The probability that a contaminated pork burrito led to the US Olympic 1500m medal prospect Shelby Houlihan’s failed drugs test is “very close to zero”, the court of arbitration for sport has ruled.
Cas dismissed Houlihan’s claims, saying: “The explanation presupposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero."
Don't believe everything you read. Looks like Sean Ingle commits the same false attribution mistake. But at least the quotes are now accurate.
That's the problem of not going directly to the original source for accurate information, where the CAS attributes these statements to "the Claimant", i.e. World Athletics.
Firstly, there is this from CAS.
The CAS Panel (by majority) found that the athlete neither rebutted the presumption that the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL, nor rebutted the presumption that the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the International Standard for Results Management
(ISRM).
Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting
Secondly, in its summary of findings the Court said as follows:
135. First, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the Athlete’s burrito contained boar offal. 136. Second, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the urinary concentration of 19-NA found in the Athlete’s A- and B- Samples. 137. Third, the Panel finds it possible but not probable that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the Athlete’s reported urinary concentration of 19-NA or her carbon isotope ratio of -23‰. 138. Fourth, the Panel finds that neither the hair analysis nor the polygraph results are sufficient for the Athlete to satisfy her burden of proving that the ADRV was not intentional.
139. Finally, although the Athlete was a credible witness and has brought compelling character witness evidence in support of her defense, she has failed to establish the source of the 19-NA detected in her urine sample to the applicable standard of proof, and did not bring forward sufficient objective evidence that would warrant the application of Rule 10.2.1 a of the WA ADR. 140. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the ADRV was unintentional, and the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional.
So Houlihan's defence failed on all counts.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Finally. Now you only need to understand the strict liability principle, here meaning that Shelby needed to provide evidence for the ingredients.
Recall for next time that she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients. Then you might actually stop blaming World Athletics for correctly calling it meat and or stomach. Also remember that Shelby herself called it "meat".
No "bait and switch" from World Athletics, just factually discussing the evidence.
On the other hand, I am not really a fan of that organization, so go ahead and accuse them of colluding and tricking and fooling along with the AIU to get clean American Nike runners banned for some weird reason...
Didn't you already rest your case? Lol.
There was also evidence of grease and chorizo (pork sausage) as ingredients. Prof. McGlone's testimoney is evidence that told us fat was a concentrated source of androgens. And pork offal can easily be ground up in a chorizo pork sausage. According to Prof. Ayotte's peer-reviewed research, 1/2 an ounce of offal could be enough -- even less when we consider the contribution of meat and grease.
This burden on Houlihan is applicable only after the AAF and ADRV are properly established. The evidence before the CAS raises basic questions whether the AAF was properly reported in the first place.
In order to report an AAF, it is the WADA Lab who has the requirement to demonstrate that it is not of endogenous origin, not Houlihan. Houlihan's burden at this stage is simply to "invoke" the "consumption of edible parts of intact pigs", which she did. She does not need to provide an ingredient list to the WADA Lab.
Once this is invoked, recall the WADA TD says: "The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis, ...". This makes sense scientifically in Houlihan's case because using a test known to be confounded by intact boar consumption producing false positives to circularly rule out intact boar consumption is scientifically invalid. Even moreso when we consider the evidence of Prof. McGlone's testimony that pig farmers increased the amount of soy in the diets of pigs.
Relying on the GC/C/IRMS result, notwithstanding this clause, is evidence of a departure from the WADA TD. See also paragraph 73, for the evidence of further departures from the WADA TD, as Prof. Ayotte testifies to the CAS she apparently considered things clearly outside of the WADA TD, like plausibility of alternatives, and likelihoods, and apparently had already altered Houlihan's claim of offal to meat, before reporting the AAF and long before Houlihan has any burden to establish the ingredients.
You are under some false illusion that I ignore the evidence rather than evaluate all of the available evidence, and that the evidence logically leads to all these conclusions with no contradictory evidence. The CAS made clear that their findings were not arrived at logically based on the evidence, but rather based on presumptions in the WADA Code that Houlihan was burdened to rebut.
You are also under some false illusion that poking holes in Houlihan's rebuttals somehow makes the WADA Lab/WA/AIU/experts' case stronger. The case for doping, and intentional doping is supported by ambiguous evidence, and no evidence, respectively, and only weakly held together by a set of presumptions.
