The solution to debunking (alleged) propaganda is providing facts, and not your own alternate propaganda. You seem to be heavily persuadable by "appeal to authority" opinions of outsiders (a popular fallacy among the uninformed), combined with "appeal to non-authority" second hand retellings (a popular children's "telephone game").
Pointing out your nonsense with direct quotes from the CAS report/renowned scientists/interviews with the participants is neither appeal to authority nor the telephone game.
You have nothing but your distorted "understanding".
Classic your desperate repetition here:
We cannot conclude, as you suggest, that "it's basically impossible to have come from a burrito", because the facts necessary to conclude this basic impossibility in this specific case do not exist."
Of course we can. And we must. Especially in this specific case. Lots of expert concur. Even the drug cheat herself does now. And the facts have been explained to yo numerous times.
You are the one who is trolling with statements irrelevant to this specific case like your not applicable 130 ng/ml, or that 5.8 ng/ml are scientifically proven to be possible from boar and that a -23 per mille may come from wild boar etc. etc. and your, what was it, USDA approved meat, and railroading of innocent athletes. All desperate distractions from an anonymous letsrun armchair wannabe, who can neither understand the facts nor the explanations from the independent scientists.
You didn't quote the CAS report, but a bunch of people who were not involved in the making of the CAS report, giving their second-hand opinions. Quite a puzzling contribution from someone who calls him/her/it/self "facts are facts". As your moniker suggests, I'm not so interested in or persuaded by someone else's opinions, as their bases in facts.
Of course I understand what few facts that are there, and the WADA TD, and the WADA Code, and how science and logic and math and probability work. That's why I see so many flaws and holes in the AIU "expert witness" arguments, and the hidden ambiguity behind the CAS "findings". The specific facts are ambiguous, and didn't permit any conclusions that weren't presumed.
The CAS and the WADA Code plainly told me that their finding of "doping" is the consequence of presumptions. Similarly, the CAS and the WADA Code plainly told me that their finding of "intent" is another consequence of presumptions.
There were no facts that explain why the GC/C/IRMS test may be used to establish origin after an athlete invoked pork offal consumption, in seeming contradiction to the WADA TD, just as there were no facts that established any alternative "more likely than not" source.
And off course facts that show the values are "consistent with boar offal consumption" as claimed, and show what WADA considers "low" and "usual", and that contradict some of the "expert witness" testimony, is specifically and directly relevant to Houlihan's case.
It wasn't settled by a presumption; it was settled because she failed to discharge an onus of proof on her to show a legitimate explanation for the presence of a banned drug in her system.
According to the CAS, her "failure" was rebutting presumptions, presumptions which led to the CAS "findings".
A failed test is not a presumption. Her failure to show legitimate cause is not a presumption.
She was convicted because, firstly, she tested positive - this was not qualified or reduced in the decision - there was no ambiguity in that finding - and, secondly, it wasn't the presumption of intent that resulted in the finding of intent but her failure to show legitimate cause despite the evidence she produced.
If she had been convicted only on the basis of presumptions, as you fallaciously argue, there would have been no case to be heard and no defence able to be presented. You are an incorrigible liar.
Did she test positive? You keep saying that, but that itself is a "finding" based on a set of presumptions. I'm not persuaded that the WADA Lab properly reported the AAF in line with WADA standards, or that the AIU met their higher burden that an ADRV occurred. I'm not alone -- one of the CAS Panelists was persuaded that Houlihan rebutted these presumptions.
In that case, you are right to say that there should have been no case to be heard and no defence to be presented.
Yes, she tested positive. That is an incontrovertible fact. What you are "not persuaded of" is irrelevant; that was not the finding of the Court. The views of a single panellist who differed with the majority are also not the finding of the Court. The Court found she failed to rebut the presumption of intent. If the Court was in error the decision would have been appealed. It wasn't. Your arguments fail on the facts. What you do succeed in showing is a pathology that requires you to defend a convicted doper at all cost.
Yes, she tested positive. That is an incontrovertible fact. What you are "not persuaded of" is irrelevant; that was not the finding of the Court. The views of a single panellist who differed with the majority are also not the finding of the Court. The Court found she failed to rebut the presumption of intent. If the Court was in error the decision would have been appealed. It wasn't. Your arguments fail on the facts. What you do succeed in showing is a pathology that requires you to defend a convicted doper at all cost.
