Shelby Houlihan GoFundMe goes home DEVASTATED!!!

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You only asked me to consider the subset of possibilities with evidence presented to the CAS.

Out of all one of the possibility, I gave you the one and only possibility that is inarguably the most probable.

One other possibility was proposed, but without any evidence.

The evidence of the test result of the presence of nandrolone is not evidence of the source of the nandrolone. You keep conflating the criteria for violation with the criteria for length of sanction.

If you have food in your stomach the safe presumption is that you ate something. With nandrolone in your digestive system the safe presumption is that you put it there. Houlihan's excuse was a theory that didn't fly, because it was a series of "cascading improbabilities". And to your delusional mind that series of improbabilities is the most convincing account of how it got there. Because it was the only excuse she could come up with you have contorted both fact and the English language to suggest it is the "most probable explanation". She could have invented anything and you would have said the same. What is impossible is that she could have doped. But dope she did. That's what a conviction is.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you have food in your stomach the safe presumption is that you ate something. With nandrolone in your digestive system the safe presumption is that you put it there. Houlihan's excuse was a theory that didn't fly, because it was a series of "cascading improbabilities". And to your delusional mind that series of improbabilities is the most convincing account of how it got there. Because it was the only excuse she could come up with you have contorted both fact and the English language to suggest it is the "most probable explanation". She could have invented anything and you would have said the same. What is impossible is that she could have doped. But dope she did. That's what a conviction is.

I have no doubt she put food in her stomach, and then, starting her investigation one month later, could not collect the evidence she needed to convince a panel.

The fact is that you gave exclusive criteria which produced a list of only one possibility -- the one with evidence presented to the CAS.

It is not me that excluded other possibilities which were not presented to the CAS with evidence.

If it makes you happier, we could equally say the burrito was the least probable possibility.

To illustrate the defect in the WA's argument, consider this extract of the "Prosecutor's fallacy":

"In the fallacy of argument from rarity, an explanation for an observed event is said to be unlikely because the prior probability of that explanation is low. Consider this case: a lottery winner is accused of cheating, based on the improbability of winning. At the trial, the prosecutor calculates the (very small) probability of winning the lottery without cheating and argues that this is the chance of innocence. The logical flaw is that the prosecutor has failed to account for the large number of people who play the lottery. While the probability of any singular person winning is quite low, the probability of any person winning the lottery, given the number of people who play it, is very high."

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I have no doubt she put food in her stomach, and then, starting her investigation one month later, could not collect the evidence she needed to convince a panel.

The fact is that you gave exclusive criteria which produced a list of only one possibility -- the one with evidence presented to the CAS.

It is not me that excluded other possibilities which were not presented to the CAS with evidence.

If it makes you happier, we could equally say the burrito was the least probable possibility.

To illustrate the defect in the WA's argument, consider this extract of the "Prosecutor's fallacy":

"In the fallacy of argument from rarity, an explanation for an observed event is said to be unlikely because the prior probability of that explanation is low. Consider this case: a lottery winner is accused of cheating, based on the improbability of winning. At the trial, the prosecutor calculates the (very small) probability of winning the lottery without cheating and argues that this is the chance of innocence. The logical flaw is that the prosecutor has failed to account for the large number of people who play the lottery. While the probability of any singular person winning is quite low, the probability of any person winning the lottery, given the number of people who play it, is very high."

So being found with nandrolone in her system is the equivalent of winning a lottery? Well, she did indeed get first prize - a conviction and a 4 year ban.

Winning a lottery is not evidence per se of cheating, unless there is entirely extrinsic evidence that suggests it, as someone has to win it. But being found with a banned substance in their body is undoubtedly evidence of an athlete doping because the athlete is a likely cause. An unlikely cause is food contamination. Houlihan failed not because she could no longer produce the evidence of the burrito but that the evidence suggested contamination by that source would be "almost zero" and "a cascading series of improbabilities". Hence, the burrito, if it had been produced, would have likely confirmed her guilt.

rekrunner wrote:

aiojfoidjfoidfj wrote:

For those of you that don't think she cheated what is your proof since the burden of proof is on her. What has you all so convinced of her innocence? it has to be more than her BS exertion that she accidentally ate the wrong burrito.

