rekrunner wrote:
I didn’t ever suggest she was framed or that anyone engineered a cover-up.
I believe in objective realities too.
1) Ok. I wasn't saying you did. I was laying out the hypotheticals. When you examine them, you realize the strange and unprecedented territory you'd be in if she was actually innocent.
2) If you believe in objective realities - here's one for you. She's banned for 4 years and her career is effectively over. No Swiss federal tribunal is coming to her rescue.
llort_vbo wrote:
Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:
SH: BANNED.
You: Endless word vomit.
Me: meh. I just don't like cheaters.
Good luck cracking the case wide open. Good thing you are the only one who really knows the truth. With all that knowledge of metabolites and oral routes you should fly over to Switzerland. You might be needed.
Ok I get it, you are one of the many jealous types on letsrun.
She should have been let off with a caution, but you are too naive or vindictive to understand why.
llort_vbo wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I didn’t ever suggest she was framed or that anyone engineered a cover-up.
I believe in objective realities too.
1) Ok. I wasn't saying you did. I was laying out the hypotheticals. When you examine them, you realize the strange and unprecedented territory you'd be in if she was actually innocent.
2) If you believe in objective realities - here's one for you. She's banned for 4 years and her career is effectively over. No Swiss federal tribunal is coming to her rescue.
1) Strange, maybe, but unprecedented? Tygart said USADA has processed 27 no-fault cases, pointing the finger directly at a broken WADA code in need of reform, that risks railroading innocent athletes into a 4-year ban.
2) No dispute here. But some posters want to go a few steps beyond these objective realities, and suggest that Houlihan cheated and lied, on the strength of the CAS ruling, ignoring other objective realities that a WADA code does not determine cheating or lying; that it does determine guilt without consideration of intent; and that it does presume intention without any burden of showing it. If the 4-year ban is the only thing that matters, then why this need to add insult to injury and go beyond the CAS findings to call her a liar and a cheat?
Let's look at one case study, highlighted in a recent ARD documentary from Hajo Seppelt, of an athlete who proved himself innocent to see just how fragile the system is:
Simon Getzmann escaped his worst nightmare only by a complete fluke. A positive drug test had turned the life of the Swiss national handball player completely upside down.
But he had not doped. Nevertheless, he was faced with a ruined career, a loss of livelihood and consequent psychological problems. In desperation, he had the last tablet from a painkiller pack analysed for foreign substances - and landed the most important stroke of luck of his life.
Due to a production error, the pill contained traces of hydrochlorothiazide, a dehydrating agent banned in sports, which had been responsible for his positive doping test. Over a year later, he was acquitted. But despite all the relief, Getzmann also realised: "My case shows: You can be positive, but not dope." Found guilty - with no realistic chance to prove your innocence.
...
Simon Getzmann would not be helped even by a possible sports law reforms. He invested more than 10.000 euros in the investigation of his case, which he will not get back despite the acquittal. Sport law does not provide for any kind of compensation for falsely accused and banned athletes.
rekrunner wrote:
llort_vbo wrote:
1) Ok. I wasn't saying you did. I was laying out the hypotheticals. When you examine them, you realize the strange and unprecedented territory you'd be in if she was actually innocent.
2) If you believe in objective realities - here's one for you. She's banned for 4 years and her career is effectively over. No Swiss federal tribunal is coming to her rescue.
1) Strange, maybe, but unprecedented? Tygart said USADA has processed 27 no-fault cases, pointing the finger directly at a broken WADA code in need of reform, that risks railroading innocent athletes into a 4-year ban.
2) No dispute here. But some posters want to go a few steps beyond these objective realities, and suggest that Houlihan cheated and lied, on the strength of the CAS ruling, ignoring other objective realities that a WADA code does not determine cheating or lying; that it does determine guilt without consideration of intent; and that it does presume intention without any burden of showing it. If the 4-year ban is the only thing that matters, then why this need to add insult to injury and go beyond the CAS findings to call her a liar and a cheat?
