Shelby Houlihan GoFundMe goes home DEVASTATED!!!

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Some of that information was not revealed to the CAS Panel.

I wonder why her defence team didn't use it. Perhaps because it was too easily refuted.

So let's see it before the Swiss Appeal Court. Oh, wait ...

I guess the chance of her ban being overturned is also "almost zero". For your

information, that doesn't actually mean probable.

I guess you wonder many things.

You make a compelling argument that the CAS Panel was also fooled by a fallacy.

I gave them the benefit of doubt, that they just ruled on whether Houlihan affirmatively

met her burden on the balance of probabilities.

What most people don’t seem to realize is that there are three separate probabilities:

- the low probability of a burrito with edible soy-fed intact boar meat/offal

- given a positive test result, the probability that the burrito was the only possible source of the nandrolone

- the burden of convincing a panel on the balance of probabilities

Even if it went to a real court, every decision is made against the framework of the WADA Code.

The double injustice of the WADA Code arises from guilt being determined without demonstrating

intent, fault, negligence, and knowledge of use, and the athlete having the burden of finding

objective evidence of an event one month in the past, just to reduce the sentence of a guilty ruling.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Some of that information was not revealed to the CAS Panel.

Fascinated; what info do you refer to , please.

liar soorer wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Some of that information was not revealed to the CAS Panel.

Fascinated; what info do you refer to , please.

For example, compare Prof. Ayotte’s representation to the panel of 2.4 ng/ml in studies as a generous maximum with

the 2000 study finding one subject with 7.5 ng/ml and Prof. Ayotte’s own study finding 130 ng/ml.

Or Prof McGlone’s reliance on USDA inspectors to block cryptorchids from the market, while USDA

rules permit cryptorchids to go to market based on a smell test.

Or Prof Ayotte’s previous performance in the Lawson case.

Or the existence and impacts of alternatives like chemical castration also presenting intact boars to market.

There is an expectation that these rebuttals can only come from Houlihan’s legal defense, which takes time and

resources, against a fixed deadline of the US Trials.

Another issue is the imbalance of experienced ADOs and ADAs and their experts, with a long history of

prosecuting many cases, and the legal teams of athletes, still learning to navigate around the WADA code.

Thanks

There is always a disparity of arms.

I keep referring to the Tec Doc as an illustration of the complexity esp the references to Boars parts within it.

I was surprised that there was an assumption that the farmers were not giving their livestock Nandrolne.

Read the Vet Residues Comm publications.

It would not surprise me if that caused the adverse finding. Not saying it did but …..

There was a case in Ireland of Clenbuterol in ducks causing medical intervention of some OAP’ s with tachycardia.

Shelby Houlihab, drug cheat, is still banned. I'm sure she'd be pleased with y'all defending her; but probably more pleased if you donated to her scam fund.

She is still banned.

It would be premature and baseless to call her a “drug cheat”.

The WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU and the CAS Panel did not.

Only “fans” do.

Adam Smith, Communist wrote:

Shelby Houlihab, drug cheat, is still banned. I'm sure she'd be pleased with y'all defending her; but probably more pleased if you donated to her scam fund.

I am not defending her rather pointing out that the procedures and rules are not fit for purpose and any comment about her should give some reflection to this.

Have you read the Nandrolone Tec Doc yet.

Compare this with a drink driving matter, for instance.

liar soorer wrote:

Adam Smith, Communist wrote:

Shelby Houlihab, drug cheat, is still banned. I'm sure she'd be pleased with y'all defending her; but probably more pleased if you donated to her scam fund.

I am not defending her rather pointing out that the procedures and rules are not fit for purpose and any comment about her should give some reflection to this.

Have you read the Nandrolone Tec Doc yet.

Compare this with a drink driving matter, for instance.

I add; again; that the analysis and finding are deemed a fact and can’t be challenged.

Where in the real world would you ever ever come across this.

If Houlihan's defence team did not make use of that information it would have been because they did not consider it would help her case. They would have known better than the resident "statistician with a mathematical bent" here what data would have been persuasive to the Court. They couldn't find it. They failed. Her case was weak. Like your arguments.

rekrunner wrote:

She is still banned.

It would be premature and baseless to call her a “drug cheat”.

The WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU and the CAS Panel did not.

Only “fans” do.

The findings of the official bodies were to establish a doping rules violation - which they did. They did not need to use the term "drug cheat": it follows from their findings of an intentional ADRV. Only doping deniers don't get that.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

She is still banned.

It would be premature and baseless to call her a “drug cheat”.

The WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU and the CAS Panel did not.

Only “fans” do.

The findings of the official bodies were to establish a doping rules violation - which they did. They did not need to use the term "drug cheat": it follows from their findings of an intentional ADRV. Only doping deniers don't get that.

It follows from the rules of the official bodies that it does not.

You just refuse to read.

Go away

rekrunner wrote:

She is still banned.

It would be premature and baseless to call her a “drug cheat”.

The WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU and the CAS Panel did not.

Only “fans” do.

LOL

"premature", "baseless", "Only "fans"" - you are getting more and more extreme. And wrong.

Even Shelby is on record with:

[/quote]Houlihan wrote. "Nothing moved the lab from their initial snap decision. Instead, they simply concluded that I was a cheater and that a steroid was ingested orally, but not regularly. "[/quote]

Bye Shelby. May you retire and stop the scam.

Quote corrected and link added. Even Shelby is on record with:

Houlihan wrote. "Nothing moved the lab from their initial snap decision. Instead, they simply concluded that I was a cheater and that a steroid was ingested orally, but not regularly. "

casual obsever wrote:

Quote corrected and link added.

Even Shelby is on record with:

Houlihan wrote. "Nothing moved the lab from their initial snap decision. Instead, they simply concluded that I was a cheater and that a steroid was ingested orally, but not regularly. "

https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/trackandfield/shelby-houlihan-runner-ban-sport-court-1.6066797

Any your point is.

Have you read the rules yet?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

She is still banned.

It would be premature and baseless to call her a “drug cheat”.

The WADA lab, the World Athletics, the AIU and the CAS Panel did not.

Only “fans” do.

LOL

"premature", "baseless", "Only "fans"" - you are getting more and more extreme. And wrong.

Even Shelby is on record with:

Houlihan wrote. "Nothing moved the lab from their initial snap decision. Instead, they simply concluded that I was a cheater and that a steroid was ingested orally, but not regularly. "[/quote]

Bye Shelby. May you retire and stop the scam.[/quote]

But the lab never said that.

liar soorer wrote:

But the lab never said that.

Not in those very words. But Shelby isn't the only one who interprets an AAF as cheating, especially after CAS confirmed that. And she isn't a "fan", so it's not only "fans" as rekrunner falsely claimed.

CAS called it an intentional Anti-Doping Rule Violation (possession and use of nandro) because they use the exact words as per Wada code. The public in general understands that as doping/cheating, imho correctly so.

But we have discussed that so often...

What's new now is that rekrunner just went all the way and calls that conclusion "baseless". Ridiculo, as the base for that is very obvious.

liar soorer wrote:

Any your point is.

LOL. Isn't that obvious? That rekrunner was wrong again in claiming that only "fans" see that as cheating.

liar soorer wrote:

Have you read the rules yet?

Yes.