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...
We never saw any complete ingredients list, and the claim was that it came from a burrito, which would include all the ingredients. Again, it's not about the strength of Houlihan's claim, but the strength of the counterclaim.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
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 didn't say that. Are you unaware that there was a court hearing that examined the evidence from both sides? What would have been the point of hearing prosecution and defence arguments if a prosecutorial presumption was not able to be subject to an evidentiary challenge, which was assessed according to the test of the balance of probabilities? The presumption was not a prior conclusion, which decided the case then and there, but a procedure that put the onus of proof on the defence to provide a credible argument in rebuttal (which it couldn't do). The presumption is based 1) on a confirmed positive test and 2) the athlete was the cause in the absence of any alternative explanation that the antidoping authorities could accept. As the athletes are responsible for what they put in their body under the WADA Code the onus falls on the athlete to show legitimate cause and not that they were doping. Houlihan was given that opportunity to contest the evidence and present a defence and it was that that decided the case, not the presumption. CAS did not suddenly come up with a presumption at the conclusion of the case. You never cease to demonstrate your inability to understand legal proceedings.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
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 said he wouldn't be charged with murder, which is what most here argued he had committed. I didn't think he would be charged with anything and legal experts maintained the same. That the case against him was dropped shows their assessment was essentially right, that charges shouldn't have been brought and that they were was because of an overzealous prosecution, that in the event couldn't make anything stick. But this is too complex for you.
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.
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.
CAS was not an arbitration but an appeal. It was a court case in the civil jurisdiction that employed the civil standard of proof, which is the balance of probabilities. Her defence failed to meet that standard. So she was convicted and banned . The rest is irrelevant speculation - your specialty.
LOL yes. And that it contained testicles, although even the drug cheat never said so...
We never saw any complete ingredients list, and the claim was that it came from a burrito, which would include all the ingredients. Again, it's not about the strength of Houlihan's claim, but the strength of the counterclaim.
Again, you're all over the place. The claim came from antidoping, which was she committed a violation shown by a confirmed positive test, for which she had to be responsible unless she could show otherwise. Hers was the counterclaim, that it was a mythical pork burrito that did it, your Honour - the dog ate her homework. It was rejected.
LOL yes. And that it contained testicles, although even the drug cheat never said so...
We never saw any complete ingredients list, and the claim was that it came from a burrito, which would include all the ingredients. Again, it's not about the strength of Houlihan's claim, but the strength of the counterclaim.
Why are you so upset about these matters? Does it really worry you that much? Curious, are you related to Houlihan? Are you her coach? Consultant? President of her fan club? You seem so distraught over this CAS decision.
Who really cares if it was intentional, unintentional, maybe intentional, etc. She was found with nandrolonoe in her system & was banned according to the rules. She's an elite athlete who agreed to be drug tested & part of the testing pool. If she doesn't like it, maybe she quit professional running & look at another career.
And if you're emotionally upset about the CAS decision & feel that injustice was done to Houlihan - then why don't you go get some signatures & petition WADA, or CAS or whomever to change the rules? Am I correct in assuming that your position is that if an athlete tests positive for a banned substance & they claim it was from a contaminated food substance, beverage, supplement, etc, - they should not receive a ban? What rules would you like to see applied to athletes who injest a contaminated supplement, food source, etc?
Btw, are you a coach? Excercise physio? Athletic or personal trainer? Anything like that?
You disagree with supreme court decisions but want us to believe that some bozos here made the correct decision. Not happening. Shelby is free. Enjoy the ride. Your girl will be watching her behind.
Lol Says the guy who stated that Baldwin wouldn't be charged.
I said he wouldn't be charged with murder, which is what most here argued he had committed. I didn't think he would be charged with anything and legal experts maintained the same. That the case against him was dropped shows their assessment was essentially right, that charges shouldn't have been brought and that they were was because of an overzealous prosecution, that in the event couldn't make anything stick. But this is too complex for you.
No. You said he wouldn't be charged. As for things that are too complex to know, how about you being 71 years old, allegedly following the sport for over 5 decades, and still not knowing how to write times?
We never saw any complete ingredients list, and the claim was that it came from a burrito, which would include all the ingredients. Again, it's not about the strength of Houlihan's claim, but the strength of the counterclaim.
No. That is not how it works. Only substantiated claims are to be considered, and were considered. Here, the pork ingredients shown as possibilities by Houlihan were outer stomach muscle and butt meat, as you know. Therefore, meat/muscle were discussed, nothing else, as you know. Long time USADA CEO Tygart - otherwise often critical of WADA - said that everything was done here correctly by the book, as you know. Only you as a long-time anonymous doper apologist on letsrun claim otherwise...
The rest, be it lard or testicles, is either your imagination or your wishful thinking or your propaganda, either way far removed from reality. No reason to keep trolling us with that nonsense.
You disagree with supreme court decisions but want us to believe that some bozos here made the correct decision. Not happening. Shelby is free. Enjoy the ride. Your girl will be watching her behind.
The SCOTUS is a political body, that has been captured by the American right. It is part of the disgrace that is the US today. CAS remains a credible impartial international court.
Shelby remains a confirmed drug cheat. That is how she is seen. I have no horse in this race but a rejection of doping in sport.
I said he wouldn't be charged with murder, which is what most here argued he had committed. I didn't think he would be charged with anything and legal experts maintained the same. That the case against him was dropped shows their assessment was essentially right, that charges shouldn't have been brought and that they were was because of an overzealous prosecution, that in the event couldn't make anything stick. But this is too complex for you.
No. You said he wouldn't be charged. As for things that are too complex to know, how about you being 71 years old, allegedly following the sport for over 5 decades, and still not knowing how to write times?
