You also commit the most alarming misleading tactic of pretending that CAS came to the conclusions when all it is is the prosecutions case. You might well have quoted SH’s submission and pretended it was CAS
Appalling cheating tactics.
Stop lying. I cited the whole paragraph of CAS's official Media Release from 15 June 2021. It's the second last paragraph on page 2. CAS, not AIU. Will you now apologize for your apalling lies?
You also commit the most alarming misleading tactic of pretending that CAS came to the conclusions when all it is is the prosecutions case. You might well have quoted SH’s submission and pretended it was CAS
Appalling cheating tactics.
Stop lying. I cited the whole paragraph of CAS's official Media Release from 15 June 2021. It's the second last paragraph on page 2. CAS, not AIU. Will you now apologize for your apalling lies?
And again, AIU is not the prosecution etc.
You said it was from the decision but under pressure you now admit lying.
Why not deal with the actual decision and just stop telling whoppers.
- Some people tagged with a positive test will hang their defense on a preposterous excuse and shamelessly stick with it.
- Some people think it is wrong to make the suspected doper prove that the doping was accidental and should be excused in order to avoid a ban. They maintain this even though there is no other way to run the system.
- Some people just can't accept that Shelby is a doper.
You said there were other androgens that showed designer drugs but then had to withdraw
I see you are doubling down on your lies. As expected. Good bye.
You can’t have forgotten ,surly.
You got all in a pggly mess with the pig expert in the hearing when he was talking about the hormone levels in his pig studies and you stating that this was a report from the wada lab.It too over 50 requests for you to admit that you not got it right wrong.You said that all these other raised hormones where SH’s and was evidence of her use of designer drugs.🐷🐷🐷
- Some people tagged with a positive test will hang their defense on a preposterous excuse and shamelessly stick with it.
- Some people think it is wrong to make the suspected doper prove that the doping was accidental and should be excused in order to avoid a ban. They maintain this even though there is no other way to run the system.
- Some people just can't accept that Shelby is a doper.
No other way......have you not heard that the vast majority of the world has found ways of running judicial system on “inocent until proven guilty “ for many centuries?
Also the defence was not preposterous as all set out in previous cases and made clear in wada’s own well published papers.
- Some people tagged with a positive test will hang their defense on a preposterous excuse and shamelessly stick with it.
- Some people think it is wrong to make the suspected doper prove that the doping was accidental and should be excused in order to avoid a ban. They maintain this even though there is no other way to run the system.
- Some people just can't accept that Shelby is a doper.
There are other ways to run the system:
- Up until 2015, for the violations of presence/use without establishing intent, exactly like we have here with Houlihan, it was only a ban of 2-years. In Houlihan's podcast, she said she was prepared to accept a 2-year ban, but not a 4-year ban like an intentional cheat, or even a 3-year ban if she didn't contest the charges.
- The current (2021) rules expressly allow for these small quantities of nandrolone (less than 10 ng/ml), completely consistent with nandrolone ingestion from pork, when pork ingestion is invoked by the athlete, declaring the result an ATF, and collect further samples to gain certainty (whether by the optional pharma-cokinetics, or by the tried and true targeted testing).
In their report, the CAS did not accept the language in the AIU's submissions, but provided their own in their findings and conclusions "... the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional."
If the submissions were not expressly disputed by the CAS findings they stand. Choosing different words does not show the language used in the submissions is not accepted. Indeed, what is not expressly rejected is implicitly endorsed, unless it is incompatible with the decision. The AIU language used was not incompatible.
The fact is that the CAS did not accept the language of the AIU submissions, but provided their own language. This is what I said.
Furthermore, outside the artifically limited realm that views things as limited by the WADA Code, out here in the real world of intellect, the probative value and weight of statements are not the statements themselves but the weight of the substance of the evidence used to support them. The presence of nandrolone in her sample is evidence of WADA rule violations (that do not require intent), but not evidence of intent. The statements from the AIU, and the CAS, are not themselves evidence of intent, and what we should have learned after one year is that these statements lack evidence of intent for support.
If the submissions were not expressly disputed by the CAS findings they stand. Choosing different words does not show the language used in the submissions is not accepted. Indeed, what is not expressly rejected is implicitly endorsed, unless it is incompatible with the decision. The AIU language used was not incompatible.
The fact is that the CAS did not accept the language of the AIU submissions, but provided their own language. This is what I said.
Furthermore, outside the artifically limited realm that views things as limited by the WADA Code, out here in the real world of intellect, the probative value and weight of statements are not the statements themselves but the weight of the substance of the evidence used to support them. The presence of nandrolone in her sample is evidence of WADA rule violations (that do not require intent), but not evidence of intent. The statements from the AIU, and the CAS, are not themselves evidence of intent, and what we should have learned after one year is that these statements lack evidence of intent for support.
