Malcolm Gladwell: Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying?

Crop Duster-84 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Did Houlihan do everything in her power to prove her innocence? Everything?? NO.

Her statements to that effect are false. She's being untruthful. Untruth is dishonesty.

What makes you say she did not do everything.

If you say she did not go out at night testing the pee of ever pig in the land that is then you are correct.

Other than that; you need to read the rules.

mindgames wrote:

A cheater in the sport was caught, the decision was very satisfying

Cheating never is tested by the hearings and rules..

Read them.

Houlihan did not do everything in her power to prove her innocence. What became of the foul burrito? She probably discarded it and never thought the wiser.

That burrito is at the epicentre of the crisis. Yet, Houlihan ate most of it then threw it out, never questioning why it appeared 'off'. Why it tasted extra greasy. Never bagged it and asked her powers that be at Nike if they could get that looked into.

No, she didn't do everything in her power to PROVE her innocence.

Crop Duster-84 wrote:

Houlihan did not do everything in her power to prove her innocence. What became of the foul burrito? She probably discarded it and never thought the wiser.

That burrito is at the epicentre of the crisis. Yet, Houlihan ate most of it then threw it out, never questioning why it appeared 'off'. Why it tasted extra greasy. Never bagged it and asked her powers that be at Nike if they could get that looked into.

No, she didn't do everything in her power to PROVE her innocence.

Who bags their uneaten food and stores it in the freezer to be tested for possible contaminants?

You're not making any sense.

sanootage wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Comfortable satisfaction not balance…..

I would have each case tested on its merits and not with strict liability conditioning the outcome.

Without strict liability you're declaring open seasons for dopers. If you can't start from the presumption that a PED was found in athletes system for the purposes of enhancing their athletic performance then there's no point in having an anti-doping system.

Again, Houlihan had a chance to show that the PED could have gotten into her system inadvertently. She brought a story and some circumstantial evidence. The court found that the merits of her case were slim.

I'm fine if your view is that the doping system is broke so let everyone dope to their heart's content. But it's pointless complaining that the system needs to be changed without thinking through what an alternative could look like and what the consequences of that would be. Of everything I've read on doping in sport nobody has come up with a better system than the strict liability condition. I'll be glad to read any alternative you can find that works

Cool. So you're good with athletes doping. At least it's an honestly held and consistent position.

Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:

Crop Duster-84 wrote:

Houlihan did not do everything in her power to prove her innocence. What became of the foul burrito? She probably discarded it and never thought the wiser.

That burrito is at the epicentre of the crisis. Yet, Houlihan ate most of it then threw it out, never questioning why it appeared 'off'. Why it tasted extra greasy. Never bagged it and asked her powers that be at Nike if they could get that looked into.

No, she didn't do everything in her power to PROVE her innocence.

Who bags their uneaten food and stores it in the freezer to be tested for possible contaminants?

You're not making any sense.

This is what being “ responsible “ entails; both prior and post eating.

And have the local priest sign it all off as a witness.

All subject to a good Monty Python sketch.

Each case tested on its merits with no assumption of guilt; just will cost more money.

The costs have gone up and up so a bit more won’t be a problem.

And; wait for a real big sports animal to clear them

out and that will be the end of testing.

High hopes wrote:

Of everything I've read on doping in sport nobody has come up with a better system than the strict liability condition. I'll be glad to read any alternative you can find that works

It doesn't work and neither does any other " anti doping" system.

But you won't accept your own culpabilty in endorsing the PED belief. So you're part of the problem. Most of you are. The solution is better education. But that is reliant in you people acknowledging your own ignorance of basic physiology. Which you can't and won't do.

High hopes wrote:

Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:

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.

Cool. So you're good with athletes doping. At least it's an honestly held and consistent position.

No. You're on completely the wrong track.

Look at hormone profiles, the amount of drug found, change the threshold, come to a conclusion by cross examination.

sanootage wrote:

Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:

Who bags their uneaten food and stores it in the freezer to be tested for possible contaminants?

You're not making any sense.

This is what being “ responsible “ entails; both prior and post eating.

And have the local priest sign it all off as a witness.

All subject to a good Monty Python sketch.

I don't mind if you laugh at my expense.

Say you're an Olympic Team hopeful.

You're in an Olympic year.

You eat something that doesn't seem off.

That something could make you ill.

That something could make you fail a drugs test, though probably not.

That something should be set aside. Not 75% eaten then disposed of.

Why wouldn't a reasonable person have that looked into?

Unless it was never 'off' to begin with and this was just a hoax.

Crop Duster-84 wrote:

sanootage wrote:

This is what being “ responsible “ entails; both prior and post eating.

And have the local priest sign it all off as a witness.

All subject to a good Monty Python sketch.

