"It is not an issue for me that Houlihan claims she still doesn't know where the nandrolone came from. That is exactly what I would expect from a guilty athlete who insists she doesn't know how it got there ... I think it is the exception, rather than the rule, that a guilty athlete would prove the source." (quote)
Your comment - properly amended in bold to allow for the verdict arrived at by CAS - shows only that you start from an assumption of innocence, for which there is NO EVIDENCE, but only your conjecture.
"It is not an issue for me that Houlihan claims she still doesn't know where the nandrolone came from. That is exactly what I would expect from a guilty athlete who insists she doesn't know how it got there ... I think it is the exception, rather than the rule, that a guilty athlete would prove the source." (quote)
Your comment - properly amended in bold to allow for the verdict arrived at by CAS - shows only that you start from an assumption of innocence, for which there is NO EVIDENCE, but only your conjecture.
You quote but then you say you altered the quote!!!!
Then you moan at someone starts from an assumption of innocence. What sort of society are you from?
She went home devastated from the court of science, so she's turning to the only place she still thinks she stands a chance to revitalize her career after a 4-year ban; the court of public opinion.
"The fundamental problem for me is not whether Shelby is innocent or guilty of intentional doping, but, considering all the shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code to anti-doping bodies, we simply cannot say, notwithstanding the CAS ruling, if she is an intentional cheat, or just being treated like one."(quote)
The CAS ruling does not "treat" her as an intentional cheat; it is a finding of the decision that her violation was intentional. That you don't accept that finding is mere opinion. Most of us can easily accept it. You cannot prove it is wrong. And neither could she. Houlihan was unable to produce evidence to rebut the presumption of intent - and neither can you. On the basis of the evidence the Court was satisfied she acted intentionally. Accordingly, the nandrolone did not find its way into her system by accident - that defence wasn't accepted.
The verdict is also not an example of a "shortcut" available to WADA but is a contestable process, that confers rights on the athlete who is charged with a violation to require that the breach be factually established. It can also be defended by the athlete if they choose. When a violation is clearly established, as by a confirmed positive test for a banned substance, the onus then properly falls on the athlete to show they did not breach the Code or were not negligent in doing so. Once the charge is proven it is up to the athlete to present a defence that will convince those adjudicating that the athlete wasn't at fault. Houlihan couldn't do that. She could not present evidence that backed up her protestation of innocence. What you are requiring is for the authorities to effectively make the athlete's defence for them, by finding the evidence they are unable to obtain. Of course you would. It would make it virtually impossible to convict any athlete.
In the end, your casuistical arguments about "intention" don't matter a damn. She committed a violation for which she could produce no actual evidence that she wasn't at fault. Her excuse (her "suggestion", as it has been characterized here) didn't wash with the court. Whether she acted intentionally or not doesn't change the fact that she breached the Code. Once that is established, intent can be implied unless it is shown otherwise.
But your choosing to die on that hill, of whether she was an "intentional cheat" or not - which wasn't the essential focus of the process, but was a corollary of the determination of guilt - only shows that even to you her violation is indisputable. That determination is all that matters; the rest is simply noise.
I understand your "devils advocate" POV here and I get it you want to remain fact based etc etc.
You are overlooking something really important here - you are assuming that every case (in this Houlihans) has conditions that match the controlled "study" of Prof. Ayotte. That is simply flawed logic.
And look I'm okay (not really because it's still ridiculous but at least respectful of someone's right to have an opinion) if prior to this latest course-correction/pivot, someone wanted to believe the burrito story and the "so you're saying there is a chance" narrative.
But after these latest comments if you don't begin to see the tell-tale signs of deceit then I don't know what to tell you. Must be fun living in a world with such blissful ignorance just believing anything you are told.