All charges were dismissed. Back to children's corner. Nothing on the thread subject, as always.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
No. You said he wouldn't be charged. As for things that are too complex to know, how about you being 71 years old, allegedly following the sport for over 5 decades, and still not knowing how to write times?
All charges were dismissed. Back to children's corner. Nothing on the thread subject, as always.
So you don't deny that you didn't know what you were talking about. Thank you. You are dismissed.
We never saw any complete ingredients list, and the claim was that it came from a burrito, which would include all the ingredients. Again, it's not about the strength of Houlihan's claim, but the strength of the counterclaim.
Again, you're all over the place. The claim came from antidoping, which was she committed a violation shown by a confirmed positive test, for which she had to be responsible unless she could show otherwise. Hers was the counterclaim, that it was a mythical pork burrito that did it, your Honour - the dog ate her homework. It was rejected.
Precisely, again, Mythical Pork Burrito. Let's look at this from the beginning once more, rekrunner :
Purchased a beef burrito, says the beef burrito was greasy, therefore it was a pork burrito--no, wait--actually a Wild-Boar-Nuts Burrito. She ate the whole thing anyway, even though she is an elite endurance athlete peaking for the Olympic trials who probably weighs herself every morning and drains the separated peanut butter oil out of the jar... .
Simply UN-Believable.
This is right up there with the testosterone patches shipped to British Cycling. "I sent them back, and here's the return receipt I had them fake for me after you guys found out"
I don’t care how many apologists there are for WADA out there, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out WADA was wrong from the very beginning.
Nandrolone in a person’s body does not mean they were using it as a performance enhancing substance.
No one has proved that the nandrolone was there in her body for the sake of enhancing performance. So some arbitrary, United States hating committee decides they have jurisdiction to ban an American athlete. That doesn’t mean she cheated. It just means they made a choice to ban her because someone else would “gain from it.”
If you’re not a hobby jogger or lazy finger pointer stop talking trash about Shelby and move on with your life.
Alberto Salazar doped athletes. Jerry Schumacher did not and NO, Shelby wasn’t some rogue one off. Use common sense and see that WADA is not an unbiased organization…it has motives and interests, just like any other body.
Use a little imagination in how you see Shelby’s case and don’t just assume that she cheated because WADA told you that she did.
WADA 100% gets some cases wrong, just as it gets some right. In this case they were wrong, but they will never admit as much, just like all political organizations and major figures…blame someone else for your own error.
When Linford Christie tested positive for Nandrolone, it was a tiny amount even if it did exceed the allowed limit. UK authorities then tested him a few weeks later and he tested 100% clean. If he had been using Nandrolone in a way consistent with improving athletic performance the drug would not have cleared in that time frame. Linford was well past retirement and was tested when he ran a 200m indoor race in Germany as a lark. If Linford had actually been using Nandroline to gain an advantage he certainly would not have been foolish enough to then compete in a meet where there was testing (or likely to be testing). Not long after Linford's positive test, many athletes started testing positive for Nandrolone and it was determined the drug was in many supplements so WADA issued a warning to carefully scrutinize any supplements and avoid any which appeared suspicious. It is possible Shelby took a tainted supplement. Now most such supplements are ones labeled "Anabolic" so she was stupid for taking any such supplement (if she did).
I see ads all the time on the internet for supplements. When I then see the words "Anabolic", "Peptide", "Blood Enhancer" I don't bother clicking on them.
I didn't say that. Are you unaware that there was a court hearing that examined the evidence from both sides? What would have been the point of hearing prosecution and defence arguments if a prosecutorial presumption was not able to be subject to an evidentiary challenge, which was assessed according to the test of the balance of probabilities? The presumption was not a prior conclusion, which decided the case then and there, but a procedure that put the onus of proof on the defence to provide a credible argument in rebuttal (which it couldn't do). The presumption is based 1) on a confirmed positive test and 2) the athlete was the cause in the absence of any alternative explanation that the antidoping authorities could accept. As the athletes are responsible for what they put in their body under the WADA Code the onus falls on the athlete to show legitimate cause and not that they were doping. Houlihan was given that opportunity to contest the evidence and present a defence and it was that that decided the case, not the presumption. CAS did not suddenly come up with a presumption at the conclusion of the case. You never cease to demonstrate your inability to understand legal proceedings.
Ah, but you did say that: "In antidoping it can thus be presumed ..."
The CAS did not examine evidence of intent. They told me that intent was presumed and deemed -- they don't need any evidence of intent to presume and deem it, and they did not have any evidence before them.
This point isn't about what Houlihan failed to establish, but about what the WA/AIU failed to establish, to any legal standard.
CAS was not an arbitration but an appeal. It was a court case in the civil jurisdiction that employed the civil standard of proof, which is the balance of probabilities. Her defence failed to meet that standard. So she was convicted and banned . The rest is irrelevant speculation - your specialty.
If the rest is irrelevant, why was it so important for you to say that there was "proof of intent" in the CAS arbitration decision, and why are you arguing so hard now that there was evidence of intent, yet never saying what that evidence was? You ping-pong between saying the evidence of intent succeeded the balance of probabilities test, and that intent can be inferred from actions, which can also be inferred, or that it is right to presume intent without evidence.
The CAS heard this case in the first instance, and not on appeal, by agreement of both WA and Houlihan. This decision, in the interest of time, may have hurt Houlihan, as actually trying the case a 2nd time on appeal would allow more time to investigate (but missing the trials and the Olympics), and the opportunity to address some of the issues identified in the first instance, similar to what Lawson did. As it was, she could only appeal to the Swiss Court on procedural issues, and things like human rights.