How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

Just because CAS let the cheater Jarrion Lawson get away with it doesn’t mean they should let everyone do the same.

This is like any topic -- I expect statements and claims and conclusions to have facts and data and controlled observations supporting them. This is important in all domains, not just anti-doping.

There is also a question of justice. Principles of "strict liability" and "guilty until proven innocent" is great for quick and cheap convictions, but it puts innocent athletes at a great disadvantage. I share Tygart's expressed concerns about changes in the 2015 code. He is better positioned to lobby for change, and ultimately, it is athletes who are the ones taking the risk, and it should be athlete representatives shaping that discussion.

Aggressive prosecution under the current system can result in many innocent athletes being banned, which hurts the sport without improving anti-doping. Recall all the nandrolone bans in Kenya -- a nation that doesn't routinely castrate its pigs. Which of these athletes can afford a 5 to 6 figure defense?

Apparently a lot of people here care to say that it was intentional. The fact remains that intent wasn't established to any legal standard.

You are not correct in assuming that my 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. This has to be evaluated on a case by case basis. I do think that athletes should get some benefit of the doubt, when there are low amounts of a banned substance consistent with meat consumption. It doesn't seem correct that athletes like Lawson have to become experts in the beef industry for eating a Teriyaki bowl, that Getzmann has to be lucky to test his medication which was contaminated within and below the national guidelines, but still detected by anti-doping labs, that Asinga has to become an expert on gummy bear manufacturing and lot numbers, and that athletes who are mostly at or below poverty level even in rich countries, must spend 5-6 figures on a defense, while serving a 1-year suspension before they are cleared to compete again.

Fat and chorizo were substantiated claims -- as you know -- but not considered. Prof. McGlone said fat was high in nandrolone. Who knows what kind of pork giblets are in chorizo.

What good is doing things by the book, when the book is wrong? As you know, Long time USADA CEO Tygart was highly critical about 2015 revisions in the book. I am not alone in sharing Tygart's concerns.

OK. Let's look at this from the beginning once more:

"The Panel finds that it is possible that – contrary to what the Athlete ordered – she was handed a burrito containing pork meat. All witnesses that were present at the dinner testified or declared that the burrito was extremely greasy and it follows from the pictures submitted by the Respondent that the pork burrito is particularly greasy."

"She remembered that the burrito she ate that night was uncharacteristically greasy and that for this reason – even though she was very hungry – she was not able to finish it"

"In Prof McGlone’s opinion the androgens levels in the pig’s stomach are, however, far lower that in other organs such as the kidney, fat, testes or salivary glands"

Thanks, we're done here. Finally.

You skipped the parts you got wrong.

You said it was beef, and the CAS Panel said that a greasy pork burrito was possible, based on the evidence of witness testimony.

You said she ate the whole thing, and the report says she couldn't finish it.

The part you did quote was that Prof. McGlone shows they should have considered the higher nandrolone content potentially from other organs, and even the grease.

No, I am not saying that. I can count on you not to understand the simplest point.

No, I'm not cheering for Shelby - who isn't "suspect" but a definite doper. I'm not cheering for anyone else.

A case may begin with a presumption, it doesn't end with it - or THERE IS NO CASE TO HEAR. You clearly slept through the CAS proceedings. A presumption must also have a factual basis, which is EVIDENCE. A positive test is evidence - and incontrovertible unless it can be shown to be flawed. It is also evidence that gives rise to an inference. In cases like this, when a banned substance is found in an athlete's body the inference is they put it there, unless they can show otherwise. Their explanation is also evidence but it has to meet the standard of the balance of probabilities. Life must be very strange for you, on the dark side of the moon.

Well, yes - she did, but it was in response to an antidoping claim she effectively doped. Which she did. Her counterclaim was in the order of the dog ate her homework. What dog? What burrito?

I can count on you never admitting when you are wrong.

You can't because you never show it to be true.

I didn't attend the CAS proceedings, but I did read the detailed report.

This case began with presumed intent, and ended with deemed intent. In between the beginning and the end, there was no evidence of any of the required elements of intent identified in the CAS report. If the CAS had alternatively presumed non-intent, like in a real court of law, they would have found non-intent, because there was no evidence to overcome this presumption.

According to Cambridge presumptions are beliefs lacking factual basis: presumption - "the act of believing that something is true without having any proof: The presumption of innocence is central to American law."

Is English your first language?

Why do you spend time on a running forum if you don't cheer for runners? That is very odd but explains your strange posts.

I am impressed. Even when you binge post drunk at 3 am in the morning (in Europe), you are using your standard deflection tricks all the way to outright lies.

As you know: neither fat nor chorizo were substantiated claims. You are lying again. Her claim was offal, as you cited million times, not chorizo, and there was no substantiation of added fat, let alone added pork fat, such as in form of a receipt. The only substantiated pork sources were stomach and butt.

But see, lies like that prove that you have no interest in the truth, but are only here for either propaganda or trolling (or both, depending on your mood).

And your second paragraph contradicts the first: doing things by the book - as was done - includes fully considering all substantiated claims - as was done but you and only you deny (without any evidence whatsoever but lots of lies). Again and again and again and ...

Finally, we are in 2025. The 2015 revisions continue to remain uncontested by the majority of stakeholders for over nine years now. Even Tygart stopped whining about it. Those were great changes! When will you accept the realities?

The receipt said it was beef. The panel said, Ok, honey, it's possible you got a pork burrito because you say your friends say it was greasy. And it's possible it wasn't ordinary pork, but Wild Boar Un-castrated Male Stomach Pork.

They then considered these possibilities and the possibility that A. it was pork based on her saying her friends said it was greasy (beef can be greasy too), B. 100% wild male boar meat (which isn't sold in the US), and C. she ate the whole thing (which she said she only ate 1/2 and would've had to eaten 4 to get to her levels). So: very unlikely; very, very, very unlikely; and very very very very unlikely = No Way Does This Makes Sense.

(very unlikely)(very, very, very unlikely)(very very very very unlikely) = .000001% chance , = Sorry Ms Foolihan, even if we're generous and factor in that you're a Super Sweet Girl, it's statistically impossible.

You obviously missed the part between the beginning of the case and its conclusion. You know - the hearing, and the presentation of arguments and evidence.

CAS wouldn't have presumed non-intent, as you suggest it could have, because that is factually contradicted by the presence of a banned substance in her body for which the most logical explanation - unless she could show otherwise - is that she put it there. Are you really so dense as to not see why intent was presumed (and not non-intent)?

The Cambridge definition of presumption is not the legal one, which is that the presumption has a factual basis. An example is the presumption in the criminal law that the accused intended the natural consequences of their actions. You are always out of your depth in the law.

I don't cheer for dopers.

You said that you don't cheer for any runners. You are difficult to engage with because you always change your positions.