You raise an interesting question. Who would I blame for the railroading of athletes based on presumptions? Would I blame "World Athletics"? Despite them being named as the "Claimant", they seem notably absent from the whole proceeding, delegating their role to the independent AIU. If I were to attach blame, it would be to several other parties, but not the WA. I would blame WADA for introducing ambiguity in the WADA TD-NA as far back as 2016, and creating a WADA Code in 2015 that tips the balance against accused athletes (guilty and innocent), knowing full well they were placing a difficult, if not impossible burden, onto innocent and guilty athletes alike. Even then, I would blame the WADA Lab for their departures from the WADA TD. I would blame Prof. Ayotte's conflicted dual-role as both an expert witness, and a material witness. Recall she had a previous history of misrepresenting her lab results, and perhaps even held a grudge against the lawyer who embarrassed her in front of another CAS Panel. I don't place much blame on the CAS. For the most part, I feel the CAS's hands were tied by a WADA Code that heavily favors anti-doping organizations against heavily burdened accused athletes, often lacking the resources of time and money. Yet still, I would expect a fair and neutral CAS to consult WADA and/or get its own experts, independent of either party, to help them properly interpret the questions raised about the WADA TD and its history of recent changes, rather than relying on experts from the parties (especially conflicted ones).
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
It would seem that she did persuade one of the CAS Panelists that either the AAF was probably not properly reported pursuant to the ISL, or that the ADRV was probably not properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM, or both.
You have ducked the question. What she had to refute was the presumption of intent. She failed to do so. Even though you are the most practiced liar on these threads there are truths you can't avoid.
The question of intent is moot if there is no ADRV and/or no AAF.
The answer is she apparently she partially succeeded in refuting the presumptions of an ADRV and an AAF to a minority of the CAS Panel.
In any case, what is the proposed intentional act that the athlete knew or should have known was risky, where she manifestly disregarded that risk? The only intentional athlete actions which were established was that she ordered, purchased a burrito, and received and ate a greasy burrito. How should an athlete know that this is constitutes a high risk, and that she manifestly disregarded the risk?
The CAS Panel (by majority) found that the athlete neither rebutted the presumption that the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL, nor rebutted the presumption that the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the International Standard for Results Management
(ISRM).
Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting
on 14 January 2021.
This only confirms everything I have been saying all along.
A minority of the CAS Panel did not find these things regarding the ADRV and AAF. I agree with the minority, for many independent reasons I have already explained and backed with supporting evidence.
The majority CAS finding of doping is based on presumptions.
The unanimous CAS finding of intent is based on a presumption.
Houlihan was railroaded to a 4-year ban based on a series of presumptions, rather than a strong evidence-backed case against her, established to any standard stronger than presumption.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
Secondly, in its summary of findings the Court said as follows:
135. First, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the Athlete’s burrito contained boar offal. 136. Second, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the urinary concentration of 19-NA found in the Athlete’s A- and B- Samples. 137. Third, the Panel finds it possible but not probable that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the Athlete’s reported urinary concentration of 19-NA or her carbon isotope ratio of -23‰. 138. Fourth, the Panel finds that neither the hair analysis nor the polygraph results are sufficient for the Athlete to satisfy her burden of proving that the ADRV was not intentional.
139. Finally, although the Athlete was a credible witness and has brought compelling character witness evidence in support of her defense, she has failed to establish the source of the 19-NA detected in her urine sample to the applicable standard of proof, and did not bring forward sufficient objective evidence that would warrant the application of Rule 10.2.1 a of the WA ADR. 140. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the ADRV was unintentional, and the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional.
So Houlihan's defence failed on all counts.
My questions look at the other side of the coin: would the WA/AIU/WADA Lab's offense succeed without favorable presumptions that they are valid?
I have a long history of asking for facts and evidence, and you continue to provide me opinions.
I question the merits of the findings of the AAF and ADRV in paragraphs 84 and 85, rendering all paragraphs from 86 to 149 irrelevant and/or immaterial and/or premature and/or moot.
It hardly makes any sense to unanimously find the ADRV was intentional if there was no ADRV.