If there was a dissenting opinion, then obviously your "fact" is not only controvertible, but was controverted. There is merit to dissenting from the majority finding, which omits to consider or rule on some claims before it.
I agree with you that intent was presumed, rather than established fact. The point would be moot had the majority of the CAS Panel got the first point right.
Houlihan had no more possibilities to appeal on the merits. Don't you pretend to understand the "legal" process?
I'm still not convinced she's a doper yet, because the facts supporting both of the presumed findings of "doping" and "intent" are insufficient to form such a conclusion.
How can you say my argument fails when you don't even understand the argument? It is not "my argument" that fails, but the facts that fail to lead to any conclusion, without the help of presumptions. The CAS told us that.
The 2019 document benefits the athlete, so it looks like they didn't follow their own rules. -23 is between -20 and -24, therefore inconclusive origin and atypical finding, not an adverse finding. The CAS report said the ratio of 19NA to 19NE was greater than 3, but I don't remember seeing a value. In any case, an atypical finding would likely have not led to any consequences or public notification because she tested negative on Jan 23, 2021.
Some of the Shelby haters will downvote this, but before you do, take a look at TD2019-NA page 3 "Due to the occurrence..." and the chart on the last page. It should have been the yellow ATF box in the lower right. If you're going to downvote this, then at least provide a logical argument for why it shouldn't have been an atypical finding. And look at the dates of approval and effective dates for versions 1 and 2 of TD2021-NA. They broke the rules. It's right there in the documents.
The 2019 document benefits the athlete, so it looks like they didn't follow their own rules. -23 is between -20 and -24, therefore inconclusive origin and atypical finding, not an adverse finding. The CAS report said the ratio of 19NA to 19NE was greater than 3, but I don't remember seeing a value. In any case, an atypical finding would likely have not led to any consequences or public notification because she tested negative on Jan 23, 2021.
Some of the Shelby haters will downvote this, but before you do, take a look at TD2019-NA page 3 "Due to the occurrence..." and the chart on the last page. It should have been the yellow ATF box in the lower right. If you're going to downvote this, then at least provide a logical argument for why it shouldn't have been an atypical finding. And look at the dates of approval and effective dates for versions 1 and 2 of TD2021-NA. They broke the rules. It's right there in the documents.
A. just because someone agrees with the AIU and CAS doesn't make them a "Shelby hater".
B. it's hard to imagine her top notch, top dollar legal team wouldn't have looked into these defenses.
Yes, she tested positive. That is an incontrovertible fact. What you are "not persuaded of" is irrelevant; that was not the finding of the Court. The views of a single panellist who differed with the majority are also not the finding of the Court. The Court found she failed to rebut the presumption of intent. If the Court was in error the decision would have been appealed. It wasn't. Your arguments fail on the facts. What you do succeed in showing is a pathology that requires you to defend a convicted doper at all cost.
If there was a dissenting opinion, then obviously your "fact" is not only controvertible, but was controverted. There is merit to dissenting from the majority finding, which omits to consider or rule on some claims before it.
I agree with you that intent was presumed, rather than established fact. The point would be moot had the majority of the CAS Panel got the first point right.
Houlihan had no more possibilities to appeal on the merits. Don't you pretend to understand the "legal" process?
I'm still not convinced she's a doper yet, because the facts supporting both of the presumed findings of "doping" and "intent" are insufficient to form such a conclusion.
How can you say my argument fails when you don't even understand the argument? It is not "my argument" that fails, but the facts that fail to lead to any conclusion, without the help of presumptions. The CAS told us that.
CAS did not tell us that. And I agree with nothing you say. CAS did not conjure her offence out of the air. Your defence of her is nothing but distortions, obfuscations and lies.
Yes, she tested positive. That is an incontrovertible fact. What you are "not persuaded of" is irrelevant; that was not the finding of the Court. The views of a single panellist who differed with the majority are also not the finding of the Court. The Court found she failed to rebut the presumption of intent. If the Court was in error the decision would have been appealed. It wasn't. Your arguments fail on the facts. What you do succeed in showing is a pathology that requires you to defend a convicted doper at all cost.
If there was a dissenting opinion, then obviously your "fact" is not only controvertible, but was controverted. There is merit to dissenting from the majority finding, which omits to consider or rule on some claims before it.
I agree with you that intent was presumed, rather than established fact. The point would be moot had the majority of the CAS Panel got the first point right.
Houlihan had no more possibilities to appeal on the merits. Don't you pretend to understand the "legal" process?
