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.
this doesn’t even make sense
For these kinds of cases of potential ingestion from USDA approved food, what Travis Tygart calls "no-fault" cases, the WADA Code is broken, heavily slanted against the athletes, treating innocent and guilty athletes alike as intentional cheats, railroading them to 4-year bans.
For these kinds of cases of potential ingestion from USDA approved food, what Travis Tygart calls "no-fault" cases, the WADA Code is broken, heavily slanted against the athletes, treating innocent and guilty athletes alike as intentional cheats, railroading them to 4-year bans.
What Travis Tygart calls it is about as important as your opinion.
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.
For these kinds of cases of potential ingestion from USDA approved food, what Travis Tygart calls "no-fault" cases, the WADA Code is broken, heavily slanted against the athletes, treating innocent and guilty athletes alike as intentional cheats, railroading them to 4-year bans.
"potential ingestion from USDA approved food" - nope
"what Travis Tygart calls "no-fault"" - nope
"the WADA Code is broken" - nope
"heavily slanted against the athletes" - nope
"treating innocent and guilty athletes alike as intentional cheats" - nope
"railroading them to 4-year bans" - nope
But do keep this up. Otherwise the thread might die!
For these kinds of cases of potential ingestion from USDA approved food, what Travis Tygart calls "no-fault" cases, the WADA Code is broken, heavily slanted against the athletes, treating innocent and guilty athletes alike as intentional cheats, railroading them to 4-year bans.
The "potential ingestion" was expertly estimated to be "near zero". That is about as much potential as you becoming an Olympian. She wasn't "railroaded"; she was exposed. As you are for the unrelenting apologist that you.
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.
Correction: it should not be surprising that an athlete who has doped can find no source for the nandrolone and hence no evidence for any possibility of accidental contamination.
Correction: claims unsupported by evidence are neither credible nor plausible. They are merely fanciful. Like all of your arguments.
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.
The previous poster was essentially arguing that the term "evidence" is that which is deemed admissable in judicial proceedings - in which he is legally correct - but I was using it in the broader sense that as evidence it lends significant factual support (or not) to what was being argued, which was her claim of accidental contamination ; it didn't, and in that he agreed with me.
You do not understand what "the balance of probabilities" means. It is not establishing a percentage allocation to an argument but that the weight of the argument when all the evidence is taken into account leads to a conclusion that the argument is accepted or rejected. It is deemed probable or not. It is not numerically assessed, as you wrongly suggest.
Further, that the Panel dismissed each and every one of her individually argued grounds shows that in totality she was nowhere near approaching the balance of probabilities. The Panel essentially said "no" to everything she put forward towards her defence. That is a defence that simply has no legs to stand on.
The Panel also endorsed the position submitted by the Claimants, and conspicuously did not correct or qualify the following submission:
“The explanation pre-supposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero."
Your attempt to swing the scales towards Houlihan depend on acquiring favorable evidence which simply did not and does not exist. Personally, I wish she had been able to present the burrito in question to the Court; it is likely that the absence of nandrolone (as estimated by the experts at the hearing) would have exposed her for the doper and the liar she most likely is.
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.
The previous poster was essentially arguing that the term "evidence" is that which is deemed admissable in judicial proceedings - in which he is legally correct - but I was using it in the broader sense that as evidence it lends significant factual support (or not) to what was being argued, which was her claim of accidental contamination ; it didn't, and in that he agreed with me.
You do not understand what "the balance of probabilities" means. It is not establishing a percentage allocation to an argument but that the weight of the argument when all the evidence is taken into account leads to a conclusion that the argument is accepted or rejected. It is deemed probable or not. It is not numerically assessed, as you wrongly suggest.
Further, that the Panel dismissed each and every one of her individually argued grounds shows that in totality she was nowhere near approaching the balance of probabilities. The Panel essentially said "no" to everything she put forward towards her defence. That is a defence that simply has no legs to stand on.
The Panel also endorsed the position submitted by the Claimants, and conspicuously did not correct or qualify the following submission:
“The explanation pre-supposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero."
Your attempt to swing the scales towards Houlihan depend on acquiring favorable evidence which simply did not and does not exist. Personally, I wish she had been able to present the burrito in question to the Court; it is likely that the absence of nandrolone (as estimated by the experts at the hearing) would have exposed her for the doper and the liar she most likely is.
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.
Correction: it should not be surprising that an athlete who has doped can find no source for the nandrolone and hence no evidence for any possibility of accidental contamination.
Correction: claims unsupported by evidence are neither credible nor plausible. They are merely fanciful. Like all of your arguments.