In any case, poking holes in Houlihan's case does not mean that the case against her would hold water, if it were not for several presumptions.
The CAS Panel (by majority) found that the athlete neither rebutted the presumption that the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL, nor rebutted the presumption that the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the International Standard for Results Management
(ISRM).
Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting
on 14 January 2021.
This only confirms everything I have been saying all along.
A minority of the CAS Panel did not find these things regarding the ADRV and AAF. I agree with the minority, for many independent reasons I have already explained and backed with supporting evidence.
The majority CAS finding of doping is based on presumptions.
The unanimous CAS finding of intent is based on a presumption.
Houlihan was railroaded to a 4-year ban based on a series of presumptions, rather than a strong evidence-backed case against her, established to any standard stronger than presumption.
You reasoning powers are seriously deficient. Probability, which is what resulted in a series of findings against Houlihan, exceeds mere possibility for factual persuasiveness. What is only "possible" lacks the factual basis that would make it "probable" and which is why nothing she argued was accepted as meeting the test of the balance of probabilities.
In the years since her case was heard nothing that supports her attempted defence has changed or improved. What may be "possible", that she and those like you have argued, has not since become probable. She continues to lose every argument in support of her innocence.
The balance of probabilities, which was the test in her case, trumps everything she and you argue in support of her innocence. "Railroading" athletes to a conviction simply means she lost, on the facts available to the Court, every argument made against her.
You remain a defender of a convicted doper (to be precise, for your benefit, one who was found by a Court to have committed an intentional violation) and your strained attempts to argue her innocence fail on the known facts - you only have conjecture - and you seek to blame the system for coming to conclusions based properly on facts that you cannot accept.
Your reasoning in regard to the Houlihan case shows that you would lose every other argument you enter into - on any subject - when the opposing view is based on what is shown to be probable and not merely possible.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
Secondly, in its summary of findings the Court said as follows:
135. First, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the Athlete’s burrito contained boar offal. 136. Second, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the urinary concentration of 19-NA found in the Athlete’s A- and B- Samples. 137. Third, the Panel finds it possible but not probable that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the Athlete’s reported urinary concentration of 19-NA or her carbon isotope ratio of -23‰. 138. Fourth, the Panel finds that neither the hair analysis nor the polygraph results are sufficient for the Athlete to satisfy her burden of proving that the ADRV was not intentional.
139. Finally, although the Athlete was a credible witness and has brought compelling character witness evidence in support of her defense, she has failed to establish the source of the 19-NA detected in her urine sample to the applicable standard of proof, and did not bring forward sufficient objective evidence that would warrant the application of Rule 10.2.1 a of the WA ADR. 140. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the ADRV was unintentional, and the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional.
So Houlihan's defence failed on all counts.
My questions look at the other side of the coin: would the WA/AIU/WADA Lab's offense succeed without favorable presumptions that they are valid?
I have a long history of asking for facts and evidence, and you continue to provide me opinions.
I question the merits of the findings of the AAF and ADRV in paragraphs 84 and 85, rendering all paragraphs from 86 to 149 irrelevant and/or immaterial and/or premature and/or moot.
It hardly makes any sense to unanimously find the ADRV was intentional if there was no ADRV.
In any case, poking holes in Houlihan's case does not mean that the case against her would hold water, if it were not for several presumptions.
You have poked no holes in her case; you have merely fantasized.
There was an ADRV, that is what the Court found on the evidence before it, and she was unable to provide an adequate rebuttal of the presumption of intent. Quite appropriately, the case is closed.
Finally. Now you only need to understand the strict liability principle, here meaning that Shelby needed to provide evidence for the ingredients.
Recall for next time that she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients. Then you might actually stop blaming World Athletics for correctly calling it meat and or stomach. Also remember that Shelby herself called it "meat".
No "bait and switch" from World Athletics, just factually discussing the evidence.
On the other hand, I am not really a fan of that organization, so go ahead and accuse them of colluding and tricking and fooling along with the AIU to get clean American Nike runners banned for some weird reason...
Didn't you already rest your case? Lol.
There was also evidence of grease and chorizo (pork sausage) as ingredients.
You raise an interesting question. Who would I blame for the railroading of athletes based on presumptions?