Let's look at one case study, highlighted in a recent ARD documentary from Hajo Seppelt, of an athlete who proved himself innocent to see just how fragile the system is:
Simon Getzmann escaped his worst nightmare only by a complete fluke. A positive drug test had turned the life of the Swiss national handball player completely upside down.
But he had not doped. Nevertheless, he was faced with a ruined career, a loss of livelihood and consequent psychological problems. In desperation, he had the last tablet from a painkiller pack analysed for foreign substances - and landed the most important stroke of luck of his life.
Due to a production error, the pill contained traces of hydrochlorothiazide, a dehydrating agent banned in sports, which had been responsible for his positive doping test. Over a year later, he was acquitted. But despite all the relief, Getzmann also realised: "My case shows: You can be positive, but not dope." Found guilty - with no realistic chance to prove your innocence.
...
Simon Getzmann would not be helped even by a possible sports law reforms. He invested more than 10.000 euros in the investigation of his case, which he will not get back despite the acquittal. Sport law does not provide for any kind of compensation for falsely accused and banned athletes.
Both Shelby and Sha'Carri were screwed by WADA as pre Olympic Games PR exercise.
Both athletes should have been given a caution in private and not hung out to dry with the public hurling rotten tomatoes at them.
rekrunner wrote:
llort_vbo wrote:
1) Ok. I wasn't saying you did. I was laying out the hypotheticals. When you examine them, you realize the strange and unprecedented territory you'd be in if she was actually innocent.
2) If you believe in objective realities - here's one for you. She's banned for 4 years and her career is effectively over. No Swiss federal tribunal is coming to her rescue.
1) Strange, maybe, but unprecedented? Tygart said USADA has processed 27 no-fault cases, pointing the finger directly at a broken WADA code in need of reform, that risks railroading innocent athletes into a 4-year ban.
2) No dispute here. But some posters want to go a few steps beyond these objective realities, and suggest that Houlihan cheated and lied, on the strength of the CAS ruling, ignoring other objective realities that a WADA code does not determine cheating or lying; that it does determine guilt without consideration of intent; and that it does presume intention without any burden of showing it. If the 4-year ban is the only thing that matters, then why this need to add insult to injury and go beyond the CAS findings to call her a liar and a cheat?
Let's look at one case study, highlighted in a recent ARD documentary from Hajo Seppelt, of an athlete who proved himself innocent to see just how fragile the system is:
Simon Getzmann escaped his worst nightmare only by a complete fluke. A positive drug test had turned the life of the Swiss national handball player completely upside down.
But he had not doped. Nevertheless, he was faced with a ruined career, a loss of livelihood and consequent psychological problems. In desperation, he had the last tablet from a painkiller pack analysed for foreign substances - and landed the most important stroke of luck of his life.
Due to a production error, the pill contained traces of hydrochlorothiazide, a dehydrating agent banned in sports, which had been responsible for his positive doping test. Over a year later, he was acquitted. But despite all the relief, Getzmann also realised: "My case shows: You can be positive, but not dope." Found guilty - with no realistic chance to prove your innocence.
...
Simon Getzmann would not be helped even by a possible sports law reforms. He invested more than 10.000 euros in the investigation of his case, which he will not get back despite the acquittal. Sport law does not provide for any kind of compensation for falsely accused and banned athletes.
So what's your alternative? No doping control? The fact is, yes, it's possible to inadvertently take a PED. It's highly unlikely, but possible. But do we let it slide when every athlete raises a vanishingly small possibility they took the drug inadvertently? No, we say, "give us a plausible reason for that PED being in your system without you knowing." In extraordinarily rare cases, someone entirely innocent is going to be suspended. But the alternative is an anti-doping system that sanctions athletes only when the case is 100% water tight, which means either a confession or catching them in the act. Really, this means no doping control at all.