We can think of this two ways: within the “arbitration process” and within the “intellectual process”.

First, the “arbitration process” did not find she “cheated”. They found, solely based on the unexplained presence in her urine, that she violated rules that don’t require demonstrating intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge of use. In front of the CAS, her burden of explanation was only for the sole purpose of qualifying for a reduced or vacated sentence, and not for reversing her guilt. That is, even if the burrito story is true, she remains guilty of rule violations that don’t care about any story. They found that her explanation fell short of the standard required to rebut the presumption of intent, so as a consequence, she was not able to reduce or vacate her sanction for these rule violations. This is an example of insufficient evidence, and not “proof” of cheating.

When applying the “intellectual process” the burden of any claim is on the one who makes it. If you want to say she is a “cheater”, that is your burden to prove, not Houlihan’s, nor mine, to disprove. This intellectual burden cannot be changed by any contractual arrangement between WADA and WADA signatories, and athletes subject to WADA. I am not a party to that contract, so not bound to observe any such contractual limitations. I don’t claim she cheated or didn’t cheat, but that “cheating” was not a finding of the “arbitration process”, and an intellectual claim of “cheating” is your burden, and cannot survive the “intellectual process” without it. In the “intellectual process” the basis for such a claim cannot be a presumption that it is so, as that is an intellectual logical fallacy called “begging the question” or “assuming the conclusion”. The basis can also not be a CAS finding that the opposite could not be proved, as that is a logical fallacy called “false dichotomy”.

The question of cheating, or not cheating, is not one that has, or can be, decided, without further proof.

rekrunner wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

We can think of this two ways: within the “arbitration process” and within the “intellectual process”.

First, the “arbitration process” did not find she “cheated”. They found, solely based on the unexplained presence in her urine, that she violated rules that don’t require demonstrating intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge of use. In front of the CAS, her burden of explanation was only for the sole purpose of qualifying for a reduced or vacated sentence, and not for reversing her guilt. That is, even if the burrito story is true, she remains guilty of rule violations that don’t care about any story. They found that her explanation fell short of the standard required to rebut the presumption of intent, so as a consequence, she was not able to reduce or vacate her sanction for these rule violations. This is an example of insufficient evidence, and not “proof” of cheating.

When applying the “intellectual process” the burden of any claim is on the one who makes it. If you want to say she is a “cheater”, that is your burden to prove, not Houlihan’s, nor mine, to disprove. This intellectual burden cannot be changed by any contractual arrangement between WADA and WADA signatories, and athletes subject to WADA. I am not a party to that contract, so not bound to observe any such contractual limitations. I don’t claim she cheated or didn’t cheat, but that “cheating” was not a finding of the “arbitration process”, and an intellectual claim of “cheating” is your burden, and cannot survive the “intellectual process” without it. In the “intellectual process” the basis for such a claim cannot be a presumption that it is so, as that is an intellectual logical fallacy called “begging the question” or “assuming the conclusion”. The basis can also not be a CAS finding that the opposite could not be proved, as that is a logical fallacy called “false dichotomy”.

The question of cheating, or not cheating, is not one that has, or can be, decided, without further proof.

Exchanging your question of “proof of not cheating” with “evidence for nandrolone by burrito”, there are many factors to be considered.

The cascading improbabilities argument from the World Athletics relies on the experts testimony being neutral, complete, accurate, and representative.

Considering testimony from Prof. McClone:

- Prof. McClone gave an order of magnitude that “far less than 1 in 10,000” cryptorchids make it to market. He didn’t say how far, but this figure gives an order of magnitude. Multiply that by 121,000,000 pigs slaughtered per year, and that is as many as 12,100 pigs getting past the USDA inspectors, and to market — according to the AIU-expert.