It's all your little lies and tricks that keep me in here. Here for example you bring up, out of nowhere, "evidence of grease and chorizo (pork sausage) as ingredients", after I mentioned that she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients:
You know very well that she provided no evidence for grease coming from a pork ingredient at all, not to mention different from stomach or butt. Chorizo is not a pork ingredient, and she provided no evidence for any pork ingredients other than stomach or butt in the chorizo or in the offal.
Another lie from you: "You raise an interesting question. Who would I blame for the railroading of athletes based on presumptions?"
I didn't raise that question at all. Ever. In any case, no one got railroaded here.
But, if you want to whine about the strict liability principle: IAAF and CAS used that already in the 90s, before the creation of WADA and the AIU (and the renaming of IAAF into WA).
I also have no illusions here: "You are under some false illusion". Another lie from you. Well played, considering I corrected you again.
You reasoning powers are seriously deficient. Probability, which is what resulted in a series of findings against Houlihan, exceeds mere possibility for factual persuasiveness. What is only "possible" lacks the factual basis that would make it "probable" and which is why nothing she argued was accepted as meeting the test of the balance of probabilities.
In the years since her case was heard nothing that supports her attempted defence has changed or improved. What may be "possible", that she and those like you have argued, has not since become probable. She continues to lose every argument in support of her innocence.
The balance of probabilities, which was the test in her case, trumps everything she and you argue in support of her innocence. "Railroading" athletes to a conviction simply means she lost, on the facts available to the Court, every argument made against her.
You remain a defender of a convicted doper (to be precise, for your benefit, one who was found by a Court to have committed an intentional violation) and your strained attempts to argue her innocence fail on the known facts - you only have conjecture - and you seek to blame the system for coming to conclusions based properly on facts that you cannot accept.
Your reasoning in regard to the Houlihan case shows that you would lose every other argument you enter into - on any subject - when the opposing view is based on what is shown to be probable and not merely possible.
Whether "possible" or "probable", both are objectively weak, lacking relevant facts and evidence.
Not much reasoning is required when the CAS spelled out it in small words, even for posters like you.
You are half right -- Houlihan was held to the standard of the balance of probability.
The WADA Lab, and the WA/AIU were held to the far lower standard of presumption. Their evidence and arguments were never tested.
Your description that the CAS made a series of "probably" and "probably not" findings only underscores the weakness of the CAS findings. These are not conclusive, evidence based findings, but rather subjective findings based on incomplete and sometimes incorrect information.
And it is weaker than that, because their final rulings of "doping" and "intent" were not the "probably" or "probably not" findings about possible alternatives, but the result of presumptions that prevailed.
You have poked no holes in her case; you have merely fantasized.
There was an ADRV, that is what the Court found on the evidence before it, and she was unable to provide an adequate rebuttal of the presumption of intent. Quite appropriately, the case is closed.
Of course not. I'm poking at the WADA Lab, and the WA/AIU's case.
What is happening inside your head? It must be a fantastic world you live in.
It's all your little lies and tricks that keep me in here. Here for example you bring up, out of nowhere, "evidence of grease and chorizo (pork sausage) as ingredients", after I mentioned that she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients:
You know very well that she provided no evidence for grease coming from a pork ingredient at all, not to mention different from stomach or butt. Chorizo is not a pork ingredient, and she provided no evidence for any pork ingredients other than stomach or butt in the chorizo or in the offal.
Another lie from you: "You raise an interesting question. Who would I blame for the railroading of athletes based on presumptions?"
I didn't raise that question at all. Ever. In any case, no one got railroaded here.
But, if you want to whine about the strict liability principle: IAAF and CAS used that already in the 90s, before the creation of WADA and the AIU (and the renaming of IAAF into WA).
I also have no illusions here: "You are under some false illusion". Another lie from you. Well played, considering I corrected you again.
Why do you say "out of nowhere"? These are two counter-examples of evidence which shows "she only provided evidence for butt and stomach" is false. Isn't that how evidence based discussions are supposed to work?
Now you are suggesting that Houlihan has to provide even further evidence that the grease in greasy "pig stomach burritos" is pork grease, and that a "chorizo (pork sausage)" is a not a pork ingredient?
I thought we were talking about evidence before the CAS that Houlihan provided to support her claim of "a burrito ... containing pork offal".
