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.
Again: It wasn't her standing there babbling like her interview and presser-- how can you still possibly believe her top-notch specialized legal team's fable that a beef burrito turned into an uncastrated, soy fed, aged, blah, blah, blah offal burrito? And again. Actually look at her body--how can you possibly believe that she got that incredibly skinny by eating greasy burritos?
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.
Well the 2021 documents are more difficult to understand. 🙂 The 2019 document is more straightforward.
The athlete claim of pork is mainly what I meant. In version 1 of TD2021-ND the paragraph starting on page 3 and going into page 4 is a bit vague with "pharmacokinetics" and gives 4 references but not specific relational values of 19NA and 19NE for endogenous, inconclusive, and exogenous classification. Presumably there are clear guidelines in the references?
In the 2019 document, the carbon signature can be used, rather than 19NE, which clearly leads to atypical finding.
Again: It wasn't her standing there babbling like her interview and presser-- how can you still possibly believe her top-notch specialized legal team's fable that a beef burrito turned into an uncastrated, soy fed, aged, blah, blah, blah offal burrito? And again. Actually look at her body--how can you possibly believe that she got that incredibly skinny by eating greasy burritos?
It's a myth that eating fat makes you fat.
According to the science, and to WADA, her test results are consistent with boar offal consumption. That makes it one possibility among others.
Well the 2021 documents are more difficult to understand. 🙂 The 2019 document is more straightforward.
The athlete claim of pork is mainly what I meant. In version 1 of TD2021-ND the paragraph starting on page 3 and going into page 4 is a bit vague with "pharmacokinetics" and gives 4 references but not specific relational values of 19NA and 19NE for endogenous, inconclusive, and exogenous classification. Presumably there are clear guidelines in the references?
In the 2019 document, the carbon signature can be used, rather than 19NE, which clearly leads to atypical finding.
Both documents refer to using a CIR test (GC/C/IRMS) and using the 19NA-19NE ratio (GC/MS) as an indicator if the GC/C/IRMS test is pseudo-endogenous, or inconclusive.
The two versions are not materially different. The threshold for the GC/C/IRMS test is a delta-delta value greater than 3‰ when compared to an Endogenous Reference Compound (ERC), and the threshold for the 19NA-19NE ratio is (also) greater than 3. Apparently pork consumption can confound both results.
"pharmocokinetics" can be ignored, because 1) it is optional, and 2), it requires collecting and testing more follow-up samples around the same time -- something they didn't do. But the point of pharmocokinetics is another tool which gives the lab a partial clue because it can distinguish between oral consumption versus injection.
So it sounds like regardless of which 3 documents they used, the logical outcome should have been an atypical finding? The adverse finding suggests that an agenda was applied to distort the rules?
And to argue the other side a little bit, are hair tests normally mailed in by the athlete? I would think it would be more convincing if an independent party collected the hair sample. It's been awhile since I've read the CAS report, but I remember that being strange.
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.
CAS is a Court. It follows rules that are part of a legal process. If it were not so its decisions would not be binding on the parties. Opinions are facts when they are judgements based on evidence. Juries decide what are the facts in a criminal case based on the evidence. They are judgments the jury makes. A judge - or a panel in this case - will do the same. If the evidence is that an athlete has failed a drug test that becomes a "fact" if the panel decides it. It did. "Opinions" are the empty cr*p you spout here year after year.
You don't spend your life arguing against the presumption of innocence in criminal cases - because that, too, is unproven - yet it is the same principle, a presumption, that applies in anti-doping cases. There is only one reason you do it. You don't like dopers being held to account. It is fitting that a liar should defend a cheat.
CAS is a Court. It follows rules that are part of a legal process. If it were not so its decisions would not be binding on the parties. Opinions are facts when they are judgements based on evidence. Juries decide what are the facts in a criminal case based on the evidence. They are judgments the jury makes. A judge - or a panel in this case - will do the same. If the evidence is that an athlete has failed a drug test that becomes a "fact" if the panel decides it. It did. "Opinions" are the empty cr*p you spout here year after year.
You don't spend your life arguing against the presumption of innocence in criminal cases - because that, too, is unproven - yet it is the same principle, a presumption, that applies in anti-doping cases. There is only one reason you do it. You don't like dopers being held to account. It is fitting that a liar should defend a cheat.
Your tendency to look for similarities blinds you to the significant differences. If opinions were facts, we wouldn't need two words.
You don't dispute what I said: the CAS is not a court of law. The "A" is for "arbitration". It is not "CLS". If I'm fined by a disciplinary panel for wearing jeans in a bowling tournament, I broke the rules I agreed to, and the decision is binding. This is rule enforcement, not part of any "legal" process.
