John_James_413 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That wasn’t part of the sanction.
Then great. Play a game of make believe that she still has the records somehow.
She's proven herself to be too untrustworthy.
You said “officially deleted”.
John_James_413 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That wasn’t part of the sanction.
Then great. Play a game of make believe that she still has the records somehow.
She's proven herself to be too untrustworthy.
You said “officially deleted”.
Armstronglivs wrote:
CAS didn't accept the "food" explanation as a credible explanation for presence of nandrolone in her body. As it is their job to come to such determinations I accept their finding. Whether it is because they don't believe she ate the burrito - which I doubt, as it would be a commonplace - or, alternatively, they were not inclined to think the burrito could have likely resulted in the level of nandrolone she tested for - which is more probable - we won't know unless they reveal the detail of their decision. But, to me, while that information may be interesting it isnt necessary in order to accept their finding that she doped. I have no reason to believe they are either incompetent, biased, or simply wrong. Nor do I believe the rules are penalising "innocent" athletes. Strict liability can be refuted by factual evidence. This she couldn't do.
…
I dont need to see the full CAS decision to accept their finding that she tested positive for a banned drug without adequate explanation. Those facts aren't contested - apart from her insistence that it was from food contamination. They heard that and they didnt believe her. It is their job to make these determinations. If they were regarded as a body of low competence or even corrupt then there would be a need to see their full decision. But that isn't the case.
The only other reason I see for releasing the full decision is for reasons of public education, to enable us to understand the process better and how they arrive at their decisions. But I don't see that publication of the full decision is necessary because I don't think they got it right. I think they did. The details will be informative but not necessary to understand that she tested positive for a banned drug without adequate excuse and was accordingly suspended.
It is ironic that you asked me for “independent thought”, while you keep parroting things which were not contested, as you try to retell CAS’s story in your own words.
You gave the reason before for publishing the grounds: “greater understanding”. I can accept that this is not a goal for you.
Find it odd that Shelby has gone completely silent. You think if she was innocent she'd be chasing down food trucks, calling 60 minutes, something.
Sonnys wrote:
Find it odd that Shelby has gone completely silent. You think if she was innocent she'd be chasing down food trucks, calling 60 minutes, something.
she has tried all that, with the full weihtof btc/nike and failed.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
CAS didn't accept the "food" explanation as a credible explanation for presence of nandrolone in her body. As it is their job to come to such determinations I accept their finding. Whether it is because they don't believe she ate the burrito - which I doubt, as it would be a commonplace - or, alternatively, they were not inclined to think the burrito could have likely resulted in the level of nandrolone she tested for - which is more probable - we won't know unless they reveal the detail of their decision. But, to me, while that information may be interesting it isnt necessary in order to accept their finding that she doped. I have no reason to believe they are either incompetent, biased, or simply wrong. Nor do I believe the rules are penalising "innocent" athletes. Strict liability can be refuted by factual evidence. This she couldn't do.
…
I dont need to see the full CAS decision to accept their finding that she tested positive for a banned drug without adequate explanation. Those facts aren't contested - apart from her insistence that it was from food contamination. They heard that and they didnt believe her. It is their job to make these determinations. If they were regarded as a body of low competence or even corrupt then there would be a need to see their full decision. But that isn't the case.
The only other reason I see for releasing the full decision is for reasons of public education, to enable us to understand the process better and how they arrive at their decisions. But I don't see that publication of the full decision is necessary because I don't think they got it right. I think they did. The details will be informative but not necessary to understand that she tested positive for a banned drug without adequate excuse and was accordingly suspended.
It is ironic that you asked me for “independent thought”, while you keep parroting things which were not contested, as you try to retell CAS’s story in your own words.
You gave the reason before for publishing the grounds: “greater understanding”. I can accept that this is not a goal for you.
I dont parrot anything. I accept that which I find reason to see as credible, unless there are facts to take a contrary view. In this case, I have yet to see that. "Independent thought" based in such facts we have leads me to trust what I know from CAS but not from Houlihan.
I do not dispute that publishing the full decision enables increased understanding - indeed that is what I said previously - but I don't require the full decision in order to understand the basic fact that an athlete has been found guilty of a doping violation by a top international body that considers these matters.
Sonnys wrote:
Find it odd that Shelby has gone completely silent. You think if she was innocent she'd be chasing down food trucks, calling 60 minutes, something.
It's probably because she has already prove herself to be too untrustworthy. So why would she dig herself a deeper hole at this point?
I mean the least you would think she could do is be honest at this point.
But no. Just keep denying everything. I'm sure that will help.
Just like the steroid infested powerlifting community. Every single one of the steroid users within the powerlifting community lies for profit.
