How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

It didn't happen. How could there be intent when she was framed?

This all started with you telling me that there was proof of intent in the CAS decision, despite the CAS clearly saying it was presumed and deemed, rather than supported by evidence or proved. Just point me to the paragraph in the decision where it was proved.

I don't want to exonerate dopers. I'm mainly interested in exonerating wrongly convicted athletes, and using a robust process which minimizes false convictions.

Do people not realize Houlihan is basically the same name as Hooligan, just spelled different?

Yes, hooligans were named after someone named Hooligan with infamously bad behavior.

You're a disingenuous liar. It has been pointed out to you repeatedly that the presumption based on a positive test was proven according to the legal test CAS used of the balance of probabilities (the civil law standard) when she failed to show accidental cause as a defence. Since accidental cause was not accepted by the Court that left intentional doping as the only logical explanation for how the drug came to be in her system. You waste everyone's time with your pretence to intellectual inquiry. You either can't follow the Court's reasoning or you're a manipulative bullsh*tter.

Wow, one of the best troll threads in a while. The OP comes up with countless random conspiracy theories and outright lies, gets downvoted 20 : 256, never even tries to explain any of the above, keeps pouring oil into the fire with five more such posts on page 1 (votes of 13 : 120, 4 : 133, 6 : 102, 2 : 77, and 4 : 46), and then disappears.
Rekrunner comes to the rescue (3 : 31 for his first post), tries to dominate the thread with more countless random conspiracy theories and outright lies, and here we are, at page 15, almost 2 weeks later, and still counting.

10/10, well done you two!

This jiberrish has been repeatedly rejected for many reasons, mainly because it is nonsense, and attempts to rewrite what the CAS and WADA already clearly explained. It is not the CAS's reasoning, but yours. I can follow your reasoning, and I see all the contradictions. It is your failure to comprehend why your reasoning fails.

Here is a short list of defects in this iteration of your explanation:

First, "accidental cause" is not a term used by WADA. It is a phrase you invented because you have not read the relevant documents and you make things up as you go, and pretend that you master the undisputed history.

Presumption is not based on a positive test. Presumption is not something that can be proven. What you said doesn't make any sense. In any case, whether "presumption was proven" (sic) or not, "intent" was not proven to any standard, but presumed and then deemed. Intent was presumed in 2015, when the Code went into force, long before Houlihan ordered and ate a greasy burrito.

It is a fallacy to argue "intentional doping as the only logical explanation". What the CAS decided, from the limited evidence before it, on the balance of probability, is that Houlihan did not establish the source, mainly because she lacked "specific and concrete elements". Intentional ingestion of nandrolone is not the only logical conclusion. One logical conclusion is that she could not establish the source, because the exculpatory evidence was long consumed or discarded. Another logical possibility is that it was never in the greasy burrito after all, but somewhere else, like contamination in the vitamins or supplements. But a failure to establish the source to the required standard, does not prove intent to any standard. That is not how "proof" works. The CAS can only deem intent by presumption.

Your lies are relentless. Just one of them - CAS rejected Houlihan's attempted defence based on their applying the civil standard of proof, which is the balance of probabilities. That is a STANDARD OF PROOF. The rest of your post is of the same order of ignorant lies.

Sure, "balance of probability" is a standard of proof. But it is not the standard that the CAS used to deem intent. That standard was presumption. Even you said so earlier. Did you lie too?

I think the only thing I really said was that there is no evidence or proof of intent in the CAS report.

Despite the CAS clearly saying "intent" is presumed and was deemed, everyone here wants to persuade me that it it is something more than what the CAS says it is.

That was not the standard. CAS began with a presumption from a confirmed positive test and the onus then fell on the defence to rebut that presumption. The attempted rebuttal was assessed against a standard of proof, which was the balance of probabilities. The defence failed to meet that test; that burden of proof. So according to the evidence presented ON BOTH SIDES intent was deemed to be confirmed. This was not the result of the presumption but hearing the evidence for the prosecution and the defence. Your problem is your inability to see that a presumption of intent is a logical starting point for the presence of a banned substance in an athlete's body since it is most probable the athlete knowingly took the drug unless they can show otherwise. She couldn't.

You should stop talking about court cases. You don't understand them. I was trained in law and was admitted to the Bar. Your inability to understand the legal processes is glaringly obvious.

Lol Says the guy who stated that Baldwin wouldn't be charged.

I'm not talking about a court case, but an arbitration. These are not questions of civil or criminal law, but of interpreting clearly written rules.

Your failure here is one of logic -- something you are apparently completely untrained in. A failure to establish pork as the "more likely than not" source does not establish that any alternative is "more likely than not", on the balance of probability. The conclusion of intentional doping was only made possible by presumption, combined with logical fallacy. An alternative presumption of non-intent would lead to a finding of non-intent.

As an illustration, if we "presume" that pork, legal supplements, and a banned product are three equally likely sources among positive tested athletes, there is no "most likely" source determination possible, without "specific and concrete" evidence overriding the presumed likelihoods.

What makes the "intentional doping" argument so weak is that the outcome is completely determined by the initial presumptions.

Another failure is your attempting to rewrite the CAS reporting to say evidence of intent/non-intent was presented ON BOTH SIDES. The WA/AIU presented no evidence of intent. They only argued against the evidence of non-intent. If they had, the CAS would have included these details in their report, and you could point me to the relevant paragraphs in the CAS report showing the evidence of intent before the CAS.

I don't find presuming intent a "logical" starting point, but rather an "expedient" one for anti-doping bodies, at the expense of both innocent and guilty athletes alike. We have seen that in other cases, like Lawson and Getzmann, that athletes found innocent were still punished with a 1+ year suspension, and a five-figure arbitration. There was no compensation for legal or scientific expenses or lost earnings and sponsorship. In the best case, even when clean athletes win, they still lose. The esteemed Prof. Ross Tucker estimated that a clean athlete who consumed nandrolone from pork might have to conduct a large nationwide experiment, lasting six-months (likely more), and costing six-figures, and it still might not produce the results that would permit the athlete to overcome a presumption of intent, in a low probability situation as nandrolone consumption from pork.

TO THE GILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone keeps telling me there was plenty of evidence and/or proof of athlete intent to violate the rules, but they cannot point to where it is described in the CAS report.

Your keep telling everyone that a beef burrito can turn into a Wild Boar Burrito if someone says it's greasy.

LOL yes. And that it contained testicles, although even the drug cheat never said so...

Hey listen man - nobody understands and interprets anti-doping vernacular like the rekrunner. Not even Renato Canova.

This is one of the great threads though, the amount of people up in arms, cortisol through the roof, heartbeats sending them across their anaerobic thresholds - as you said it's just hilarious and legendary stuff from the OP.

Grease was evidence of a mixup, since the carne asada burritos were reportedly dry. Maybe the beef was cooked in pork lard -- something the expert Prof. McGlone told me was highly concentrated in nandrolone.

In this thread, I mainly said that intent wasn't established by any party to any standard stronger than presumption. This has nothing to do with the strength of Houlihan's claim, but rather the strength of the counterclaim.