The rest of your post misunderstands the expressed explanation that the CAS Panel opinions are not judgements based on evidence of a "failed" drug test, but rather presumptions that the test was rightly considered a "failed" test, and that the presence/use was intentional. Houlihan's test results are evidence scientifically known by WADA, and decades of WADA science, to be ambiguous, unable to be distinguished by the WADA Lab between endogenous sources, and pseudo-endogenous preparations.
Criminal cases and anti-doping cases apply opposite principles. In criminal cases, the charges are argued to overcome the presumption of innocence, beyond reasonable doubt. In anti-doping cases, it is completely backwards. The charges are not argued to any standard, but presumed to be true without any argument.
So it sounds like regardless of which 3 documents they used, the logical outcome should have been an atypical finding? The adverse finding suggests that an agenda was applied to distort the rules?
I would say yes to the ATF. For these "low" "usual" values consistent with pig offal consumption, the test results are inconclusive and should be considered ATFs, for both 2019 and 2021 versions of the documents.
All the documents say that intact pig offal consumption is explicitly considered by WADA as "endogenous", and that, before the athlete is charged and burdened, it is the role of the WADA Lab to provide a "demonstration that the 19-NA is not of endogenous origin", and the burden of the AIU to establish that an ADRV occurred to the higher standard of "comfortable satisfaction". This is not possible for either the WADA Lab or the AIU to meet their burdens, when the GC/C/IRMS test cannot distinguish between endogenous pork consumption and pseudo-endogenous norsteroid preparations.
And to argue the other side a little bit, are hair tests normally mailed in by the athlete? I would think it would be more convincing if an independent party collected the hair sample. It's been awhile since I've read the CAS report, but I remember that being strange.
Both the lie detector and the hair sample analysis seem like futile exercises, but maybe the athletes feel better about passing them. I can't think of a case where these results swayed any tribunal's opinion, nor the public's.
CAS is a Court. It follows rules that are part of a legal process. If it were not so its decisions would not be binding on the parties. Opinions are facts when they are judgements based on evidence. Juries decide what are the facts in a criminal case based on the evidence. They are judgments the jury makes. A judge - or a panel in this case - will do the same. If the evidence is that an athlete has failed a drug test that becomes a "fact" if the panel decides it. It did. "Opinions" are the empty cr*p you spout here year after year.
You don't spend your life arguing against the presumption of innocence in criminal cases - because that, too, is unproven - yet it is the same principle, a presumption, that applies in anti-doping cases. There is only one reason you do it. You don't like dopers being held to account. It is fitting that a liar should defend a cheat.
Your tendency to look for similarities blinds you to the significant differences. If opinions were facts, we wouldn't need two words.
You don't dispute what I said: the CAS is not a court of law. The "A" is for "arbitration". It is not "CLS". If I'm fined by a disciplinary panel for wearing jeans in a bowling tournament, I broke the rules I agreed to, and the decision is binding. This is rule enforcement, not part of any "legal" process.
The rest of your post misunderstands the expressed explanation that the CAS Panel opinions are not judgements based on evidence of a "failed" drug test, but rather presumptions that the test was rightly considered a "failed" test, and that the presence/use was intentional. Houlihan's test results are evidence scientifically known by WADA, and decades of WADA science, to be ambiguous, unable to be distinguished by the WADA Lab between endogenous sources, and pseudo-endogenous preparations.
Criminal cases and anti-doping cases apply opposite principles. In criminal cases, the charges are argued to overcome the presumption of innocence, beyond reasonable doubt. In anti-doping cases, it is completely backwards. The charges are not argued to any standard, but presumed to be true without any argument.
So how is a Court of Arbitration not a "court"? Your attack on the English language rivals that of your fellow liar, Trump. If CAS didn't follow legal principles its decisions would not be binding on the parties. They could ignore it if they chose. They don't. They can't.
Rule enforcement in sports organisations occurs firstly because those who are members have agreed to the rules. But if there are disputes that go beyond the purview of the governance bodies the dispute can go to an actual court of law, which will determine the rights of the parties and how the rules should be applied. The Court of Arbitration is one such court.
Your nonsense about CAS needing to establish the source of the banned drug remains nonsense; it doesn't have to do that. It is enough that it was in her body. Unless she was able to show legitimate cause - she couldn't - the violation was established.
If you don't like presumptions in law then you should reject the presumption of innocence in criminal cases just as much as you don't like it in antidoping cases - it's still a standard applied that doesn't require proof. Oh, wait ... doping is different. Sure.
Houlihan's case fitted the model that is common within judicial systems of strict liability. Once the ingredients of the offence are established the offence is confirmed. Intent does not require proof. It can be rebutted. She was given the opportunity to provide a defence. It failed. There was no fault in the proceedings so she had no grounds for appeal.
