16 Questions That Need To Be Answered In The Shelby Houlihan Case

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you said we had no facts. But those we have are "not sufficient"? To whom? To doping apologists like yourself? The court would disagree with that. It easily found its facts were sufficient. Yet a decision by the court that hears and decides these matters is not to be trusted as making the right decision? Presumably nothing is "sufficient" unless you actually saw Houlihan take the drug and were privy to the considerations of the panel. After all, dopers must always be given the benefit of the doubt in your book.

Fortunately, none of your concerns will matter in the slightest to those who make the decisions. For them, what they know is sufficient to ban a doper. And you remain just another variety of "election fraud" theorist, whose views carry no weight whatsoever.

I did not say we had “no facts”. Why do you have to lie so much? Can’t you make points without resorting to twisting and lying and building strawmen cartoons?

To whom?

- To the CAS. They wrote “the grounds which will be notified in short order” indicating the intention to make the grounds public.

- To the Sports Integrity Initiative. They wrote “Without the CAS Decision, … We only have one side of the story” and “As nobody has seen the Decision other than the parties involved, commentators can only guess.”

- All independent thinkers not satisfied with just parroting decisions.

Now you are just displaying your ignorance of biology.

I did say “if” — you can call this conditional statement an assumption if you wish. Tygart thinks the system is broken and the WADA rules need reform. That seems to be a rather relevant opinion. Houlihan showed that any athlete who eats a pork burrito, but cannot prove it, can become a doper within the system. Then the system doesn’t distinguish between accidental ingestion and deliberate injection.

Not sure what point you want to make, but I’m all for publishing the grounds — I’m only waiting for that. This would help us accept/reject Houlihan’s story as well as the AIU’s story and the CAS’s story. Then all this guessing by commentators can be that much more informed. The only thing I don’t understand is how you can be so confident in all your ideas when key facts are missing. This is not a specific observation, but a general observation.

Your voter fraud analogy shows you’ve run out of relevant material.

rekrunner wrote:

You are pretty slow on the uptake.

It is a fact that CAS has issued a decision and that Houlihan has a “reasonable” excuse.

These facts are not sufficient.

It is kind of sad that you consider an unanimous CAS decision for the full four year ban for this doper as "not sufficient", but that was to be expected from you, given your agenda.

Unless there's any actual evidence I don't see the point of theorizing on air. The evidence is drug tests, and so long as they keep turning up clean, there isn't any productive conclusions that can be made. People can play detective all they want but it's quickly become tiresome and boring to have every fast result piled with doping accusations. Sucking all of the positivity out of the sport for what? The teensy tiny chance to someday say "I told you so!!"

casual obsever wrote:

It is kind of sad that you consider an unanimous CAS decision for the full four year ban for this doper as "not sufficient", but that was to be expected from you, given your agenda.

I’m sure you are smart enough to understand that the context was: “the only thing missing is the evidence before the CAS that led them to their decision”.

In that context, the facts that Houlihan gave an excuse, and that the CAS made a decision, are not sufficient to show what led CAS to their decision.

This fits my agenda of increasing real-world based knowledge.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

It is kind of sad that you consider an unanimous CAS decision for the full four year ban for this doper as "not sufficient", but that was to be expected from you, given your agenda.

I’m sure you are smart enough to understand that the context was: “the only thing missing is the evidence before the CAS that led them to their decision”.

In that context, the facts that Houlihan gave an excuse, and that the CAS made a decision, are not sufficient to show what led CAS to their decision.

This fits my agenda of increasing real-world based knowledge.

That isn't your agenda.

Maybe she was taking Tren! She-Hulk in the next marvel movie!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trenbolone

Seriously. Maybe the Brojos have some invested interest in thinking a white girl from

'Merica HAS to be clean!!! Vs say a German or Black or any other race or nationality.

Facts are it's remarkably easy to take PEDs and get away with it if you have a team doctor or specialist present.

It's either a tainted PED or a gotcha whistle blower.

Alan

rekrunner wrote:

I’m sure you are smart enough to understand that the context was: “the only thing missing is the evidence before the CAS that led them to their decision”.

In that context, the facts that Houlihan gave an excuse, and that the CAS made a decision, are not sufficient to show what led CAS to their decision.

This fits my agenda of increasing real-world based knowledge.

I also recall that you mentioned right before that:

rekrunner wrote:

Once the "missing grounds" are public, the ones who possess independent thought can see for themselves what the basis is, if any, for the WADA lab and the AIU classiflying it as an AAF, and can make the same subjective assessment whether the "reasonable excuse" is probable.