They go on instagram and deny everything because as long as they are denying everything, they are making cash.
The dishonest steroid infested powerlifting community is a joke. And so are their fans.
Sonnys wrote:
Find it odd that Shelby has gone completely silent. You think if she was innocent she'd be chasing down food trucks, calling 60 minutes, something.
And I meant proven not prove.
Sonnys wrote:
Find it odd that Shelby has gone completely silent. You think if she was innocent she'd be chasing down food trucks, calling 60 minutes, something.
But as long as she's playing the game of " waaaa waaah waaah " on instagram and crying about it all over instagram and making these long posts of how hard she worked and how it's her dream.. Blah blah blah...
I'm sure her deluded fans will believe her.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Crickets?
I never said I doubted the CAS decisions and findings.
It is premature to say I’ve rejected CAS findings and accepted Houlihan’s version of events.
Recall you asked me to judge if they were correct, using independent thought.
I could answer that based on my bias and guts, or I can wait until the CAS explains why.
I haven’t seen CAS tell their story yet.
CAS has told its story - it said Houlihan tested positive for a banned drug and it did not accept her excuse it came from eating Mexican takeaways. Only those inclined to accept Houlihan's excuse would have any rationale for questioning a decision made by the court that hears these matters. I guess that's you.
I mean why did she even use the word Mexican in this? Wait I know. Because she wanted to imply the word cheap along with it.
I have no clue why she didn't use the phrase that it was a Canadian food truck. Everyone who's anyone knows that Canadian food trucks are way worse than Mexican ones.
Armstronglivs wrote:
I dont parrot anything. I accept that which I find reason to see as credible, unless there are facts to take a contrary view. In this case, I have yet to see that. "Independent thought" based in such facts we have leads me to trust what I know from CAS but not from Houlihan.
I do not dispute that publishing the full decision enables increased understanding - indeed that is what I said previously - but I don't require the full decision in order to understand the basic fact that an athlete has been found guilty of a doping violation by a top international body that considers these matters.
This was never about what you (nor I) accept or find reasonable or credible. You have repeatedly shown that you accept many things while being unable to provide the specific factual bases when explicitly asked.
The CAS made their findings and determinations, guided by terms and rules and obligations found in the WADA code, based on a subjective assessment of the strength of the evidence before them.
You say “unless there are facts to take a contrary view. In this case, I have yet to see that.” This is precisely what I have said from the beginning — I have not, you have not, and no one has, seen CAS “tell their story” yet. All we have is a spoiler. You have tried to retell the story, injecting some of your own vocabulary and personal interpretations, but I don’t find that interesting or helpful at filling the gap of the missing grounds.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I dont parrot anything. I accept that which I find reason to see as credible, unless there are facts to take a contrary view. In this case, I have yet to see that. "Independent thought" based in such facts we have leads me to trust what I know from CAS but not from Houlihan.
I do not dispute that publishing the full decision enables increased understanding - indeed that is what I said previously - but I don't require the full decision in order to understand the basic fact that an athlete has been found guilty of a doping violation by a top international body that considers these matters.
This was never about what you (nor I) accept or find reasonable or credible. You have repeatedly shown that you accept many things while being unable to provide the specific factual bases when explicitly asked.
The CAS made their findings and determinations, guided by terms and rules and obligations found in the WADA code, based on a subjective assessment of the strength of the evidence before them.
You say “unless there are facts to take a contrary view. In this case, I have yet to see that.” This is precisely what I have said from the beginning — I have not, you have not, and no one has, seen CAS “tell their story” yet. All we have is a spoiler. You have tried to retell the story, injecting some of your own vocabulary and personal interpretations, but I don’t find that interesting or helpful at filling the gap of the missing grounds.
What is the "gap"? That she didn't commit a doping violation based on a positive drug test? It didn't happen? That will be it for you.
CAS did not take a "subjective" view. Its decision was necessarily based on facts and submissions presented before it, and chiefly a positive drug test, considered in relation to the rules. That is an objective process. Again, you seek to undermine the credibility of an expert judicial body whose job it is to hear the arguments from both sides and come to a decision.
You never cease to defend or try to excuse the doper - even the convicted one - and you do it by trying to undermine the credibility of the process that finds them guilty. That is the very definition of an apologist.
Armstronglivs wrote:
What is the "gap"? That she didn't commit a doping violation based on a positive drug test? It didn't happen? That will be it for you.
CAS did not take a "subjective" view. Its decision was necessarily based on facts and submissions presented before it, and chiefly a positive drug test, considered in relation to the rules. That is an objective process. Again, you seek to undermine the credibility of an expert judicial body whose job it is to hear the arguments from both sides and come to a decision.
