One could ask for "evidence that demonstrates intent and knowing use, rather than an codified presumption that deems intent."
That was not provided by any of the WADA experts, the AIU experts, the World Athletics experts, the CAS panel, Tygart, and all independent scientists consulted thus far like Professor Tucker nor the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland.
Nope. They did it by Proof by Exhaustion:
The steroids were either used intentionally (as deduced by WADA, see CAS report) or came from the burrito (the only possible alternative according to Houlihan who herself discarded the supplements as source). Since the steroids could not have been in the burrito (for some 5 - 10 reasons, see CAS report), Houlihan used them intentionally.
It is not that complicated, rekrunner. And one comes to that conclusion independent of the WADA Code (which comes to that very same conclusion by deeming it intentional).
It is certainly not that complicated.
Whatever you want to tell yourself to make yourself believe, Houlihan was banned for 4-years without any "evidence that demonstrates intent, fraud, negligence, or knowing use" produced by any person or party in or out of the CAS and court cases.
"astro" asked "what has to happen...". Quite simply, that is my answer.
The hypocrisy on this board is ridiculous. If it had been an African or Middle Eastern athlete in this scenario, the outcry would be huge.
Yep, the reason why every Shelby thread is a million pages long. Because if people just treated her like every other doper from the start, there wouldn't be much to talk about at this point.
Nike and Shelby can do whatever they want. Nike is us track and field. Always above the law. Bad burrito or not.
I'm mostly with you here. I think Nike's "influence" with the sport is way over the top. But if Nike could truly do anything Houlihan would still be running in sanctioned meets and Salazar would still be coaching.
The hypocrisy on this board is ridiculous. If it had been an African or Middle Eastern athlete in this scenario, the outcry would be huge.
Yep, the reason why every Shelby thread is a million pages long. Because if people just treated her like every other doper from the start, there wouldn't be much to talk about at this point.
This.
The vocal American minority who support Houlihan aresuch an obvious example of racial bias. It's so pathetic and brain-dead.
I'm mostly with you here. I think Nike's "influence" with the sport is way over the top. But if Nike could truly do anything Houlihan would still be running in sanctioned meets and Salazar would still be coaching.
Great point. Their power does have limits, but their Salazar and Houlihan support (PR, lawyers, strong-arming AIU into hiding Houlihan's ban etc.) was strong and powerful and long ongoing - despite their various anti-doping rule violations. Sad and despicable. See this thread with all the pro-Houlihan statements for another example - the PR worked to some extent despite all the facts.
The steroids were either used intentionally (as deduced by WADA, see CAS report) or came from the burrito (the only possible alternative according to Houlihan who herself discarded the supplements as source). Since the steroids could not have been in the burrito (for some 5 - 10 reasons, see CAS report), Houlihan used them intentionally.
It is not that complicated, rekrunner. And one comes to that conclusion independent of the WADA Code (which comes to that very same conclusion by deeming it intentional).
It is certainly not that complicated.
Whatever you want to tell yourself to make yourself believe, Houlihan was banned for 4-years without any "evidence that demonstrates intent, fraud, negligence, or knowing use" produced by any person or party in or out of the CAS and court cases.
"astro" asked "what has to happen...". Quite simply, that is my answer.