Obviously you don't consider the fact that CAS unanimously rejected Shelby's "excuse" of a beef burrito contamined with uncastrated boar offal as sufficient to decide "whether the "reasonable excuse" is probable."

Also nice was your

" what the basis is, if any ", implying that the WADA lab and the AIU might have come to their conclusion without basis.

This fits your history of doubting the guilt of banned drug cheats, see also Baumann, Decker, Jeptoo, Kiprop...

widefootboy wrote:

Unless there's any actual evidence I don't see the point of theorizing on air. The evidence is drug tests, and so long as they keep turning up clean, there isn't any productive conclusions that can be made. People can play detective all they want but it's quickly become tiresome and boring to have every fast result piled with doping accusations. Sucking all of the positivity out of the sport for what? The teensy tiny chance to someday say "I told you so!!"

Lance never popped hot.

EVERY one of your boyhood athletic superstars is on PEDs. Embrace it. Learn not to care.

Alan

"Houlihan showed that any athlete who eats a pork burrito, but cannot prove it, can become a doper within the system."(quote)

Houlihan showed that anyone found within quantities of a banned drug in their system has committed a violation, and that an excuse has to be plausible to be believed.

You know that she ate a pork burrito, even though she couldn't prove it? She couldn't lying about that, could she? You also know that a Mexican takeaway could give rise to a level of nandrolone two and a half times greater than what WADA considers could be endogenous? (I wonder why we aren't seeing more Mexicans at the Olympics?) Dopers apparently don't need to supply "real world facts" with you. A story will do. She would have no motive to make it up, either - would she? It must be comforting for the dopers to know that there are those like you in their corner.

First you say this:-

"You keep getting things backwards — when there are “no facts”, this will not persuade me. “No facts” and “no arguments” will *not* persuade me — this is why I always ask for real world facts and observation". [/quote]

And then this:-

"I did not say we had “no facts”. Why do you have to lie so much? Can’t you make points without resorting to twisting and lying and building strawmen cartoons?" (quote)

You are either an utter liar or your brain cannot keep track of what statement you have made to the next. Probably both.

"Now you are just displaying your ignorance of biology."(quote)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Houlihan's bladder is part of her own body is it not?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You are pretty slow on the uptake.

It is a fact that CAS has issued a decision and that Houlihan has a “reasonable” excuse.

These facts are not sufficient.

It is kind of sad that you consider an unanimous CAS decision for the full four year ban for this doper as "not sufficient", but that was to be expected from you, given your agenda.

He thinks a unanimous court decision "still leaves us all guessing" as to whether Houlihan is a doper. Because he says she ate some Mexican food.

widefootboy wrote:

Unless there's any actual evidence I don't see the point of theorizing on air. The evidence is drug tests, and so long as they keep turning up clean, there isn't any productive conclusions that can be made. People can play detective all they want but it's quickly become tiresome and boring to have every fast result piled with doping accusations. Sucking all of the positivity out of the sport for what? The teensy tiny chance to someday say "I told you so!!"

They didn't "turn up clean" with Shelby.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Now you are just displaying your ignorance of biology."(quote)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Houlihan's bladder is part of her own body is it not?

I did correct you when you were wrong — you said “veins”, and I corrected you by saying “urine”.

Armstronglivs wrote:

First you say this:-

"You keep getting things backwards — when there are “no facts”, this will not persuade me. “No facts” and “no arguments” will *not* persuade me — this is why I always ask for real world facts and observation".

And then this:-

"I did not say we had “no facts”. Why do you have to lie so much? Can’t you make points without resorting to twisting and lying and building strawmen cartoons?" (quote)

You are either an utter liar or your brain cannot keep track of what statement you have made to the next. Probably both.[/quote]

Actually it was you who first said “No facts, no argument will persuade …”

On the contrary, I can be persuaded by facts and arguments.

But I cannot be persuaded in *your* scenario of “no facts, no arguments”.

It’s really not that hard to comprehend. Once they publish the grounds, then we can see the grounds.

“if any” is just for the case where they do not publish all of the grounds for any reason — i.e. if some of my earlier questions are not answered.

Baumann, Decker, Jeptoo, and Kiprop all fall in to the same category of “strict liability”, where it is not the guilt, as defined by the rules of the WADA code, that is in doubt.

Jeptoo is a good example, where there was no mention of prior samples in the CAS Media Release, but more details came out in the more extensive Decision with the grounds.

Reposted fixing Armstronglivs mismatched quotes:

Wrong again.

One of the things I’m looking for in CAS’s story are the “real world facts” that Houlihan presented to the CAS. That was at the top of my list of questions.