- The positive test results were not consistent with corn-fed boar, but were consistent with ingestion of soy-fed intact boar.

- Prof. McClone conceded that disruptions during the pandemic increased the quantity of soy in the diets of pigs.

- Prof. McClone said things were back to normal by November, but the CAS panel also said they were convinced that the pork stomach meat came from a frozen batch purchased in September.

- One of the pork stomach burritos for sale that day was a pork-chorizo burrito. The stomach may have been a red-herring, if in fact the chorizo contained small quantities of intact boar organs.

- According to a study by Prof. Ayotte, as little as 14 grams, or half an ounce, of heart, liver, and kidneys, in the burrito would be sufficient.

- Prof. McClone relies on USDA inspectors to filter cryptorchids from getting to market, but:

1) As we have seen, as many as 12,100 pigs get past USDA inspectors each year, during normal times

2) Times were not normal during the pandemic, not only with respect to the pigs’ diets, but delays in processing due to worker shortages (meaning older pigs) and absenteeism and temporary plant closures.

3) USDA regulations permit intact boar carcasses to be eaten based on a sniff test — something USDA inspectors may be less reluctant to perform during a pandemic of an airborne virus — assuming that they were not at home sick

4) Recent changes in federal administration have reduced the number of USDA inspectors, delegating the physical inspection of carcasses to the workers.

5) The CAS report doesn’t address alternatives like chemical castration, allowed by the USDA, and how delays and supply problems during the pandemic may have impacted that.

Consider the testimony from Prof. Ayotte:

- She pointed to two studies, and represents to the CAS Panel that 2.4 ng/ml is indicative of a maximal quantity from intact boar ingestion.

- These studies have small sample sizes, and were not looking for maximums.

- One 2000 study referenced by WADA’s TD2021NA shows 7.5 ng/ml in one subject - again a small sample size of 3, not looking for a maximum.

- A 2008 study conducted by the very same Prof. Ayotte shows 130 ng/ml in one subject — again a small sample size not looking for a maximum. This is 22x the amount found in Houlihan’s urine.

- In light of these studies, it is highly misleading to argue Houlihan’s levels were 2-3x higher than in studies, especially when that very same author conducted a study with a subject 22x higher than Houlihan.

- She has a proven history of misleading anti-doping panels, as the Lawson verdict was overturned by another CAS panel expressly mentioning her testimony as misleading.

- She suggests that the test results are consistent with oral nandrolone known to exist on the market, but the same results, by the same argument and evidence, are also consistent with soy-fed intact boar, known to exist on the market.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So being found with nandrolone in her system is the equivalent of winning a lottery? Well, she did indeed get first prize - a conviction and a 4 year ban.

Winning a lottery is not evidence per se of cheating, unless there is entirely extrinsic evidence that suggests it, as someone has to win it. But being found with a banned substance in their body is undoubtedly evidence of an athlete doping because the athlete is a likely cause. An unlikely cause is food contamination. Houlihan failed not because she could no longer produce the evidence of the burrito but that the evidence suggested contamination by that source would be "almost zero" and "a cascading series of improbabilities". Hence, the burrito, if it had been produced, would have likely confirmed her guilt.

The analogy is equivalent. You love analogies. According to the AIU-expert’s figures, winning a lottery is much less probable than consuming intact boar meat. Multiplying “almost zero” by 121,000,000 pigs slaughtered per year, gives many opportunities per year to accidentally consume edible parts of intact boar in the US. And the evidence before the CAS, and conceded by the same AIU-expert, suggests that shortages during the pandemic increased the likelihood further.

There is no doubt that the WA’s argument of “cascading series of improbabilities” is inherently a fallacy, but a compelling one that easily fools most people — especially if they want to believe it. Despite its deceptive apparent strength, it is a very weak argument.

rekrunner wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

We can think of this two ways: within the “arbitration process” and within the “intellectual process”.

