non-intent, she would still be looking at a 2-year ban. This is what routinely happened before 2015. In order to eliminate the ban, she would have had to establish no (significant) fault or negligence.
"Strict liability" in anti-doping means that the athlete will be found to have violated rules, regardless of fault, negligence, intent, or knowledge. The athlete is responsible not only for their own conduct, but also the conduct of others they choose to associate with, e.g. spouse, coach, staff, in cases of sabotage, and apparently the complete supply chain of all the meat they eat and supplements/vitamins they take.
Even if an athlete is able to prove no-fault, no-negligence, non-intent, and lack of knowledge, they will not be acquitted -- it is still considered a rule violation. This is explicit in the Code. The next violation will be considered the second one. What happens is that the sanction for the guilty verdict can be reduced or eliminated, but it still counts as a first strike. They also cannot recover lost time served under a suspension, lost prizes and sponsorship, and legal, investigative, and scientific expenses.
Rinse and repeat, huh? This is all your opinion and nothing more. I know how the process works and I know you don’t like it. But the fact is Shelby is a convicted doper and served a ban as a result. No word salad you vomit up can change that. No complaining about presumptions or subjective findings can change that. Nothing you do or say can change that.
Your system requiring WADA to identify a source is laughable and the fact that you promote it shows, above all else, that you don’t not care about a clean sport. I do.
Now it is you who doesn't understand how anti-doping arbitration proceedings work. These are presumptions based on ambiguous test results and incomplete evidence.
She was banned for four years. You understand that right? That’s why she wasn’t at the Olympics the last two times. Presumption or not she is a convicted doper. Nothing you argue changes that. She had her day in court and lost. That’s the way legal proceedings work. You may not like the presumption or the evidence, but the judgment was final and her fate was sealed.
I understand she was banned by a process that has been criticized for railroading innocent athletes to 4-year bans and treating athletes like intentional cheats that have done nothing wrong. I understand it's too late for Houlihan now, but that doesn't make the result the correct one.
Calling her a convicted doper, as a result of this abbreviated process, doesn't seem to carry the same weight that it should, if the specific evidence against her wasn't ambiguous, and artificially resolved by a combination of general arguments and unfavorable presumptions.
She was banned for four years. You understand that right? That’s why she wasn’t at the Olympics the last two times. Presumption or not she is a convicted doper. Nothing you argue changes that. She had her day in court and lost. That’s the way legal proceedings work. You may not like the presumption or the evidence, but the judgment was final and her fate was sealed.
I understand she was banned by a process that has been criticized for railroading innocent athletes to 4-year bans and treating athletes like intentional cheats that have done nothing wrong. I understand it's too late for Houlihan now, but that doesn't make the result the correct one.
Calling her a convicted doper, as a result of this abbreviated process, doesn't seem to carry the same weight that it should, if the specific evidence against her wasn't ambiguous, and artificially resolved by a combination of general arguments and unfavorable presumptions.
And yet, that’s exactly what the result of the process is. A process widely accepted and supported.
Rinse and repeat, huh? This is all your opinion and nothing more. I know how the process works and I know you don’t like it. But the fact is Shelby is a convicted doper and served a ban as a result. No word salad you vomit up can change that. No complaining about presumptions or subjective findings can change that. Nothing you do or say can change that.
Your system requiring WADA to identify a source is laughable and the fact that you promote it shows, above all else, that you don’t not care about a clean sport. I do.
Since we are short on facts, there are a lot of opinions. Note the CAS findings are also opinions.
I don't require WADA (sic) to identify a source, but rather those who try to argue or conclude or convince me that she intentionally doped with a banned oral nandrolone precursor, e.g. purchased on Amazon.
I understand she was punished as if she did, by a process that punishes athletes who cannot establish their innocence, but no one actually established otherwise, that that is what really happened. I understand it's too late for her, but it's not too late for you.
There is simply no specific evidence for any alternative source of the nandrolone, in or out of the CAS proceeding, beyond a suggestion that a banned product exists that can produce the same results as pork ingestion.
I care about a clean sport enough to point out both the bad science and the bad law that exists today in anti-doping, that convicts both innocent and guilty athletes alike.
I understand she was banned by a process that has been criticized for railroading innocent athletes to 4-year bans and treating athletes like intentional cheats that have done nothing wrong. I understand it's too late for Houlihan now, but that doesn't make the result the correct one.
Calling her a convicted doper, as a result of this abbreviated process, doesn't seem to carry the same weight that it should, if the specific evidence against her wasn't ambiguous, and artificially resolved by a combination of general arguments and unfavorable presumptions.
And yet, that’s exactly what the result of the process is. A process widely accepted and supported.
It may be widely accepted and supported, but it is not intellectually robust enough for us to conclude with certainty to any standard (stronger than presumption) that Houlihan intentionally doped with a nandrolone product for performance reasons.
And yet, that’s exactly what the result of the process is. A process widely accepted and supported.
It may be widely accepted and supported, but it is not intellectually robust enough for us to conclude with certainty to any standard (stronger than presumption) that Houlihan intentionally doped with a nandrolone product for performance reasons.
“Us?” I think you mean “you.” I’ve been around this sport long enough and know where too many bodies are buried to be fooled.
It may be widely accepted and supported, but it is not intellectually robust enough for us to conclude with certainty to any standard (stronger than presumption) that Houlihan intentionally doped with a nandrolone product for performance reasons.
“Us?” I think you mean “you.” I’ve been around this sport long enough and know where too many bodies are buried to be fooled.
Sorry, I can't be fooled by "trust me, bro".
Can you tell me which national or international class distance runners you know that have ingested such low amounts of oral nandrolone on purpose, and how have they performed?
“Us?” I think you mean “you.” I’ve been around this sport long enough and know where too many bodies are buried to be fooled.
Sorry, I can't be fooled by "trust me, bro".
Can you tell me which national or international class distance runners you know that have ingested such low amounts of oral nandrolone on purpose, and how have they performed?
A) she did have over twice the amount of the literature of comparable pork meat - more like over 6 times actually after adjusting for the amount of meat,
B) her -23 were not consistent with farm fed pig.
So usually you pretend - still without evidence after over 4 years - that the sneaky Mexican added some additional pork ingredient in Dec 2020 (but not in 2021-25) without telling them and that her pork came from a farm where soy was fed for an extended time period in 2020 - although even you still haven't found such a farm despite your huge investment in this case. And neither has the professional PI.
Both of that is so absurdly ridiculous that not even her famous lawyers dared to hint at that, but you are evidently not bound by any ethics.
But now? Now you even pretend that of course all those numbers are consistent with her story without any of your wild imaginations. Dream on!
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.
No, that doesn't follow, because that standard wasn't applied. You are as thick as a bunch of bricks. The applied standard was the balance of probabilities, which she failed to meet. She also tested positive for a banned substance, which she didn't dispute.
Sure it does, precisely because the higher standard was not applied. Logic 101.
And again, she did dispute the intepretation of the test results as an AAF and an ADRV.
She didn't dispute she had tested positive for a banned substance. The higher standard of reasonable doubt was not applied because these were civil and not criminal proceedings. You prefer that she was facing criminal charges and likely imprisonment if found guilty?
The majority of the panel found she tested positive and she didn't contest that finding. That only left whether she could rebut the presumption of intent. She couldn't. She lost and so do you.
After the CAS ruling, with no chance for appeal, where is she supposed to contest that finding, except to the public -- which she did.
You're correct. There was no chance of an appeal because there were no grounds in either fact or law on which to base an appeal. So she whines to the public, just like you do, her lap dog.
This post was edited 36 seconds after it was posted.