The response to your request for evidence was evidence from the AIU experts and from public sources.
"near zero" only came from the AIU. The CAS ruled on the balance of probability (i.e. less than 50%).
The CAS did not dismiss the evidence from the AIU experts Profs. McGlone and Ayotte.
Without WADA Code reform, these "no-fault" cases will always be a coin toss.
A positive test is not a "coin toss". Nor was hers a "no fault" case. She couldn't show that.
Correct, the positive test was not a "coin toss", and correct, she was unable to show "not intentional" on the balance of probability.
The coin-toss is predicting the whims of the anti-doping body, and the adjudicating panel.
With a different anti-doping body (e.g. USADA) or a different CAS Panel deciding the positive test was rightfully an ATF, as described in the WADA guideline, then there isn't even a case.
14 pages and not a skerrick of anything to support the claim of sabotage. Just the usual drivel from the usual apologists. Her claim of contamination is just as credible as her claim of sabotage. In the region of zero probability.
14 pages and not a skerrick of anything to support the claim of sabotage. Just the usual drivel from the usual apologists. Her claim of contamination is just as credible as her claim of sabotage. In the region of zero probability.
14 pages and not a skerrick of anything to support the claim of sabotage. Just the usual drivel from the usual apologists. Her claim of contamination is just as credible as her claim of sabotage. In the region of zero probability.
I think we would probably agree on the weight attributable to the burrito evidence, which was assessed as presenting a defence of "near zero" likelihood. I look on evidence as something which tends to be at least fractionally persuasive towards what is claimed. The burrito doesn't appear to meet even that standard. Your argument is technically correct but as "evidence" the alleged burrito amounted to little more than air.
Still posting on a subject you have demonstrated your utter lack of intellectual grasp of.
Still here I note with yout lack of grasp of what the rules say.
I think we would probably agree on the weight attributable to the burrito evidence, which was assessed as presenting a defence of "near zero" likelihood. I look on evidence as something which tends to be at least fractionally persuasive towards what is claimed. The burrito doesn't appear to meet even that standard. Your argument is technically correct but as "evidence" the alleged burrito amounted to little more than air.
Looks like I'm not the only one to realize you don't really know what "evidence" means, and we go on (off-topic) for pages, because you are working off your own imaginary definition.
Note once again that your interpretation of the CAS assessment is incorrect. According to the detailed CAS report, the CAS did not assess Houlihan's defense as "near-zero" likelihood, but assessed it as "less than 50%" without specifying any greater precision. The AIU argued "zero", but the CAS did not affirm it. Instead, they ruled that Houlihan failed to establish the source, and therefore "non-intent", on the balance of probability. In other words "less than 50%".
For example, with more specific evidence, e.g. a positive test result from the remaining portion of the burrito to test, the AIU's "near-zero" argument remains unchanged -- it is still "near zero", while the scales of Houlihan's defense tips to greater than 50%. This difference is what can happen when you compare expected values across a complete population and a sample size of one.
The most accurate description of the CAS's ruling on intent is "probably not not intentional" (based on the limited evidence before the CAS), rather than the simpler, dumbed-down, but deceptively incorrect "intentional". It is the WADA Code that permits to treat this "probably not not" likelihood as "intentional", solely for the purpose of sanctioning, without requiring the existence or consideration of any evidence of intent.
14 pages and not a skerrick of anything to support the claim of sabotage. Just the usual drivel from the usual apologists. Her claim of contamination is just as credible as her claim of sabotage. In the region of zero probability.
It should not be a surprising that an athlete who still does not know the source of the nandrolone is unable to find the evidence for any possibility. This happens frequently in investigations that remain unsolved. All of the claims are credible and plausible, just not always provable on the balance of probability.
14 pages and not a skerrick of anything to support the claim of sabotage. Just the usual drivel from the usual apologists. Her claim of contamination is just as credible as her claim of sabotage. In the region of zero probability.
14 pages and not a skerrick of anything to support the claim of sabotage. Just the usual drivel from the usual apologists. Her claim of contamination is just as credible as her claim of sabotage. In the region of zero probability.
It should not be a surprising that an athlete who still does not know the source of the nandrolone is unable to find the evidence for any possibility. This happens frequently in investigations that remain unsolved. All of the claims are credible and plausible, just not always provable on the balance of probability.
It’s equally unsurprising that a cheat will deny cheating
A positive test is not a "coin toss". Nor was hers a "no fault" case. She couldn't show that.
Correct, the positive test was not a "coin toss", and correct, she was unable to show "not intentional" on the balance of probability.
The coin-toss is predicting the whims of the anti-doping body, and the adjudicating panel.
With a different anti-doping body (e.g. USADA) or a different CAS Panel deciding the positive test was rightfully an ATF, as described in the WADA guideline, then there isn't even a case.
14 pages and not a skerrick of anything to support the claim of sabotage. Just the usual drivel from the usual apologists. Her claim of contamination is just as credible as her claim of sabotage. In the region of zero probability.
What are you even talking about? She’s been found guilty of doping.
I think we would probably agree on the weight attributable to the burrito evidence, which was assessed as presenting a defence of "near zero" likelihood. I look on evidence as something which tends to be at least fractionally persuasive towards what is claimed. The burrito doesn't appear to meet even that standard. Your argument is technically correct but as "evidence" the alleged burrito amounted to little more than air.
Looks like I'm not the only one to realize you don't really know what "evidence" means, and we go on (off-topic) for pages, because you are working off your own imaginary definition.
Note once again that your interpretation of the CAS assessment is incorrect. According to the detailed CAS report, the CAS did not assess Houlihan's defense as "near-zero" likelihood, but assessed it as "less than 50%" without specifying any greater precision. The AIU argued "zero", but the CAS did not affirm it. Instead, they ruled that Houlihan failed to establish the source, and therefore "non-intent", on the balance of probability. In other words "less than 50%".
For example, with more specific evidence, e.g. a positive test result from the remaining portion of the burrito to test, the AIU's "near-zero" argument remains unchanged -- it is still "near zero", while the scales of Houlihan's defense tips to greater than 50%. This difference is what can happen when you compare expected values across a complete population and a sample size of one.
The most accurate description of the CAS's ruling on intent is "probably not not intentional" (based on the limited evidence before the CAS), rather than the simpler, dumbed-down, but deceptively incorrect "intentional". It is the WADA Code that permits to treat this "probably not not" likelihood as "intentional", solely for the purpose of sanctioning, without requiring the existence or consideration of any evidence of intent.
It should not be a surprising that an athlete who still does not know the source of the nandrolone is unable to find the evidence for any possibility. This happens frequently in investigations that remain unsolved. All of the claims are credible and plausible, just not always provable on the balance of probability.
It’s equally unsurprising that a cheat will deny cheating
It's also a possibility, but as I was just told, possibilities without evidence are pure fantasy.