First, the “arbitration process” did not find she “cheated”. They found, solely based on the unexplained presence in her urine, that she violated rules that don’t require demonstrating intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge of use. In front of the CAS, her burden of explanation was only for the sole purpose of qualifying for a reduced or vacated sentence, and not for reversing her guilt. That is, even if the burrito story is true, she remains guilty of rule violations that don’t care about any story. They found that her explanation fell short of the standard required to rebut the presumption of intent, so as a consequence, she was not able to reduce or vacate her sanction for these rule violations. This is an example of insufficient evidence, and not “proof” of cheating.

When applying the “intellectual process” the burden of any claim is on the one who makes it. If you want to say she is a “cheater”, that is your burden to prove, not Houlihan’s, nor mine, to disprove. This intellectual burden cannot be changed by any contractual arrangement between WADA and WADA signatories, and athletes subject to WADA. I am not a party to that contract, so not bound to observe any such contractual limitations. I don’t claim she cheated or didn’t cheat, but that “cheating” was not a finding of the “arbitration process”, and an intellectual claim of “cheating” is your burden, and cannot survive the “intellectual process” without it. In the “intellectual process” the basis for such a claim cannot be a presumption that it is so, as that is an intellectual logical fallacy called “begging the question” or “assuming the conclusion”. The basis can also not be a CAS finding that the opposite could not be proved, as that is a logical fallacy called “false dichotomy”.

The question of cheating, or not cheating, is not one that has, or can be, decided, without further proof.

Exchanging your question of “proof of not cheating” with “evidence for nandrolone by burrito”, there are many factors to be considered.

The cascading improbabilities argument from the World Athletics relies on the experts testimony being neutral, complete, accurate, and representative.

Considering testimony from Prof. McClone:

- Prof. McClone gave an order of magnitude that “far less than 1 in 10,000” cryptorchids make it to market. He didn’t say how far, but this figure gives an order of magnitude. Multiply that by 121,000,000 pigs slaughtered per year, and that is as many as 12,100 pigs getting past the USDA inspectors, and to market — according to the AIU-expert.

- The positive test results were not consistent with corn-fed boar, but were consistent with ingestion of soy-fed intact boar.

- Prof. McClone conceded that disruptions during the pandemic increased the quantity of soy in the diets of pigs.

- Prof. McClone said things were back to normal by November, but the CAS panel also said they were convinced that the pork stomach meat came from a frozen batch purchased in September.

- One of the pork stomach burritos for sale that day was a pork-chorizo burrito. The stomach may have been a red-herring, if in fact the chorizo contained small quantities of intact boar organs.

- According to a study by Prof. Ayotte, as little as 14 grams, or half an ounce, of heart, liver, and kidneys, in the burrito would be sufficient.

- Prof. McClone relies on USDA inspectors to filter cryptorchids from getting to market, but:

1) As we have seen, as many as 12,100 pigs get past USDA inspectors each year, during normal times

2) Times were not normal during the pandemic, not only with respect to the pigs’ diets, but delays in processing due to worker shortages (meaning older pigs) and absenteeism and temporary plant closures.

3) USDA regulations permit intact boar carcasses to be eaten based on a sniff test — something USDA inspectors may be less reluctant to perform during a pandemic of an airborne virus — assuming that they were not at home sick

4) Recent changes in federal administration have reduced the number of USDA inspectors, delegating the physical inspection of carcasses to the workers.

5) The CAS report doesn’t address alternatives like chemical castration, allowed by the USDA, and how delays and supply problems during the pandemic may have impacted that.

Consider the testimony from Prof. Ayotte:

- She pointed to two studies, and represents to the CAS Panel that 2.4 ng/ml is indicative of a maximal quantity from intact boar ingestion.

- These studies have small sample sizes, and were not looking for maximums.

- One 2000 study referenced by WADA’s TD2021NA shows 7.5 ng/ml in one subject - again a small sample size of 3, not looking for a maximum.