Final point, yeah we get that she is still saying "she still isn't 100% sure where the nandrolone came from" - isn't that an issue for you? I mean it was still there right? And we can be pretty sure it wasn't from an incorrectly ordered burrito (if you want to argue that go argue Ross Tucker) and I'm pretty sure the tooth fairy didn't jab her in the middle of the night with a rogue dosage of nandrolone. So it came from somewhere and it's not WADAs job to tell her. So an athlete can just take whatever they want and say "I dunno where it came from you tell me"?
Just stop - you're to be intellectual here and play this "good cop" role but you are insulting your own intelligence dude. You are beginning to sound as delusional as Shelby.
The fundamental problem for me is not whether Shelby is innocent or guilty of intentional doping, but, considering all the shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code to anti-doping bodies, we simply cannot say, notwithstanding the CAS ruling, if she is an intentional cheat, or just being treated like one.
The significance of Ayotte's studies are what these studies say, versus what she represented to the CAS, both with respect to levels observed in research, and GC/C/IRMS values considered endogenous. None of the data in Ayotte's own published studies support her representations to the CAS, but they do support both Houlihan's levels as consistent with pork offal consumption and her isotope values as endogenous.
Was there a course-correction/pivot? Houlihan told us last June that the burrito was "the most likely" explanation. This doesn't convey 100% certainty, but just their best guess. I think posters here are just hopping from one misunderstanding to another, and blaming Houlihan again.
It is not an issue for me that Houlihan still doesn't know where the nandrolone came from. That is exactly what I would expect from an innocent athlete who doesn't know how it got there and couldn't prove what she thinks must be the most likely source. I think it is the exception, rather than the rule, that an athlete would be able to prove the source. How many times have I brought up the case of Simon Getzmann. Without the luck of having one painkiller from the same batch to test, and that test result coming back positive, he would have boarded the same train as Houlihan that railroads guilty and innocent athletes alike to a 4-year ban.
Before 2015, the athlete did not have to prove "not intentional", and athletes were still sanctioned under the WADA rules. But for cases of possible pork ingestion, we don't even need to go there -- the TD2021NA explicitly foresees that pork offal ingestion can both produce the levels in Houlihan's samples, and corrupt the GC/C/IRMS values, making them unsuitable for endogenous/exogenous determinations. For these low levels, consistent with pork ingestion, it is well within existing WADA rules and guidelines to declare the result an ATF, and collect more data, whether through increased target testing or through optional pharmacokinetics, to eliminate the uncertainty.
So quick question - by your logic, when do we ever get to the point of being guilty or not of intentional doping?
Do we only get here when the athlete ultimately confesses unequivocally they did? Would it be easier for you if we just eliminated the "intentional vs inadvertent" narratives out of the equation because news flash buddy, WADA don't care and it makes no impact on the rulings or the penalties they impose.
If you want to convince yourself that it was inadvertent and she's the unfortunate victim of horrible circumstances then fine, you do you pal. It makes no difference to this case and the outcome.
"It is not an issue for me that Houlihan claims she still doesn't know where the nandrolone came from. That is exactly what I would expect from a guilty athlete who insists she doesn't know how it got there ... I think it is the exception, rather than the rule, that a guilty athlete would prove the source." (quote)
Your comment - properly amended in bold to allow for the verdict arrived at by CAS - shows only that you start from an assumption of innocence, for which there is NO EVIDENCE, but only your conjecture.
You quote but then you say you altered the quote!!!!
Then you moan at someone starts from an assumption of innocence. What sort of society are you from?
I can always be confident that you don't understand what is being discussed.
"The fundamental problem for me is not whether Shelby is innocent or guilty of intentional doping, but, considering all the shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code to anti-doping bodies, we simply cannot say, notwithstanding the CAS ruling, if she is an intentional cheat, or just being treated like one."(quote)
The CAS ruling does not "treat" her as an intentional cheat; it is a finding of the decision that her violation was intentional. That you don't accept that finding is mere opinion. Most of us can easily accept it. You cannot prove it is wrong. And neither could she. Houlihan was unable to produce evidence to rebut the presumption of intent - and neither can you. On the basis of the evidence the Court was satisfied she acted intentionally. Accordingly, the nandrolone did not find its way into her system by accident - that defence wasn't accepted.