The collective genius of Houlihan's defenders are willing to howl to the moon about how she is an example of an unjust system but offer nothing when pressed on what should replace it. The current system is imperfect, like all systems of justice, but it's better than the doping free-for-all that would come from not having to prove an inadvertent contamination defense
The only answer is better education. People have unrealistic beliefs in the PED concept.
Shelby is only a little bit faster than I was as an old man with average ability. But you pitchfork wielding, rotten tomato hurling mobsters think her performances are superhuman. You don't know enough about running, but you all think you're experts.
High hopes wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
1) Strange, maybe, but unprecedented? Tygart said USADA has processed 27 no-fault cases, pointing the finger directly at a broken WADA code in need of reform, that risks railroading innocent athletes into a 4-year ban.
2) No dispute here. But some posters want to go a few steps beyond these objective realities, and suggest that Houlihan cheated and lied, on the strength of the CAS ruling, ignoring other objective realities that a WADA code does not determine cheating or lying; that it does determine guilt without consideration of intent; and that it does presume intention without any burden of showing it. If the 4-year ban is the only thing that matters, then why this need to add insult to injury and go beyond the CAS findings to call her a liar and a cheat?
Let's look at one case study, highlighted in a recent ARD documentary from Hajo Seppelt, of an athlete who proved himself innocent to see just how fragile the system is:
So what's your alternative? No doping control? The fact is, yes, it's possible to inadvertently take a PED. It's highly unlikely, but possible. But do we let it slide when every athlete raises a vanishingly small possibility they took the drug inadvertently? No, we say, "give us a plausible reason for that PED being in your system without you knowing." In extraordinarily rare cases, someone entirely innocent is going to be suspended. But the alternative is an anti-doping system that sanctions athletes only when the case is 100% water tight, which means either a confession or catching them in the act. Really, this means no doping control at all.
The collective genius of Houlihan's defenders are willing to howl to the moon about how she is an example of an unjust system but offer nothing when pressed on what should replace it. The current system is imperfect, like all systems of justice, but it's better than the doping free-for-all that would come from not having to prove an inadvertent contamination defense
There always was a key element in western jurisprudence that it is better that the guilty go free rather than an innocent goes to jail.
The Doping system has to be more and more expensive to move to the above.
That process has been moving for the last 30 yrs and will continue.
And it may be that those caught up in contamination and not automatically vilified.
rekrunner wrote:
1) Strange, maybe, but unprecedented? Tygart said USADA has processed 27 no-fault cases, pointing the finger directly at a broken WADA code in need of reform, that risks railroading innocent athletes into a 4-year ban.
1) I meant unprecedented as a analytical positive that knocks a US distance runner out of the Olympics on the eve of the competition. Unprecedented because of the way that the 'excuse' was offered and the disingenuous nature of the athlete and her coach/handlers, ie trying to pretend that they didn't know what nandro is. Unprecedented because of the brutal and methodical way that CAS dismantled her story.
2) Which leads me to #2 - she does not make a credible and sympathetic figure. Her behavior is part of the evaluation of the evidence, like it or not. And the case that you cite is a textbook example of an analytical positive on a medicine or supplement that vindicates the athlete - SH has nothing like that to offer.
People do get struck by lightning on clear days. Airplane engines fall from the sky. But if I come home smelling like liquor and all scraped up, my wife is going to know I was in a bar fight. If I try to tell her that I got hit by an airplane engine, she's going to tell me to go to bed.
All the SH apologists here have to offer is venom towards those who point out how reasonable the doping ban is and very little to offer towards showing that she's innocent. I've been called jealous and a hater and all that. Until she came up with the cockamamie excuse, I was a fan. I'm very disappointed that she didn't represent us in the Olympics. I don't hate her, but I can't stand cheaters and I believe she is guilty of having a banned substance in her body. I think by far the most likely reason is that she was on something that was contaminated with Nandro.
llort_vbo wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
1) Strange, maybe, but unprecedented? Tygart said USADA has processed 27 no-fault cases, pointing the finger directly at a broken WADA code in need of reform, that risks railroading innocent athletes into a 4-year ban.