I don't mind if you laugh at my expense.

Say you're an Olympic Team hopeful.

You're in an Olympic year.

You eat something that doesn't seem off.

That something could make you ill.

That something could make you fail a drugs test, though probably not.

That something should be set aside. Not 75% eaten then disposed of.

Why wouldn't a reasonable person have that looked into?

Unless it was never 'off' to begin with and this was just a hoax.

Setting aside hundreds of partly eaten meals!

sanootage wrote:

Crop Duster-84 wrote:

I don't mind if you laugh at my expense.

Say you're an Olympic Team hopeful.

You're in an Olympic year.

You eat something that doesn't seem off.

That something could make you ill.

That something could make you fail a drugs test, though probably not.

That something should be set aside. Not 75% eaten then disposed of.

Why wouldn't a reasonable person have that looked into?

Unless it was never 'off' to begin with and this was just a hoax.

Setting aside hundreds of partly eaten meals!

Top Ramen doesn't count.

1) At every step, the CAS maintained that her excuse is possible, but based on general national statistics in normal times with no supply issues, improbable. The CAS “dismantling” did not rise to the standard required for proving her story false. It would be premature and unfounded to consider her excuse “cockamamie”.

2) The case I cited shows that if the Swiss athlete did not have that last tablet, he would become of victim of the same fate and scorn as Shelby, being unable to prove the source and unable to argue “no intent”, because the WADA code is broken and in need of reform. If we draw parallels, testing the remaining portion of the burrito would render it unnecessary to produce experts and statistics about how much boar meat gets into the national pork food supply, and the question of whether the boar was soy-fed due to temporary supply issues, or whether the offal in question was stomach — dismantling several major elements of the CAS “dismantling of her story”, and (assuming positive tests) converting her case into another textbook example of “no-fault” vindication.

She is guilty of having a banned substance in her body, and guilty of not being able to prove the source on the balance of probabilities, but the rest of your post falls outside of the objective reality you said you believe in.

She's also probably a liar.

Both she and Schumacher stated that said neither of them (individually) had never heard of nandrolone.

Taking a cue from 3wirsports, "those comments border on the absurd."

Here’s just one reason why. To win internationally, the Americans have to compete against who in particular? That's right. The Kenyans. To not know what the competition is doing would seem to border on negligence.

That World Anti-Doping Agency report, “Doping in Kenya,” that got bandied around in different threads disclosed that between 2004 to August 1, 2018, across all sports, 138 Kenyan athletes had been caught for doping violations. Wanna hazzard a guess as to what the No. 1 no-no substance a Kenyan was likely to get popped for? That's right, class. Nandrolone. Fully 35% of all positive tests. For those keeping score at that’s 49 of the 138 positives.

Osterich in the sand stuff if true.

That is a good question.

We know in the real world of justice, adopting a “zero tolerance” stance, and a “guilty until proven innocent” puts the accused at a great disadvantage, and runs a risk of convicting innocent people. Part of the balance what is the trade-off between convicting innocent athletes to catch a few more guilty ones, or protecting innocent athletes at the expense of letting some guilty ones go free.

One problem today, is that the current system gives the same penalty to CJ Hunter (2000 ng/ml) as Houlihan (5.2 and 5.8 ng/ml) as to any athlete who accidentally ingests nandrolone through, say for example, eating wild boar sausage.

One partial solution, which seems like it should have been applied here with the new TD (and at least one CAS panelist agreed, while the majority disagreed) is to consider the result an ATF, and not an AAF, and require more testing.

Another improvement would be to consider reasonable doubt, given that all parties agreed on oral ingestion, and the lack of a pattern, and the low quantities involved.

But as the case of Simon Getzmann shows, an innocent athlete being able to prove it under the current system depends a lot on luck, and even then, winning comes at great personal expense and the loss of 1-year of competition.

rekrunner wrote:Another improvement would be to consider reasonable doubt, given that all parties agreed on oral ingestion, and the lack of a pattern, and the low quantities involved.

Micro-dosing to the rescue. Quoting Uncle Vic:

“Can athletes micro-dose with EPO and testosterone and get away with it? Yes, they can. Can they use insulin?” he asks. “Yes, they can. Can they use thyroid medication? Yes, they can. It’s like taking candy from a baby. That’s how easy it is for smart chemists and advisers to circumvent Wada testing.”

Crop Duster-84 wrote:

Did Houlihan do everything in her power to prove her innocence? Everything?? NO.

Her statements to that effect are false. She's being untruthful. Untruth is dishonesty.

This fails to convince me that she made any false statements.

We don’t have an exhaustive account of all she did.

The CAS report summarized the arguments they found relevant.

What she needed to really prove her innocence was beyond her power.