I'm still not convinced she's a doper yet, because the facts supporting both of the presumed findings of "doping" and "intent" are insufficient to form such a conclusion.
How can you say my argument fails when you don't even understand the argument? It is not "my argument" that fails, but the facts that fail to lead to any conclusion, without the help of presumptions. The CAS told us that.
What you don't understand is the a majority opinion on a finding of fact is the only official finding. That is why the Court's decision was of an "intentional ADRV" - no ifs, buts, or anything.
If the decision was not sound in any way Houlihan could have appealed. She couldn't appeal "on the merits", as you say, because there were no facts she could dispute and she had nothing new to add as evidence that would nullify the Court findings. So no case. She's about as innocent as OJ was. He was just luckier - till the civil trial.
A failed test is not a presumption. Her failure to show legitimate cause is not a presumption.
Then why would the CAS tell us no less than 14x that their findings were based on presumptions?
It did not say that. If its findings were based on presumptions there would have been no case to be heard and no defence able to be offered. The offence was strict liability but it had to meet the facts of the charge and it was able to be contested. That is what the court based its findings on. Facts, not mere speculation. It said intent was presumed but its findings on that were based on evidence, which was, firstly, a confirmed positive test and secondly, the evidence she presented in her defence - which didn't meet the test of probability - and the evidence presented by WA, which disputed her claims.
The 2019 document benefits the athlete, so it looks like they didn't follow their own rules. -23 is between -20 and -24, therefore inconclusive origin and atypical finding, not an adverse finding. The CAS report said the ratio of 19NA to 19NE was greater than 3, but I don't remember seeing a value. In any case, an atypical finding would likely have not led to any consequences or public notification because she tested negative on Jan 23, 2021.
Some of the Shelby haters will downvote this, but before you do, take a look at TD2019-NA page 3 "Due to the occurrence..." and the chart on the last page. It should have been the yellow ATF box in the lower right. If you're going to downvote this, then at least provide a logical argument for why it shouldn't have been an atypical finding. And look at the dates of approval and effective dates for versions 1 and 2 of TD2021-NA. They broke the rules. It's right there in the documents.
A. just because someone agrees with the AIU and CAS doesn't make them a "Shelby hater".
B. it's hard to imagine her top notch, top dollar legal team wouldn't have looked into these defenses.
Well if you refuse to logically debate my points, then it looks like you have an agenda besides truth and fairness. Obviously you didn't read page 3 or look at the diagram at the end. Houlihan's team did, but unfortunately the rules were disregarded.
According to changing WADA documents, I believe it would only be a valid adverse finding if the test was performed at least 6 days after the sample was collected when the new document was approved. But if the principle of athlete's benefit applies, then the older document would be more valid since the newer document wasn't active until 4 months later.
In any case, the process has issues by putting burden of proof on athlete.
The WADA standard says "The most recently approved Technical Document shall be applied to the Analytical Testing of Samples prior to the effective date if it would lead to a result that benefits the Athlete".
I'm curious which WADA document describes this principle of "athlete's benefit" when the rules are in transition? And how could CAS just disregard that and use the newer rules?
The 2019 document benefits the athlete, so it looks like they didn't follow their own rules. -23 is between -20 and -24, therefore inconclusive origin and atypical finding, not an adverse finding. The CAS report said the ratio of 19NA to 19NE was greater than 3, but I don't remember seeing a value. In any case, an atypical finding would likely have not led to any consequences or public notification because she tested negative on Jan 23, 2021.
Some of the Shelby haters will downvote this, but before you do, take a look at TD2019-NA page 3 "Due to the occurrence..." and the chart on the last page. It should have been the yellow ATF box in the lower right. If you're going to downvote this, then at least provide a logical argument for why it shouldn't have been an atypical finding. And look at the dates of approval and effective dates for versions 1 and 2 of TD2021-NA. They broke the rules. It's right there in the documents.
I'm not following why you think 2019 is more beneficial. Both documents contain the same language about the endogenous range of -20 to -24‰, and both documents can arguably lead to the same ATF result, when pork consumption, which is explicitly considered "endogenous" by WADA, is invoked by the athlete. There is no material difference in that regard, except the TD2019NA lacks further clarification how the WADA Lab should treat a claim of pork consumption and how that should impact the reporting, while the TD2021NA adds more clarification that the exogenous origin may not be determined by GC/C/IRMS analysis, when pork consumption is invoked by the athlete. Apparently that explicit clarification is still ambiguous, with the CAS Panel of two minds, splitting that decision, despite the clear language.