Your endless whining is of a judicial process that is an accepted part of judicial systems. You can't accept the outcome of the case. Your arguments are nothing more than your attempt to interpret the evidence in a way the Court did not - it was way smarter and wiser than you - and in a way that doesn't confirm to the principles it applies, such as the test of the balance of probabilities, and with arguments that are nothing more than specious speculation.
Luckily, the sport has CAS and you remain an obsessive and deluded nutjob on a sports site.
Again: It wasn't her standing there babbling like her interview and presser-- how can you still possibly believe her top-notch specialized legal team's fable that a beef burrito turned into an uncastrated, soy fed, aged, blah, blah, blah offal burrito? And again. Actually look at her body--how can you possibly believe that she got that incredibly skinny by eating greasy burritos?
It's a myth that eating fat makes you fat.
According to the science, and to WADA, her test results are consistent with boar offal consumption. That makes it one possibility among others.
Yet all these world records are being set because of " the shoes and diet "
... and, AAH-GAIN, the likelihood of her consuming boar offal is statistically (scientifically) zero, therefore that is eliminated as a possibility, among others.
So it sounds like regardless of which 3 documents they used, the logical outcome should have been an atypical finding? The adverse finding suggests that an agenda was applied to distort the rules?
No. The opposite is true, as detailed in the CAS report (76 - 82, too long to quote it all), and neatly and briefly explained by Tucker here on letsrun. Don't fall for Rekrunner's long disproven PR. He will never stop.
Prof. Tucker, letsrun consultant paid to explain the case to the non-experts:
In fact, CAS goes to the length of actually making a point in the Decision that not only did the lab act appropriately by not doing this pharmacokinetic testing, but that they were compelled to issue the Adverse Finding without needing it. It was very strongly worded, quite definitive.
and
Rather, her finding is deemed to be quite clear - the isotope ratio of the 19-NA is different enough from that of her other steroids and steroids of boars that the lab must issue the Adverse Finding without even needing the pharmacokinetic test.
You also have it backwards with the TD2019NA (used by the AIU/lab) versus TD2021NA (preferred by Houlihan).
CAS 65:
The Claimant maintains that it is the TD2019NA as the TD2021NA did not come into force until well after the analysis and reporting had been completed. The Respondent contends that TD2021NA applies as it was approved and published by the WADA Executive Committee on 21 December 2021 and because the principle of lex mitior applies also to analytical and reporting requirements.
Claimant: World Athletics; Respondent: Houlihan
CAS 69:
Prof Ayotte, the Director of the Laboratory, testified at the hearing that although she had applied the TD2019NA she had also respected the TD2021NA.
Professor Ayotte did not apply the 2019 document though. It specifically says that a signature between -20 and -24 with 19-NA/19-NE greater than 3 results in atypical finding, not adverse finding. It looks like everybody is gaslighting on this. The document says what it says, and there's a nice diagram flow chart at the end that should lead to the yellow ATF box in the lower right. How does it not?
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.
You misunderstand, again, the TD2019NA. Specifically, you seem to misunderstand "e.g.", which is Latin for "for (the sake of) example", not for "namely exclusively".
Note it also says "may not readily indicate" instead of "cannot ever indicate", and specifically mentions "some populations" because some athletes will have delta of -22‰ and other of -19‰.
Due to the occurrence of preparations of 19-norsteroids with a carbon isotopic signature (13C/12C) close to that of endogenous human urinary steroids (e.g. delta19-NA =-20 ‰ to -24 ‰), the result of the GC/C/IRMS analysis of the produced 19-NA may not readily indicate its exogenous origin in some populations of Athletes.
The lab did not use the general example of "-20 ‰ to -24 ‰" for human urinary steroids, but specifically looked into Houlihan's pregnanediol, which was around -19‰ for both the A and the B sample, significantly different from the -23‰ of the 19-NA. No problem there. Therefore nobody complained about that part during the CAS hearing (but argued that the -23‰ could have come from the boar).
The flowchart on page 9 therefore results in the AAF box at the lower right (GC/C/IRMS --> Exogenous --> AAF). No rules broken.
Thank you. It's hard to read these documents with noise at home. So it sounds like -19 - (-23) > 3 and error less than 1 meant they could declare it as adverse finding.
Curious what you think about Houlihan mailing in the hair sample instead of having an independent party collect the hair sample. (I'll have to go back and check if that's accurate. Short on time right now.)
According to the science, and to WADA, her test results are consistent with boar offal consumption. That makes it one possibility among others.
Yet all these world records are being set because of " the shoes and diet "
... and, AAH-GAIN, the likelihood of her consuming boar offal is statistically (scientifically) zero, therefore that is eliminated as a possibility, among others.
I think you've been watching too many Dan Quibell youtubes . Greasy burritos aren't fast.