LRC note. We added in to the title that she trained in Cheptegei's camp as this is much more newsworthy than your average run of the mill doping bust. the same thing was true last year when someone in Kipchoge's camp was banned.
If athletes can't produce evidence of their innocence they aren't "innocent". Since they have tested positive for a banned substance, and it's been confirmed, that you think they are "innocent" is mere supposition on your part, with the only relevant evidence establishing their guilt.
This is the latest standard in the WADA Code, but "guilty until proven innocent" is not the standard that guarantees justice for all accused athletes. The examples I gave of innocent athletes testing positive are not "supposition" but "established" by anti-doping authorities. Otherwise, the way I use "innocent" is not specific, and therefore not "supposition" -- I use it as a qualifier to make general statements about innocent athletes that would not apply to intentional doping cheats.
If you ever want to break out of your self-imposed confirmation bias, and start to educate yourself the many problems with the process, and the conflicts that exist in the whole chain, from the WADA Lab, to the CAS to WADA and the IOC, I've linked to more articles, where I share the same thoughts as sports journalists, and more anti-doping experts:
If athletes can't produce evidence of their innocence they aren't "innocent". Since they have tested positive for a banned substance, and it's been confirmed, that you think they are "innocent" is mere supposition on your part, with the only relevant evidence establishing their guilt.
This is the latest standard in the WADA Code, but "guilty until proven innocent" is not the standard that guarantees justice for all accused athletes. The examples I gave of innocent athletes testing positive are not "supposition" but "established" by anti-doping authorities. Otherwise, the way I use "innocent" is not specific, and therefore not "supposition" -- I use it as a qualifier to make general statements about innocent athletes that would not apply to intentional doping cheats.
If you ever want to break out of your self-imposed confirmation bias, and start to educate yourself the many problems with the process, and the conflicts that exist in the whole chain, from the WADA Lab, to the CAS to WADA and the IOC, I've linked to more articles, where I share the same thoughts as sports journalists, and more anti-doping experts:
More like you, who think athletes who test positive are still innocent, despite the absence of convincing evidence showing that. What is shown to be probable always trumps what is merely possible.
Athletes know the rules. It appears to work for most - until they test positive. And then you and a few others proclaim their "innocence" and the "unfairness" of a system the athletes and their sports have agreed to.
More like you, who think athletes who test positive are still innocent, despite the absence of convincing evidence showing that. What is shown to be probable always trumps what is merely possible.
Athletes know the rules. It appears to work for most - until they test positive. And then you and a few others proclaim their "innocence" and the "unfairness" of a system the athletes and their sports have agreed to.
What is considered "convincing" is subjective.
The biggest problem though is that nothing "was shown to be probable". The AIU and their experts made no such showings among the possible sources of nandrolone.
What is highly probable is that a system based on "guilty until proven innocent" will convict many innocent athletes under a presumption of intent, for being unable to prove the source, or even worse, unable to afford a defense.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
More like you, who think athletes who test positive are still innocent, despite the absence of convincing evidence showing that. What is shown to be probable always trumps what is merely possible.
Athletes know the rules. It appears to work for most - until they test positive. And then you and a few others proclaim their "innocence" and the "unfairness" of a system the athletes and their sports have agreed to.
What is considered "convincing" is subjective.
The biggest problem though is that nothing "was shown to be probable". The AIU and their experts made no such showings among the possible sources of nandrolone.
What is highly probable is that a system based on "guilty until proven innocent" will convict many innocent athletes under a presumption of intent, for being unable to prove the source, or even worse, unable to afford a defense.
The CAS findings were based expressly on the test of the balance of probabilities. According to that test they rejected Houlihan's explanation, as the evidence suggested it was of near-to-zero likelihood. That necessarily means Houlihan probably doped, since that was the only alternative. It wasn't difficult to then find her guilty of an intentional ADRV. Once she has tested positive, and was unable to establish a credible defence, nothing else satisfied the test of the balance of probabilities. Intent is established once she could not show otherwise. You think the onus to do that should have been on the authorities but she had tested for a banned drug in her system. The onus falls on her to show how it got there. That presumes doping unless she can show otherwise. She couldn't. That doesn't make her "innocent"; it shows that like anyone making any kind of claim she has to be able to back it up. She couldn't. So she's a doper.
The CAS findings were based expressly on the test of the balance of probabilities. According to that test they rejected Houlihan's explanation, as the evidence suggested it was of near-to-zero likelihood. That necessarily means Houlihan probably doped, since that was the only alternative. It wasn't difficult to then find her guilty of an intentional ADRV. Once she has tested positive, and was unable to establish a credible defence, nothing else satisfied the test of the balance of probabilities. Intent is established once she could not show otherwise. You think the onus to do that should have been on the authorities but she had tested for a banned drug in her system. The onus falls on her to show how it got there. That presumes doping unless she can show otherwise. She couldn't. That doesn't make her "innocent"; it shows that like anyone making any kind of claim she has to be able to back it up. She couldn't. So she's a doper.