The WADA standard says "The most recently approved Technical Document shall be applied to the Analytical Testing of Samples prior to the effective date if it would lead to a result that benefits the Athlete".
I'm curious which WADA document describes this principle of "athlete's benefit" when the rules are in transition? And how could CAS just disregard that and use the newer rules?
I pulled the quote from WADA's "International Standard for Laboratories", section "1.1.2 Technical Documents".
Houlihan wanted the CAS to apply the TD2021NA, while the WADA Lab said they used TD2019NA. The CAS took the position that they need not answer the question if they could find that TD2021NA applies (which they did in a split decision without the majority addressing the language that the says the GC/C/IRMS may not be used to determine origin).
CAS did not tell us that. And I agree with nothing you say. CAS did not conjure her offence out of the air. Your defence of her is nothing but distortions, obfuscations and lies.
Of course, had you read the CAS report, you would know the CAS wrote about at least 5 presumptions no less than 14 times. What you fail to comprehend is that a different set of presumptions, and all of the accumulated facts, lead to a finding of endogenous presence of nandrolone and no case to answer.
You did say "presumption of intent" -- do you now disagree with yourself, as well as the CAS and WADA?
What you don't understand is the a majority opinion on a finding of fact is the only official finding. That is why the Court's decision was of an "intentional ADRV" - no ifs, buts, or anything.
If the decision was not sound in any way Houlihan could have appealed. She couldn't appeal "on the merits", as you say, because there were no facts she could dispute and she had nothing new to add as evidence that would nullify the Court findings. So no case. She's about as innocent as OJ was. He was just luckier - till the civil trial.
A majority opinion is still just an opinion, and not established fact.
"Official" doesn't mean it is fact based, or correct or just.
It's one thing to find an athlete didn't rebut WADA Code presumptions, but quite another to jump to conclusions of presumed and unproven alternatives.
You still fail to understand that Houlihan had no further possibility to appeal. In any case, it is not the facts she could dispute, but the presumptions.
How can you be so sure that Houlihan is guilty, when both her guilt and intent were presumed based on ambiguous facts and evidence and procedures?
CAS did not tell us that. And I agree with nothing you say. CAS did not conjure her offence out of the air. Your defence of her is nothing but distortions, obfuscations and lies.
Of course, had you read the CAS report, you would know the CAS wrote about at least 5 presumptions no less than 14 times. What you fail to comprehend is that a different set of presumptions, and all of the accumulated facts, lead to a finding of endogenous presence of nandrolone and no case to answer.
You did say "presumption of intent" -- do you now disagree with yourself, as well as the CAS and WADA?
How can the presence of illegal levels of nandrolone in her urine sample be "presumed"? The nandrolone was present in those quantities or it wasn't.
I did say intent was presumed but since you can't follow a legal process through you do not realise that the presumption is not of itself a decision or a finding. It can only result in a finding after the presentation and consideration of evidence presented by the athlete that fails to meet the test of the balance of probabilities.
You are like one who thinks the charge sheet is the case when it only begins the case. The prosecution has to establish the necessary ingredients of fact - this WA did - and when the defence is able to contest the charges with evidence - which it did. The findings were arrived at at the conclusion of those proceedings; not at the beginning. Your use of the term wrongly implies that latter. If the presumptions couldn't be overturned by evidence there would have been no case.
What you don't understand is the a majority opinion on a finding of fact is the only official finding. That is why the Court's decision was of an "intentional ADRV" - no ifs, buts, or anything.
If the decision was not sound in any way Houlihan could have appealed. She couldn't appeal "on the merits", as you say, because there were no facts she could dispute and she had nothing new to add as evidence that would nullify the Court findings. So no case. She's about as innocent as OJ was. He was just luckier - till the civil trial.
A majority opinion is still just an opinion, and not established fact.
"Official" doesn't mean it is fact based, or correct or just.
It's one thing to find an athlete didn't rebut WADA Code presumptions, but quite another to jump to conclusions of presumed and unproven alternatives.
You still fail to understand that Houlihan had no further possibility to appeal. In any case, it is not the facts she could dispute, but the presumptions.
How can you be so sure that Houlihan is guilty, when both her guilt and intent were presumed based on ambiguous facts and evidence and procedures?
Every finding of fact in a case is also an opinion; it is a conclusion arrived at by either a judge, panel or jury. In a court case it has no existence as a fact outside their adjudication.