The verdict is also not an example of a "shortcut" available to WADA but is a contestable process, that confers rights on the athlete who is charged with a violation to require that the breach be factually established. It can also be defended by the athlete if they choose. When a violation is clearly established, as by a confirmed positive test for a banned substance, the onus then properly falls on the athlete to show they did not breach the Code or were not negligent in doing so. Once the charge is proven it is up to the athlete to present a defence that will convince those adjudicating that the athlete wasn't at fault. Houlihan couldn't do that. She could not present evidence that backed up her protestation of innocence. What you are requiring is for the authorities to effectively make the athlete's defence for them, by finding the evidence they are unable to obtain. Of course you would. It would make it virtually impossible to convict any athlete.
In the end, your casuistical arguments about "intention" don't matter a damn. She committed a violation for which she could produce no actual evidence that she wasn't at fault. Her excuse (her "suggestion", as it has been characterized here) didn't wash with the court. Whether she acted intentionally or not doesn't change the fact that she breached the Code. Once that is established, intent can be implied unless it is shown otherwise.
But your choosing to die on that hill, of whether she was an "intentional cheat" or not - which wasn't the essential focus of the process, but was a corollary of the determination of guilt - only shows that even to you her violation is indisputable. That determination is all that matters; the rest is simply noise.
What a contortion of the WADA code from the person who posted 15,000 times but had no idea what the burden of proof is.
So quick question - by your logic, when do we ever get to the point of being guilty or not of intentional doping?
Do we only get here when the athlete ultimately confesses unequivocally they did? Would it be easier for you if we just eliminated the "intentional vs inadvertent" narratives out of the equation because news flash buddy, WADA don't care and it makes no impact on the rulings or the penalties they impose.
If you want to convince yourself that it was inadvertent and she's the unfortunate victim of horrible circumstances then fine, you do you pal. It makes no difference to this case and the outcome.
It's not really my logic, but the criteria can be found in the WADA Code.
In 10.12.1.1, which does not involved "specified" substances or methods, the WADA Code presumes intent until proven otherwise. The WADA Code never brings us to that point, unless by coincidence, as it is not required.
But in 10.12.1.2, involving "specified" substances or methods, the ADA/ADO has the burden, and can establish intent.
It can also be shown by other investigative means, through whistleblowers, documents, emails, phones, witnesses, police busts, and also confessions.
"My logic" is limited to cases characterized by small quantities consistent with ingestion in meals, or contaminated medicine. I wouldn't make this same argument for CJ Hunter, busted with 2000 ng/ml -- a value too high to be consistent with ingestion.
As you said, WADA doesn't care, and this doesn't impact the rulings or the penalties. According to the Code -- athletes are guilty of ADRVs regardless of intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge.
But I'm not talking about the CAS's conclusions, but rather the "fans", drawing more conclusions than the CAS did, on the basis of the CAS rulings, which is founded on no evidence of intent, no evidence of fault, no evidence of negligence, and no evidence of knowledge, and a finding that the evidence of "not intentional" did not meet the required burden.
"The fundamental problem for me is not whether Shelby is innocent or guilty of intentional doping, but, considering all the shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code to anti-doping bodies, we simply cannot say, notwithstanding the CAS ruling, if she is an intentional cheat, or just being treated like one."(quote)
The CAS ruling does not "treat" her as an intentional cheat; ...
Of course they did, and so are you.
The CAS had no evidence before them of intent, or cheating.
How many of y'all supporting Shelby think Asbel Kiprop is innocent?
His tea money excuse is considerably more plausible then anything Shelby has thrown out there.
After reading the details of the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus, I would like to see the WADA lab's images of Kiprops's positive results.
How many of y'all supporting Shelby think Asbel Kiprop is innocent?
His tea money excuse is considerably more plausible then anything Shelby has thrown out there.