1) I meant unprecedented as a analytical positive that knocks a US distance runner out of the Olympics on the eve of the competition. Unprecedented because of the way that the 'excuse' was offered and the disingenuous nature of the athlete and her coach/handlers, ie trying to pretend that they didn't know what nandro is. Unprecedented because of the brutal and methodical way that CAS dismantled her story.
2) Which leads me to #2 - she does not make a credible and sympathetic figure. Her behavior is part of the evaluation of the evidence, like it or not. And the case that you cite is a textbook example of an analytical positive on a medicine or supplement that vindicates the athlete - SH has nothing like that to offer.
People do get struck by lightning on clear days. Airplane engines fall from the sky. But if I come home smelling like liquor and all scraped up, my wife is going to know I was in a bar fight. If I try to tell her that I got hit by an airplane engine, she's going to tell me to go to bed.
All the SH apologists here have to offer is venom towards those who point out how reasonable the doping ban is and very little to offer towards showing that she's innocent. I've been called jealous and a hater and all that. Until she came up with the cockamamie excuse, I was a fan. I'm very disappointed that she didn't represent us in the Olympics. I don't hate her, but I can't stand cheaters and I believe she is guilty of having a banned substance in her body. I think by far the most likely reason is that she was on something that was contaminated with Nandro.
Throw your rotten tomatoes in the compost heap where they belong. You have no idea what happened.
sanootage wrote:
There always was a key element in western jurisprudence that it is better that the guilty go free rather than an innocent goes to jail.
The Doping system has to be more and more expensive to move to the above.
That process has been moving for the last 30 yrs and will continue.
And it may be that those caught up in contamination and not automatically vilified.
Your first point refers to criminal law, which is why we ended up with the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Doping violations are civil law with a different burden of proof (balance of probabilities).
Again, what is your alternative? If we immediately give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raises a contamination defense, then *every* athlete who tests positive will use that defense.
The system, as it stands, says to anyone who raises the contamination defense, that they also have to provide a reasonable and believable account of what was contaminated and how they ended up ingesting it. That's still a hell of a lot of leeway for athletes - just look at the Wilson, Lawson, and Alvarez cases. Houlihan failed to do any of that.
You should also remember why we have an anti-doping system in the first place. It's to protect the integrity of the sport, so we can believe in the performances that we're seeing, and to protect athletes who compete clean. This isn't only about what is being taken away from Houlihan, it's also about ensuring that she didn't take an Olympic place or a medal away from others who deserved it.
High hopes wrote:
sanootage wrote:
There always was a key element in western jurisprudence that it is better that the guilty go free rather than an innocent goes to jail.
The Doping system has to be more and more expensive to move to the above.
That process has been moving for the last 30 yrs and will continue.
And it may be that those caught up in contamination and not automatically vilified.
Your first point refers to criminal law, which is why we ended up with the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Doping violations are civil law with a different burden of proof (balance of probabilities).
Again, what is your alternative? If we immediately give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raises a contamination defense, then *every* athlete who tests positive will use that defense.
The system, as it stands, says to anyone who raises the contamination defense, that they also have to provide a reasonable and believable account of what was contaminated and how they ended up ingesting it. That's still a hell of a lot of leeway for athletes - just look at the Wilson, Lawson, and Alvarez cases. Houlihan failed to do any of that.
You should also remember why we have an anti-doping system in the first place. It's to protect the integrity of the sport, so we can believe in the performances that we're seeing, and to protect athletes who compete clean. This isn't only about what is being taken away from Houlihan, it's also about ensuring that she didn't take an Olympic place or a medal away from others who deserved it.