You never cease to defend or try to excuse the doper - even the convicted one - and you do it by trying to undermine the credibility of the process that finds them guilty. That is the very definition of an apologist.
The gap is the missing “grounds” which CAS committed to produce.
Determining “balance of probability” is subjective.
You don’t seem to understand where my limited criticism has been directed.
Apparently you don’t know the definition of “apologist” either.
I don’t understand your aversion to my interest in the real world details of the case that the CAS promised to provide.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
What is the "gap"? That she didn't commit a doping violation based on a positive drug test? It didn't happen? That will be it for you.
CAS did not take a "subjective" view. Its decision was necessarily based on facts and submissions presented before it, and chiefly a positive drug test, considered in relation to the rules. That is an objective process. Again, you seek to undermine the credibility of an expert judicial body whose job it is to hear the arguments from both sides and come to a decision.
You never cease to defend or try to excuse the doper - even the convicted one - and you do it by trying to undermine the credibility of the process that finds them guilty. That is the very definition of an apologist.
The gap is the missing “grounds” which CAS committed to produce.
Determining “balance of probability” is subjective.
You don’t seem to understand where my limited criticism has been directed.
Apparently you don’t know the definition of “apologist” either.
I don’t understand your aversion to my interest in the real world details of the case that the CAS promised to provide.
Determining the balance of probability is not subjective. Almost all forms of inductive reasoning are based on that process. That doesn't make it subjective. Most legal decisions come to a view of what is most likely or probable by weighing the relevant facts against the rules or principles to be applied. That does not make those decisions merely someone's personal opinion. If that were so, those decisions are easily overturned, because they are not supported by the evidence and the law. There is nothing to suggest the CAS decision is merely an opinion, because we know that Houlihan failed a drug test and according to the principle of strict liability that establishes a violation. Those are also what you misguidedly refer to as the "missing grounds" for their finding. The grounds are unequivocal: a failed drug test - irrefutable - and an excuse of food contamination the court didn't accept - even if you would have.
I know what an apologist is - even though you do everything to resist the label as you practise it.
Sonnys wrote:
Find it odd that Shelby has gone completely silent. You think if she was innocent she'd be chasing down food trucks, calling 60 minutes, something.
Her public appearances made her seem even less credible. Compare Richardson's interview with the SH interview on Fox. SR came across as sincere and took ownership. SH appeared with her lawyer and stumbled over a basic question.
Why would anyone agree to be tested every day for a year? NO way.
There's only one question, was an illegal substance found in her sample, if the answer is yes then it's see you in two years time.
Simple, done and dusted.
Next.
Burritogate sounds silly, what she COULD do if she wants to prove a point is run a time trial and videotape it
the same day as the Olympic finals.
She could be the 'unofficial' olympic champion.
davies report wrote:
It has still not been proven that she is a cheat.
She failed to prove that she wasn't, given ample opportunity.
Anybody else get into heated discussions at 4th of July barbecues over Shelby Houlihan?
I had to set some people straight because all they knew was the story Nike's PR machine wanted them to know.
In the end, I convinced them all of their guilt. Either that or they agreed with me so I'd stop yelling at them.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Determining the balance of probability is not subjective. Almost all forms of inductive reasoning are based on that process. That doesn't make it subjective. Most legal decisions come to a view of what is most likely or probable by weighing the relevant facts against the rules or principles to be applied. That does not make those decisions merely someone's personal opinion. If that were so, those decisions are easily overturned, because they are not supported by the evidence and the law. There is nothing to suggest the CAS decision is merely an opinion, because we know that Houlihan failed a drug test and according to the principle of strict liability that establishes a violation. Those are also what you misguidedly refer to as the "missing grounds" for their finding. The grounds are unequivocal: a failed drug test - irrefutable - and an excuse of food contamination the court didn't accept - even if you would have.
I know what an apologist is - even though you do everything to resist the label as you practise it.
“come to a view of what is most likely or probable by weighing the relevant facts” sounds like the very definition of a subjective determination.
I didn’t say “merely an opinion” so take it easy with that scarecrow.
I don’t refer to the “missing grounds”, but the CAS does “The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds ….” You also refer to the missing grounds when you say “weighing the relevant facts”. What are the relevant facts that the CAS weighed? If they are not missing, you can give a direct answer with concrete examples.
An apologist would say she doped and that’s OK because doping is OK. I never said that, and never say that.
In the case of Houlihan, I said that accidental ingestion is still possible, despite the subjective determination of three panelists based on the limited evidence before them, subject to interpretation in the context of the WADA code. Accidental ingestion does not speak to guilt under the WADA code.