- A 2008 study conducted by the very same Prof. Ayotte shows 130 ng/ml in one subject — again a small sample size not looking for a maximum. This is 22x the amount found in Houlihan’s urine.

- In light of these studies, it is highly misleading to argue Houlihan’s levels were 2-3x higher than in studies, especially when that very same author conducted a study with a subject 22x higher than Houlihan.

- She has a proven history of misleading anti-doping panels, as the Lawson verdict was overturned by another CAS panel expressly mentioning her testimony as misleading.

- She suggests that the test results are consistent with oral nandrolone known to exist on the market, but the same results, by the same argument and evidence, are also consistent with soy-fed intact boar, known to exist on the market.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Exchanging your question of “proof of not cheating” with “evidence for nandrolone by burrito”, there are many factors to be considered.

The cascading improbabilities argument from the World Athletics relies on the experts testimony being neutral, complete, accurate, and representative.

Considering testimony from Prof. McClone:

- Prof. McClone gave an order of magnitude that “far less than 1 in 10,000” cryptorchids make it to market. He didn’t say how far, but this figure gives an order of magnitude. Multiply that by 121,000,000 pigs slaughtered per year, and that is as many as 12,100 pigs getting past the USDA inspectors, and to market — according to the AIU-expert.

- The positive test results were not consistent with corn-fed boar, but were consistent with ingestion of soy-fed intact boar.

- Prof. McClone conceded that disruptions during the pandemic increased the quantity of soy in the diets of pigs.

- Prof. McClone said things were back to normal by November, but the CAS panel also said they were convinced that the pork stomach meat came from a frozen batch purchased in September.

- One of the pork stomach burritos for sale that day was a pork-chorizo burrito. The stomach may have been a red-herring, if in fact the chorizo contained small quantities of intact boar organs.

- According to a study by Prof. Ayotte, as little as 14 grams, or half an ounce, of heart, liver, and kidneys, in the burrito would be sufficient.

- Prof. McClone relies on USDA inspectors to filter cryptorchids from getting to market, but:

1) As we have seen, as many as 12,100 pigs get past USDA inspectors each year, during normal times

2) Times were not normal during the pandemic, not only with respect to the pigs’ diets, but delays in processing due to worker shortages (meaning older pigs) and absenteeism and temporary plant closures.

3) USDA regulations permit intact boar carcasses to be eaten based on a sniff test — something USDA inspectors may be less reluctant to perform during a pandemic of an airborne virus — assuming that they were not at home sick

4) Recent changes in federal administration have reduced the number of USDA inspectors, delegating the physical inspection of carcasses to the workers.

5) The CAS report doesn’t address alternatives like chemical castration, allowed by the USDA, and how delays and supply problems during the pandemic may have impacted that.

Consider the testimony from Prof. Ayotte:

- She pointed to two studies, and represents to the CAS Panel that 2.4 ng/ml is indicative of a maximal quantity from intact boar ingestion.

- These studies have small sample sizes, and were not looking for maximums.

- One 2000 study referenced by WADA’s TD2021NA shows 7.5 ng/ml in one subject - again a small sample size of 3, not looking for a maximum.

- A 2008 study conducted by the very same Prof. Ayotte shows 130 ng/ml in one subject — again a small sample size not looking for a maximum. This is 22x the amount found in Houlihan’s urine.

- In light of these studies, it is highly misleading to argue Houlihan’s levels were 2-3x higher than in studies, especially when that very same author conducted a study with a subject 22x higher than Houlihan.

- She has a proven history of misleading anti-doping panels, as the Lawson verdict was overturned by another CAS panel expressly mentioning her testimony as misleading.

- She suggests that the test results are consistent with oral nandrolone known to exist on the market, but the same results, by the same argument and evidence, are also consistent with soy-fed intact boar, known to exist on the market.

None of that convinced the CAS Panel, who ruled it out as highly improbable. So they must be a bunch of idiots not to see what you do? Whoops - I forgot - they aren't doping deniers.