A subjective assessment based on incomplete information combined with a set of presumptions is not the right tool for establishing facts.
The AIU and their experts presented no evidence regarding the likely source in Houlihan's specific instance. Even if they had, there is no dichotomy where intentional doping remains "the only alternative".
The WADA Code makes it easy to presume and deem intent when there is doubt, but this does not make "intent" a fact.
The CAS findings were based expressly on the test of the balance of probabilities. According to that test they rejected Houlihan's explanation, as the evidence suggested it was of near-to-zero likelihood. That necessarily means Houlihan probably doped, since that was the only alternative. It wasn't difficult to then find her guilty of an intentional ADRV. Once she has tested positive, and was unable to establish a credible defence, nothing else satisfied the test of the balance of probabilities. Intent is established once she could not show otherwise. You think the onus to do that should have been on the authorities but she had tested for a banned drug in her system. The onus falls on her to show how it got there. That presumes doping unless she can show otherwise. She couldn't. That doesn't make her "innocent"; it shows that like anyone making any kind of claim she has to be able to back it up. She couldn't. So she's a doper.
A subjective assessment based on incomplete information combined with a set of presumptions is not the right tool for establishing facts.
The AIU and their experts presented no evidence regarding the likely source in Houlihan's specific instance. Even if they had, there is no dichotomy where intentional doping remains "the only alternative".
The WADA Code makes it easy to presume and deem intent when there is doubt, but this does not make "intent" a fact.
An assessment by experts and by a Court is not "subjective". It was done according to scientific criteria and the rules.
The AIU did not need to present evidence of the likely source of the banned substance. That was irrelevant. The banned substance was in her system. That established a rule violation. It wasn't up to them to enquire how it got there. It was for her to establish a source that showed she hadn't doped. She couldn't.
"Intent" becomes a finding of fact when the athlete is unable to show otherwise.
You fail to understand how this process works - and that it works as it is intended.
An assessment by experts and by a Court is not "subjective". It was done according to scientific criteria and the rules.
The AIU did not need to present evidence of the likely source of the banned substance. That was irrelevant. The banned substance was in her system. That established a rule violation. It wasn't up to them to enquire how it got there. It was for her to establish a source that showed she hadn't doped. She couldn't.
"Intent" becomes a finding of fact when the athlete is unable to show otherwise.
You fail to understand how this process works - and that it works as it is intended.
Sorry -- it is you who fail to understand how the process works. There was no assessment by experts, or findings by the "court", establishing the likely source, on the balance of probability.
Intent was presumed and deemed, and never established as a fact. This is codified by WADA and it's how it was explained by the CAS.
The AIU did not need to present evidence because it is presumed. However, establishing the source, or establishing intent, as a fact does need to present that evidence. Claiming, as you did, "What is shown to be probable ..." necessarily requires such a showing. It is not coherent to say it was shown, only to later say it did not need to be shown.
An assessment by experts and by a Court is not "subjective". It was done according to scientific criteria and the rules.
The AIU did not need to present evidence of the likely source of the banned substance. That was irrelevant. The banned substance was in her system. That established a rule violation. It wasn't up to them to enquire how it got there. It was for her to establish a source that showed she hadn't doped. She couldn't.
"Intent" becomes a finding of fact when the athlete is unable to show otherwise.
You fail to understand how this process works - and that it works as it is intended.
Sorry -- it is you who fail to understand how the process works. There was no assessment by experts, or findings by the "court", establishing the likely source, on the balance of probability.
Intent was presumed and deemed, and never established as a fact. This is codified by WADA and it's how it was explained by the CAS.
The AIU did not need to present evidence because it is presumed. However, establishing the source, or establishing intent, as a fact does need to present that evidence. Claiming, as you did, "What is shown to be probable ..." necessarily requires such a showing. It is not coherent to say it was shown, only to later say it did not need to be shown.
Her violation was ruled as intentional, which means it was a finding of fact, because she was unable to show otherwise. The presence of a banned substance in her system was incontrovertible; if she could not show accidental contamination that left the presumption of intent unrebutted. From a factual basis, it was the only remaining alternative that explained the presence of nandrolone in her body - she had to have put it there - and it was ruled more likely on the balance of probability than her merely "what if" defence.
This post was edited 39 seconds after it was posted.
Her violation was ruled as intentional, which means it was a finding of fact, because she was unable to show otherwise. The presence of a banned substance in her system was incontrovertible; if she could not show accidental contamination that left the presumption of intent unrebutted. From a factual basis, it was the only remaining alternative that explained the presence of nandrolone in her body - she had to have put it there - and it was ruled more likely on the balance of probability than her merely "what if" defence.
You can deny reality all you want, but in an artificially constructed limited context, with limited information, intent was presumed, then deemed based solely on presumption. Whatever you want to tell yourself to make yourself believe, this is what the CAS told us in black and white. Back here in the real world, there are no supporting facts, no supporting evidence, just deemed intent supported by a 2015 codified presumption.