There is clearly evidence of grease in the burrito before the CAS. The WA/AIU and its experts failed to rebut the potential contribution of grease, but on the contrary, Prof. McGlone supports Houlihan by saying that fat is a concentrated source of androgens.
There is also clearly evidence before the CAS that one of the "pig stomach burritos" sold that night was "the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito". The WA/AIU and its experts failed to even address, let alone rebut the potential contribution of "chorizo (pork sausage)".
These two potential sources remain wholly unrebutted, when not partly confirmed, along with other kinds of offal that was confirmed to be good sources of nandrolone: heart, liver, kidney, testes and salivary glands. Seems rather misleading to misdirect the CAS with "meat literature" without properly excluding all of these other sources.
Your suggestion that I would start accusing World Athletics, and the AIU, does raise the question of who I would accuse "of colluding and tricking and fooling".
And why are you suddenly talking about "strict liability" -- that seems to come out of nowhere. "Strict liability" only plays a role when an ADRV has been committed. My questions about the validity of the AAF and the validity of the ADRV are not answered by "strict liability".
But sure keep telling yourself that I am the one who is lying, and that you are "correcting" me. Everyone can win when they score themselves.
Pretty sure that was well into the "debate", after wreckrunnr hit triple digits with his Presumtion mantra. Its a shame the most expensive, famous, successful food contamination lawyer/team in the world didn't fathom wreckrunner's robust arguments.
(As Foolagain plods around the track, she's been heard mumbling, "Shoulda called wreckrunner, Shoulda called wreckrunner, Shoulda called wreckrunner...")
It's all your little lies and tricks that keep me in here. Here for example you bring up, out of nowhere, "evidence of grease and chorizo (pork sausage) as ingredients", after I mentioned that she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients:
You know very well that she provided no evidence for grease coming from a pork ingredient at all, not to mention different from stomach or butt. Chorizo is not a pork ingredient, and she provided no evidence for any pork ingredients other than stomach or butt in the chorizo or in the offal.
These are two counter-examples of evidence which shows "she only provided evidence for butt and stomach" is false. Isn't that how evidence based discussions are supposed to work?
Tricks, as I said. The statement you failed to rebut was:
she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients
You now changed it into
"she only provided evidence for butt and stomach"
conveniently leaving out the important "pork ingredients" part. Evidence-based discussions are supposed to work differently. Here, if you really wanted to try to rebut my evidently correct statement, you'd need to provide evidence for examples of additional pork ingredients.
No, just mentioning fat and chorizo does not do that because:
- that fat may or may not have come from pork, and even if it did come from pork, it may have come from the stomach, or from the butt, or bought separately - for which no evidence was provided (which was already mentioned above!); which is also very unlikely because only butt and stomach were mentioned by the food truck owners.
- that chorizo may or may not have contained additional pork ingredients - for which no evidence was provided (which was already mentioned above!); which is also very unlikely because only butt and stomach were mentioned by the food truck owners.
If you were honest, you would now either concede that my statement was correct, or provide actual evidence that other pork ingredients were used....
But we all know that you will now start deflecting and obfuscating again - prove me wrong, the choice is yours.
But sure keep telling yourself that I am the one who is lying, and that you are "correcting" me. Everyone can win when they score themselves.
You lied about my "illusions", and you lied that I raised the question "Who would I blame for the railroading of athletes based on presumptions?" Your now desperate paraphrasing of a) what I actually said, and b) which question that might correspond to, shows that you lied and that you know it. No? Then prove it without spinning for a change, i.e. with direct quotes.
Anyone who begins an argument with an insult has lost the debate. The rekrunner wins.
It wasn't an insult. It was an observation of fact, which was supported by the explanation that followed of how his reasoning powers are deficient. You should read beyond one sentence.
You have poked no holes in her case; you have merely fantasized.
There was an ADRV, that is what the Court found on the evidence before it, and she was unable to provide an adequate rebuttal of the presumption of intent. Quite appropriately, the case is closed.
Of course not. I'm poking at the WADA Lab, and the WA/AIU's case.
What is happening inside your head? It must be a fantastic world you live in.
It is the same world that WA and CAS inhabits. I'll take that over your delusions any time.