Where did CAS expressly say the AIU submissions were wrong?
Yes, and again, CAS itself explicitly wrote back in June 2021:
...she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV...
CAS, not AIU. Also I don't understand the AIU bashing here. They caught the doper, and are the claimant; to call them prosecution in an attempt to dismiss their findings is just plain wrong.
Plus, even the prosecution does not get paid to get innocent people convicted, whereas the defense does get paid to get guilty people go free. So it's not at all two equal sides in a dispute.
What a mess. Why are you muddying up the discussion with all this babble of "AIU-bashing" and "prosecution versus claimant" and "who is getting paid"? The role of anti-doping versus athlete here is not in any doubt. Everyone at the hearing is getting paid. It surely isn't equal. The first time accused athlete is always against a wall of decades of expertise in these cases.
The AIU (well technically the World Athletics represented by the AIU) is one of the parties in a dispute before the CAS. As a party in a dispute, we cannot interpret their submissions as neutral, without scrutiny. And, as we should have learned in this last year, there are a long list of reasons to doubt the completeness and neutrality from the AIU-experts:
- First, as background, let's not forget Prof. Ayotte's "misleading" testimony was the basis for overturning Lawson's ban.
- Prof. Ayotte is also head of the WADA lab whose ability to follow procedures were part of the dispute.
- Prof. Ayotte's expert opinions before the CAS are not "consistent with" decades of her own research, both with respect to levels and isotopes.
- The AIU-experts spent a great deal of effort "debunking" nandrolone from meat and stomach, but this was not the athlete's claim. The claim was from "pork offal" present in one of the pork stomach burritos. The claim of "offal" remains "essentially undisputed".
- Similarly Prof. McGlone conceded the increased presence of soy in pig diets during the pandemic, but continued to ignore this concession as if it happened, but with no impact, and to argue that pigs were normally fed corn.
- Prof. McGlone is surely aware of immuno-castrated pigs, having also written papers on the topic, and that Oregon pig farmers use immuno-castration in favor of the cruelty of surgical castration, but his arguments neglects to consider them, before reducing the options to the "only" option of cryptorchids.
- Prof. McGlone acknowledges things were not normal during the pandemic, but then completely ignores his concessions and argues probabilities as if things were normal (i.e. wide reports of delays in slaughtering pigs leading to older than 6-month old pigs, and McGlone still arguing pigs are not older than 6-months, in addition to the aformentioned insistence that commercial pork eats corn, despite his concession that they ate soy).
As we should have learned over the past year, examining the AIUS's 7-point "near zero composite probability" argument highlights their lack of neutrality and completeness:
- #3 -- the AIU-experts argue that it can *only* be cryptorchids, neglecting to consider the case of immuno-castrated pigs, slaughtered exceptionally past 6-months, long after the effectiveness of the second dose (assuming that supply wasn't also disrupted by the pandemic).
- #4 -- delays in slaughtering pigs during the pandemic means some pigs were more than 6-months old.
- #5 -- this mistates the athlete's claim, and debunks the mistated claim. It is not "pork stomach", but "pork offal" found in a pork stomach burrito.
- #6 -- this also mistates the athletes claim -- it is not "meat" but "offal". It further assumes pigs were slaughtered before 6-months, ignoring the delays during the pandemic.
- #7 -- Prof McGlone concede pigs ate soy during the pandemic.
- "Finally" -- is Prof McGlone's "less than 1 in 10,000" estimate real, with substantial basis, or just educated guess?
- "near zero" -- the whole "near zero" argument itself is not the right probability of the question before the CAS. "Near zero" is the probability that pork eaters would test positive. The question before the CAS, is not how many negative results outnumber positive results, but given the positive result, what is the likelihood of various possible sources of that positive result. Recall, even a 1 in 10,000 chance, given 121,000,000 opportunities per year, means 12,000 pigs boars getting past USDA inspection into the US market, each year, by the own concessions of the expert in one side of a dispute. This is not negligible, and should not be muddied by counting all the pork eating athletes who test negative.
- "probability" -- given that probability is not intuitive, sometimes even for mathemeticians who study probability, it is expected that non-experts in probability, like the CAS lawyers, like anonymous fans, like shock-pundit reporters, and quite possibly the AIU-experts Ayotte and McGlone, and "sports scientist" Ross Tucker, would fail to interpret probabilities correctly. If we argue that the AIU-experts actually do understand these probabilities, then this "bait and switch" argument is another point to add to the questions of their neutrality.