After reading the details of the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus, I would like to see the WADA lab's images of Kiprops's positive results.
Wasn't talking about you rekrunner. We all know where you stand. At least you're consistent.
The fundamental problem for me is not whether Shelby is innocent or guilty of intentional doping, but, considering all the shortcuts permitted by the WADA Code to anti-doping bodies, we simply cannot say, notwithstanding the CAS ruling, if she is an intentional cheat, or just being treated like one.
The significance of Ayotte's studies are what these studies say, versus what she represented to the CAS, both with respect to levels observed in research, and GC/C/IRMS values considered endogenous. None of the data in Ayotte's own published studies support her representations to the CAS, but they do support both Houlihan's levels as consistent with pork offal consumption and her isotope values as endogenous.
Was there a course-correction/pivot? Houlihan told us last June that the burrito was "the most likely" explanation. This doesn't convey 100% certainty, but just their best guess. I think posters here are just hopping from one misunderstanding to another, and blaming Houlihan again.
It is not an issue for me that Houlihan still doesn't know where the nandrolone came from. That is exactly what I would expect from an innocent athlete who doesn't know how it got there and couldn't prove what she thinks must be the most likely source. I think it is the exception, rather than the rule, that an athlete would be able to prove the source. How many times have I brought up the case of Simon Getzmann. Without the luck of having one painkiller from the same batch to test, and that test result coming back positive, he would have boarded the same train as Houlihan that railroads guilty and innocent athletes alike to a 4-year ban.
Before 2015, the athlete did not have to prove "not intentional", and athletes were still sanctioned under the WADA rules. But for cases of possible pork ingestion, we don't even need to go there -- the TD2021NA explicitly foresees that pork offal ingestion can both produce the levels in Houlihan's samples, and corrupt the GC/C/IRMS values, making them unsuitable for endogenous/exogenous determinations. For these low levels, consistent with pork ingestion, it is well within existing WADA rules and guidelines to declare the result an ATF, and collect more data, whether through increased target testing or through optional pharmacokinetics, to eliminate the uncertainty.
So quick question - by your logic, when do we ever get to the point of being guilty or not of intentional doping?
Do we only get here when the athlete ultimately confesses unequivocally they did? Would it be easier for you if we just eliminated the "intentional vs inadvertent" narratives out of the equation because news flash buddy, WADA don't care and it makes no impact on the rulings or the penalties they impose.
If you want to convince yourself that it was inadvertent and she's the unfortunate victim of horrible circumstances then fine, you do you pal. It makes no difference to this case and the outcome.
If the hearing was based on mens rea then that would good progress.
After reading the details of the cases of Vojtěch Sommer, Steven Colvert, and Benedikt Karus, I would like to see the WADA lab's images of Kiprops's positive results.
Wasn't talking about you rekrunner. We all know where you stand. At least you're consistent.
I'm not always sure you all do know where I stand, because it often gets oversimplified and distorted.
These other cases have given me reason to doubt that the WADA labs always get this test right (with reference lanes bleeding into other lanes during testing), and that the evidence of the lab error would be permitted to reach the accused in time for him/her to defend him/herself.
The consistency is of requiring conclusive evidence before jumping to conclusions, whatever the topic.
Wasn't talking about you rekrunner. We all know where you stand. At least you're consistent.
I'm not always sure you all do know where I stand, because it often gets oversimplified and distorted.
These other cases have given me reason to doubt that the WADA labs always get this test right (with reference lanes bleeding into other lanes during testing), and that the evidence of the lab error would be permitted to reach the accused in time for him/her to defend him/herself.
The consistency is of requiring conclusive evidence before jumping to conclusions, whatever the topic.
We have heard it loud and clear through your 1000 monotonous posts. Speaking of jumping to conclusions, I love the array of small chance events you support while ignoring the high chance event. You know what, I think S.H is the cleanest athlete of all american sports. There is so much pointing to her being clean with her ban.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.
Fill out a review to be entered into a drawing to win a free pair of shoes.