Not interested in the bickering but here you have a runner join a new training group that has been tied to doping before, suddenly develop the ability to run categorically faster than she has her entire life, becoming a patented "out of nowhere" world contender, then get busted for doping with no credible explanation. Open and shut. She was not too big to fail.
This post was edited 24 seconds after it was posted.
Not interested in the bickering but here you have a runner join a new training group that has been tied to doping before, suddenly develop the ability to run categorically faster than she has her entire life, becoming a patented "out of nowhere" world contender, then get busted for doping with no credible explanation. Open and shut. She was not too big to fail.
A new training group that has been tied to doping before?
Putting all the bickering aside, what makes you think that orally ingesting low (WADA's word) quantities of nandrolone can produce a world contender in 2020? Nandrolone has been available for medical use since the 1950s.
Not interested in the bickering but here you have a runner join a new training group that has been tied to doping before, suddenly develop the ability to run categorically faster than she has her entire life, becoming a patented "out of nowhere" world contender, then get busted for doping with no credible explanation. Open and shut. She was not too big to fail.
A new training group that has been tied to doping before?
Putting all the bickering aside, what makes you think that orally ingesting low (WADA's word) quantities of nandrolone can produce a world contender in 2020? Nandrolone has been available for medical use since the 1950s.
"Putting all the bickering aside, what makes you think that doping can produce a world contender in 2020? Nandrolone has been available for medical use since the 1950s and is now regularly used by doped athletes, like other medicines are."(quote)
I think it's even fairer to say that each and every person who makes unhinged wild all-encompassing pronouncements about "everyone" like some toddler--like you do-- are the real dirty ones.
A new training group that has been tied to doping before?
Putting all the bickering aside, what makes you think that orally ingesting low (WADA's word) quantities of nandrolone can produce a world contender in 2020? Nandrolone has been available for medical use since the 1950s.
"Putting all the bickering aside, what makes you think that doping can produce a world contender in 2020? Nandrolone has been available for medical use since the 1950s and is now regularly used by doped athletes, like other medicines are."(quote)
Fixed.
Recall, the only evidence is of a one-time low dose of orally ingested (i.e. largely ineffective) nandrolone in December 2020.
But even denying that fact, and blurring the picture with a vague umbrella term "doping", in bold for added drama, can you answer your "fixed" question? What makes you think doping can produce a world contender? If nandrolone is now regularly used, where were all the Houlihan-esque predecessors?
This is another opportunity for you to demonstrate any intelligence, so give it a thought and give me your best demonstration of intellect.
"Putting all the bickering aside, what makes you think that doping can produce a world contender in 2020? Nandrolone has been available for medical use since the 1950s and is now regularly used by doped athletes, like other medicines are."(quote)
Fixed.
Recall, the only evidence is of a one-time low dose of orally ingested (i.e. largely ineffective) nandrolone in December 2020.
But even denying that fact, and blurring the picture with a vague umbrella term "doping", in bold for added drama, can you answer your "fixed" question? What makes you think doping can produce a world contender? If nandrolone is now regularly used, where were all the Houlihan-esque predecessors?
This is another opportunity for you to demonstrate any intelligence, so give it a thought and give me your best demonstration of intellect.
Kenya. As you say, they eat contaminated boar all the time.
Recall, the only evidence is of a one-time low dose of orally ingested (i.e. largely ineffective) nandrolone in December 2020.
But even denying that fact, and blurring the picture with a vague umbrella term "doping", in bold for added drama, can you answer your "fixed" question? What makes you think doping can produce a world contender? If nandrolone is now regularly used, where were all the Houlihan-esque predecessors?
This is another opportunity for you to demonstrate any intelligence, so give it a thought and give me your best demonstration of intellect.
Kenya. As you say, they eat contaminated boar all the time.
This was your chance to demonstrate your intelligence. Let's see how well you did.
First, is "Kenya" the answer to your "fixed" question (what makes you think doping can produce a contender?), or my follow-up (where were all the Houlihan performances before her?)?
Are you flip-flopping away from your vague umbrella term "doping" back to "nandrolone". Because I only said Kenyans could be ingesting "nandrolone" from uncastrated boars, as farmers do not routinely castrate their pigs.
When you say "nandrolone is now regularly used by doped athletes", did you only mean in Kenya? Given it's availability since 1950, when, and where, do you think this "regular use" started? And why not Europe or America?
Let's see how Kenyans performed pre-Houlihan:
In the 1500m, only one Kenyan is faster than Houlihan, and all of her faster performances post-date Houlihan's, except one from the same race. Conclusion: ZERO Houlihan-esque predecessors.
In the 5000m, it is slightly better, there are THREE Kenyan predecessors faster than Houlihan.
None of these women have tested positive for "nandrolone", nor "doping", so the prequisite is speculative.
"Kenya" doesn't seem to be a very convincing answer as to "what makes you think doping can produce a world contender?", nor a very good answer to "where were all the Houlihan-esque predecessors?"