You may say some of these points were not before the CAS, or that this was the burden of Houlihan's lawyers. I say that too -- the CAS decision is based on limited visibility of all the evidence, gathered in a limited amount of time, and must be viewed acknowledging that these limitations are an integral part of the decision, and consider that the CAS findings might not be possible without these limits. Nevertheless, whatever is presented, or not, in the CAS report, has to not only stand up to the limited scrutiny permitted by the WADA Code, but also in the real intellectual world where such artificial limits are not applicable.
The fact is that the CAS did not accept the language of the AIU submissions, but provided their own language. This is what I said.
Furthermore, outside the artifically limited realm that views things as limited by the WADA Code, out here in the real world of intellect, the probative value and weight of statements are not the statements themselves but the weight of the substance of the evidence used to support them. The presence of nandrolone in her sample is evidence of WADA rule violations (that do not require intent), but not evidence of intent. The statements from the AIU, and the CAS, are not themselves evidence of intent, and what we should have learned after one year is that these statements lack evidence of intent for support.
Where did CAS expressly say the AIU submissions were wrong?
You use words like "reject" and "expressly say" that I did not use. The root of this particular off-topic distraction is the wrong conclusion that I accepted the "language" of the AIU's submission as fact, when I quoted the AIU's statements about Houlihan, contrasting them with statements about Edward Kibet Kiprop, who admitted intentionally injecting nandrolone. Their "language" regarding Edward Kibet Kiprop is more accurate for both athletes.
In their official reporting, the CAS also supplied their own "language" in their findings and conclusions, "language" differing from the AIU submission.
And despite the language of the AIU and the CAS, neither has established intent, to any burden, or provided any evidence of intent. Rather "intent" here was decided by WADA in a contract with updates in 2015.
Where did CAS expressly say the AIU submissions were wrong?
You use words like "reject" and "expressly say" that I did not use. The root of this particular off-topic distraction is the wrong conclusion that I accepted the "language" of the AIU's submission as fact, when I quoted the AIU's statements about Houlihan, contrasting them with statements about Edward Kibet Kiprop, who admitted intentionally injecting nandrolone. Their "language" regarding Edward Kibet Kiprop is more accurate for both athletes.
In their official reporting, the CAS also supplied their own "language" in their findings and conclusions, "language" differing from the AIU submission.
And despite the language of the AIU and the CAS, neither has established intent, to any burden, or provided any evidence of intent. Rather "intent" here was decided by WADA in a contract with updates in 2015.
If CAS did not expressly reject what the AIU said the only differences are semantic. But all your points are semantic. They are not fact.
You use words like "reject" and "expressly say" that I did not use. The root of this particular off-topic distraction is the wrong conclusion that I accepted the "language" of the AIU's submission as fact, when I quoted the AIU's statements about Houlihan, contrasting them with statements about Edward Kibet Kiprop, who admitted intentionally injecting nandrolone. Their "language" regarding Edward Kibet Kiprop is more accurate for both athletes.
In their official reporting, the CAS also supplied their own "language" in their findings and conclusions, "language" differing from the AIU submission.
And despite the language of the AIU and the CAS, neither has established intent, to any burden, or provided any evidence of intent. Rather "intent" here was decided by WADA in a contract with updates in 2015.
If CAS did not expressly reject what the AIU said the only differences are semantic. But all your points are semantic. They are not fact.
The Judge rules on the matter in hand and that would include the meaning of words.
Any semantic debate is now moot, sorted ,dead ......is no more etc
You use words like "reject" and "expressly say" that I did not use. The root of this particular off-topic distraction is the wrong conclusion that I accepted the "language" of the AIU's submission as fact, when I quoted the AIU's statements about Houlihan, contrasting them with statements about Edward Kibet Kiprop, who admitted intentionally injecting nandrolone. Their "language" regarding Edward Kibet Kiprop is more accurate for both athletes.
In their official reporting, the CAS also supplied their own "language" in their findings and conclusions, "language" differing from the AIU submission.
And despite the language of the AIU and the CAS, neither has established intent, to any burden, or provided any evidence of intent. Rather "intent" here was decided by WADA in a contract with updates in 2015.
If CAS did not expressly reject what the AIU said the only differences are semantic. But all your points are semantic. They are not fact.
It is a fact that the WADA code says that they do not convict on intent. Have you bothered to read them yet?
To remind,someone quoted the plaintiffs position as if it was the CAS decision and this is not the first time this childish ploy has been attempted%
There was no plaintiff. You don't understand the proceedings.
Ok ... Claimant then. Happy to correct but not too sure what difference is in this context.Does not detract from the claimants position being presented as that of CAS.A cheating trick.