The system doesn’t work. It never did since it was introduced back in 1965. What makes you believe it ever could?
It's naive to believe in the testing system and naive to believe that any drug is going to be a metabolic magic bullett.
rekrunner wrote:
llort_vbo wrote:
1) Ok. I wasn't saying you did. I was laying out the hypotheticals. When you examine them, you realize the strange and unprecedented territory you'd be in if she was actually innocent.
2) If you believe in objective realities - here's one for you. She's banned for 4 years and her career is effectively over. No Swiss federal tribunal is coming to her rescue.
1) Strange, maybe, but unprecedented? Tygart said USADA has processed 27 no-fault cases, pointing the finger directly at a broken WADA code in need of reform, that risks railroading innocent athletes into a 4-year ban.
2) No dispute here. But some posters want to go a few steps beyond these objective realities, and suggest that Houlihan cheated and lied, on the strength of the CAS ruling, ignoring other objective realities that a WADA code does not determine cheating or lying; that it does determine guilt without consideration of intent; and that it does presume intention without any burden of showing it. If the 4-year ban is the only thing that matters, then why this need to add insult to injury and go beyond the CAS findings to call her a liar and a cheat?
Let's look at one case study, highlighted in a recent ARD documentary from Hajo Seppelt, of an athlete who proved himself innocent to see just how fragile the system is:
Simon Getzmann escaped his worst nightmare only by a complete fluke. A positive drug test had turned the life of the Swiss national handball player completely upside down.
But he had not doped. Nevertheless, he was faced with a ruined career, a loss of livelihood and consequent psychological problems. In desperation, he had the last tablet from a painkiller pack analysed for foreign substances - and landed the most important stroke of luck of his life.
Due to a production error, the pill contained traces of hydrochlorothiazide, a dehydrating agent banned in sports, which had been responsible for his positive doping test. Over a year later, he was acquitted. But despite all the relief, Getzmann also realised: "My case shows: You can be positive, but not dope." Found guilty - with no realistic chance to prove your innocence.
...
Simon Getzmann would not be helped even by a possible sports law reforms. He invested more than 10.000 euros in the investigation of his case, which he will not get back despite the acquittal. Sport law does not provide for any kind of compensation for falsely accused and banned athletes.
This argument is spiraling many a direction. Some posters believe that Houlihan did, indeed, lie. If she lied about the doping, she's a liar by definition. That's a pretty harsh statent to make of someone whose already been penalized for violating anti-doping rules. However, it does warrant a look into what might be defined as a liar.
What's a liar? I think most people would agree that it's a person who makes a believed-false statement to another person presupposing that the statement is being used to invite or influence belief, intending that that other person believe that the statement is true (or intend that the other person believe that or intend that the other person believe that the statement is believed to be true).
One can say that Houlihan implicitly assured the Athletes Integrity Unit and CAS that her statements were true and that she intended that those persons believe her statements as true (and that the statements were believed to be true) on the basis of Houlihan's implicit assurance. Houlihan was not the victim of hyperbole or irony. She made statements in a context where the following norm of conversation is in effect: Absolutely don't make any statements that you believe to be false.
It was clearly proven, based on the balance of probabilities, that Houlihan's statements were, indeed, false. Houlihan's testimony makes it sufficiently clear that she can be said to have told the AIU and CAS an untrue story -- this was not a mere assertion that this was to have been true.
Concerning the Polygraph, it may have served well to have added a couple of queries to Houlihan:
Do you “not believe” your statements to be true?"
"Do you believe that your statement is “probably false”?
[quote]Crop Duster-84 wrote:
It was clearly proven, based on the balance of probabilities, that Houlihan's statements were, indeed, false. [quote]
👆 That doesn't make sense.
Sure it does.
