New Shelby houlihan article out in WSJ. Big respect again to gds

Apparently what matters to me also matters to you, and Armstronglivs, and Nike PR and CAS Readerer, and many others who feel like it is their mission to persuade me to be persuaded by presumptions in a Code without supporting evidence, I guess to make themselves feel better about their own choices.

If panels argue over science in the real world, and panels argue over legal standards in the real world, then I guess it's no surprise that this forum is also a reflection of the real world.

Oh rekrunner, I’m not trying to persuade you. I never have. I know you aren’t interested in the truth. I’m simply exposing the flaws in your arguments for other posters.

As soon as I saw the testimony related to far less than 1 in 10,000, I knew the prosecution witness was pulling numbers out of his ass. There was zero research in the U.S. estimating the percentage pork meat and organs with nandrolone metabolites. In Europe, the percentage has been shown to be quite high or lower depending upon the country. The extremely limited research since then in the U.S. could put it at around 1 in 40 or so in 2024. Perhaps it was a higher likelihood in 2020.

Anyone who ran with the wild speculation of 1 in 10,000 to calculate the likelihood of an outlier “contamination” was just duped by a witness making things up. That is why it is so important, in my opinion, for the CAS hearing to have an independent research design expert outside of WADA and sports science to advise on BS speculation by either party.

That's because I have to couch what I say at a level you would understand.

No, there aren't reasonable doubts, because that wasn't the question the panel had to ask itself. It required her to show her explanation satisfied the balance of probabilities. It didn't. In fact the Court said her defence presented a "cascading series of improbabilities". In everyday language that translates as saying she was talking bs. There isn't much "reasonable doubt" about that - except to a doping denier.

In all cases, you have failed to persuade me that there are no flaws in the arguments before the CAS, and their opinions. You are among a handful of posters who fail to make persuasive arguments based on a critical mass of evidence.

You were trying to argue that opinions based on presumptions without supporting evidence are above scrutiny, even in cases where experts and adjudicators have contradictory opinions. This argument is a non-starter.

On the question of whether the test results are "positive", there simply should be no ambiguity or lingering questions about whether the WADA Lab applied the WADA standards when reporting them. Yet the CAS Panelists cannot even agree, based on all the evidence and arguments before them, if the WADA Lab "probably" or "probably not" (pretty low bars) followed all applicable guidance, or deviated from them, when interpreting and reporting the results as a "positive". If the minority has grounds to disagree, that means there must be substantial grounds to question the majority opinion.

You think the failure here must be my limited understanding of secret rituals and customs of "legal" cabals. Recall this is not a civil court case based on civil laws and standards of evidence that offer minimum protections against the accused. It is an arbitration proceeding that favors presumptions against the athlete. I am applying basic principles and standards of evidence and observation based logic and reason that are best practice since the ancient Greek philosopers established an alternative to voodoo rituals thousands of years ago.

You think lawyers are laughing at me, and I'm just shaking my head that you have joined Armstronglivs as the designated spokesmen on behalf of the legal profession.

Oh, you have to "couch", do you?

Through their years of litigation experience, the AIU certainly found the right "experts" to argue their side of disputes. But at least Prof. McGlone was honest enough to concede some points.

Even if we accepted this "far less than 1 in 10,000" brown tinged estimate, shouldn't this pork expert have addressed and accounted for immunocastrated boars? These vaccine effects are temporary, making a months long delay in slaughter significant, and another potential source, possibly outnumbering the rare cryptorchids, especially during the pandemic. I note also that Prof. McGlone's concession of increased soy was only made at the hearing -- meaning it wasn't in his reports -- more evidence that his "expert" report did not reflect the conditions, and probabilities, during the chaos to the industry in a worldwide pandemic. Similarly, Prof. Ayotte said the lab applied and complied with TD2019NA, rather than considering changes in the recent TD2021NA, which inserted new language, like "The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis, ...". This language was before the CAS, but they failed to consider and rule on it.

You are under some false impression that criminal courts invented "reasonable doubt" and is the only context where doubts based on reasons can exist, rather than existing as a concept for millenia before criminal courts borrowed it.

There are reasonable doubts about the questions before the CAS, the method the CAS uses to answer them, and the answers themselves.

You are still conflating the improbability of "pre-supposed" factors that can cause an event, to the probability that that event potentially caused a certain test result when compared to other potential causes that can produce the same test results.

As an illustration of the absurdity, we can equally argue that any athlete testing positive at all for nandrolone, from all sources combined, "pre-supposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities", and therefore her "positive" test does not meet the required legal burden. Nandrolone positives attributed to an exogenous banned oral product with a pseudo-endogenous signature is some tiny fraction of the 1-2% overall positive tests. Other near-zero presupposed improbabilities: First an athlete would need to purchase it. Second the nandrolone consumed would have to be pseudo-endogenous. Third, the testers would have to come within hours after consumption.

This pre-supposed near-zero improbability is not only the wrong argument, it is not a very strong argument for specific instances that were not chosen at random across the USA, but rather one specific case chosen on the basis of already exceeding low thresholds. This non-random selection significantly alters individual probabilities, compared to the national averages.

Yet even if we accept that nandrolone from pork is low probabiity, we should apply the same scrutiny to all potential causes, rather than presuming the worst case for the athlete.

Sorry - that isn't an infantile term. Above you.

"Reasonable doubt", as you have been using it, is a legal term that applies to criminal cases. It is a measure that is applied to an adjudicated standard of of proof on the "totality of the evidence". It also requires a jury to draw such a conclusion. There was no jury. It was thus not applied in this case, which was not a criminal proceeding. It does not apply to the merely fanciful speculation you engage in that has not been subject to the rigor of the courtroom. So there are no "reasonable doubts" except in your delirious imagination.

I know what it meant. But it was infantile. You have a strange way of trying to belittle others. But it doesn't work. Narcissists like you always lose.

Actually, that is your own misunderstanding.

I'm always using it in the literal real world sense to describe my doubts supported by my reasons.