"Official" means it is the judgement of the court. It has to be fact-based because it will be based on evidence and rules of procedure before the Court. If it isn't correct or "just" it can usually be appealed. Even strict liability offences are fact-based and must be. The difference is they don't require proof of intent by the prosecution.
The failure to rebut a presumption means the presumption stands. In a criminal case it would be the failure of the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence. In a doping case it is the failure of the athlete to rebut the presumption that they intended to take the drug which was found in their body. Your problem is that you mistake these proceedings for criminal proceedings and you think the onus should be on the prosecution to prove intent. Wrong. That does not apply in antidoping cases and could never apply. The prosecution could never meet the bar.
I fully understand that Houlihan had no basis for appeal. That is because there was no fault in the proceedings and she had no new evidence which could exonerate her.
Every opinion you express has no material bearing on what the Court decided and how it arrived at its decision. If it did the proceedings could have been clearly identified as flawed and likely subject to appeal. As to whether the outcome was "unjust" - that is only your view and those like you. And dopers. No one is "railroaded" to anything; they are subject to due process with the right to defend themselves. Your arguments do not meet the test of the balance of probabilities, which the Court applied. You depend on speculation. That doesn't cut it in a court. You simply do not like the result.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
How can the presence of illegal levels of nandrolone in her urine sample be "presumed"? The nandrolone was present in those quantities or it wasn't.
I did say intent was presumed but since you can't follow a legal process through you do not realise that the presumption is not of itself a decision or a finding. It can only result in a finding after the presentation and consideration of evidence presented by the athlete that fails to meet the test of the balance of probabilities.
You are like one who thinks the charge sheet is the case when it only begins the case. The prosecution has to establish the necessary ingredients of fact - this WA did - and when the defence is able to contest the charges with evidence - which it did. The findings were arrived at at the conclusion of those proceedings; not at the beginning. Your use of the term wrongly implies that latter. If the presumptions couldn't be overturned by evidence there would have been no case.
Your misnomer "illegal" is presumptuous. If the origin cannot be determined as "endogenous" or "exogenous", there can be no fact-based finding of "illegal".
You did say presumption of intent. No fact or facts in this case promoted the presumption to anything else besides the initial presumption of intent. Indeed the CAS finding is not of intent, but that intent must be deemed.
You are projecting your own failure to understand the "legal process" on to me. The "prosecution" doesn't have to establish any facts when they are presumed. The CAS findings were the presumptions without making any affirmative case based on sufficient facts.
Every finding of fact in a case is also an opinion; it is a conclusion arrived at by either a judge, panel or jury. In a court case it has no existence as a fact outside their adjudication.
"Official" means it is the judgement of the court. It has to be fact-based because it will be based on evidence and rules of procedure before the Court. If it isn't correct or "just" it can usually be appealed. Even strict liability offences are fact-based and must be. The difference is they don't require proof of intent by the prosecution.
The failure to rebut a presumption means the presumption stands. In a criminal case it would be the failure of the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence. In a doping case it is the failure of the athlete to rebut the presumption that they intended to take the drug which was found in their body. Your problem is that you mistake these proceedings for criminal proceedings and you think the onus should be on the prosecution to prove intent. Wrong. That does not apply in antidoping cases and could never apply. The prosecution could never meet the bar.
I fully understand that Houlihan had no basis for appeal. That is because there was no fault in the proceedings and she had no new evidence which could exonerate her.
Every opinion you express has no material bearing on what the Court decided and how it arrived at its decision. If it did the proceedings could have been clearly identified as flawed and likely subject to appeal. As to whether the outcome was "unjust" - that is only your view and those like you. And dopers. No one is "railroaded" to anything; they are subject to due process with the right to defend themselves. Your arguments do not meet the test of the balance of probabilities, which the Court applied. You depend on speculation. That doesn't cut it in a court. You simply do not like the result.
Some of this might be true in real courts of law, but you keep conflating an arbitration based on rules as a court of law.
Whether a finding of fact is also opinion, the reverse is not true -- opinions are not facts.
There can be no doubt the significant role that presumptions played in the CAS opinions, eliminating the need for the "prosecution" to collect sufficient facts to make their case -- the CAS made it explicitly clear in the CAS report what the WADA Code considers as presumptions in this artificially constructed environment of rule enforcement.
Unsurprisingly, you still fail to understand that Houlihan had no further possibility to appeal on the merits within these artificially constructed rules.