Did Houlihan state something meant to believed to be true? ✅
Did Houlihan intentionally allow another person (or persons, as with CAS) to acquire a false belief about what she had stated, preventing them from acquiring a true belief from her statements? ✅
Did the information Houlihan provided, based on the balance of probabilities, exonerate her? ❌
If the last one isn't ✅ then it was clearly proven that her statements were false. That falsity was based on the balance of probabilities about one or more of the sequences of events (not even including successive sequences) that she stated occured, occuring.
Crop Duster-84 wrote:
Sure it does.
Did Houlihan state something meant to believed to be true? ✅
Did Houlihan intentionally allow another person (or persons, as with CAS) to acquire a false belief about what she had stated, preventing them from acquiring a true belief from her statements? ✅
Did the information Houlihan provided, based on the balance of probabilities, exonerate her? ❌
If the last one isn't ✅ then it was clearly proven that her statements were false. That falsity was based on the balance of probabilities about one or more of the sequences of events (not even including successive sequences) that she stated occured, occuring.
The standard of proof is not on the balance of probabilities. It is comfortable satisfaction which depending on the severity of the case and consequences moves towards beyond reasonable doubt.
Wish people would read stuff prior to posting.
High hopes wrote:
sanootage wrote:
There always was a key element in western jurisprudence that it is better that the guilty go free rather than an innocent goes to jail.
The Doping system has to be more and more expensive to move to the above.
That process has been moving for the last 30 yrs and will continue.
And it may be that those caught up in contamination and not automatically vilified.
Your first point refers to criminal law, which is why we ended up with the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Doping violations are civil law with a different burden of proof (balance of probabilities).
Again, what is your alternative? If we immediately give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raises a contamination defense, then *every* athlete who tests positive will use that defense.
The system, as it stands, says to anyone who raises the contamination defense, that they also have to provide a reasonable and believable account of what was contaminated and how they ended up ingesting it. That's still a hell of a lot of leeway for athletes - just look at the Wilson, Lawson, and Alvarez cases. Houlihan failed to do any of that.
You should also remember why we have an anti-doping system in the first place. It's to protect the integrity of the sport, so we can believe in the performances that we're seeing, and to protect athletes who compete clean. This isn't only about what is being taken away from Houlihan, it's also about ensuring that she didn't take an Olympic place or a medal away from others who deserved it.
Comfortable satisfaction not balance…..
sanootage wrote:
High hopes wrote:
Your first point refers to criminal law, which is why we ended up with the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof. Doping violations are civil law with a different burden of proof (balance of probabilities).
Again, what is your alternative? If we immediately give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who raises a contamination defense, then *every* athlete who tests positive will use that defense.
The system, as it stands, says to anyone who raises the contamination defense, that they also have to provide a reasonable and believable account of what was contaminated and how they ended up ingesting it. That's still a hell of a lot of leeway for athletes - just look at the Wilson, Lawson, and Alvarez cases. Houlihan failed to do any of that.
You should also remember why we have an anti-doping system in the first place. It's to protect the integrity of the sport, so we can believe in the performances that we're seeing, and to protect athletes who compete clean. This isn't only about what is being taken away from Houlihan, it's also about ensuring that she didn't take an Olympic place or a medal away from others who deserved it.
Comfortable satisfaction not balance…..
I would have each case tested on its merits and not with strict liability conditioning the outcome.
It's not "clearly proven" this is the problem with law.
In science this would be an hypothesis, not a proof.
Only in pure mathematics does a real proof exist.
This is why innocent people get convicted and guilty people go free. And why ya needs a good lawyer.
***************************
Speaking of legal drama, I wonder how rojo's jury duty went recently?
Crop Duster-84 wrote:
It was clearly proven, based on the balance of probabilities, that Houlihan's statements were, indeed, false.
Sorry.
It is premature to conclude that Houlihan lied based on the CAS ruling and report.
Finding that Houlihan’s evidence did not rise high enough to meet a certain legal burden to convince the panel does not meet the burden of clearly proving her statements false.
A cheater in the sport was caught, the decision was very satisfying