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.
A failed doping test is not a presumption. It has to meet a standard of proof that confirms the positive test as a fact. It was so confirmed. A confirmed doping positive is itself "evidence".
What was determined to be "probable" was based on the evidential material before the Court. It was not subjective. If it were so it could have been contested before an appellate court, to challenge CAS's interpretation of the facts. It wasn't. It couldn't be. It also couldn't be falsified.
The same test was applied to her defence. She failed to meet it - as you do. Again and again. Your "possibilities" get you nowhere. They lack sufficient factual support to be deemed as even "probable" let alone certain. You are like the losing counsel in a case who can't let it go that you have lost and there are no grounds for an appeal.
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.
You keep using that trick when you consistenly replace "chorizo (pork sausage)" with "chorizo".
Nothing changes by adding "as pork ingredients". The counter-examples also show that "she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients" is false.
She does not need to provide further evidence that the grease in a pork stomach burrito comes from pork, or that a "chorizo (pork sausage)" is itself a pork ingredient.
I will concede that my statements are correct, and feel no need to further respond to your deflection and obfuscation:
No one from Team WA/AIU fully rebutted Houlihan's full claim of "a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal". Furthermore, the CAS report fails to explain how and when Houlihan's claim in paragraph 8 was allegedly significantly and materially reduced by Team Houlihan to exclude all the organs known to have higher levels of nandrolone.
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.
You accused me of ignoring all the evidence. This is a "false illusion" as I have considered and evaluated all of the evidence to date, without exception.
"Raise the question" doesn't mean you literally asked any questions. According to Google AI: ""Raises the question" is an idiomatic phrase used to indicate that a specific situation, fact, or statement makes an obvious question, doubt, or topic for discussion necessary. It means the preceding information brings up, prompts, or highlights a new query that needs to be addressed."
You suggested I would "stop blaming World Athletics for correctly calling it meat and or stomach". This is false as I do not blame World Athletics. I felt it necessary to clarify, not who I think is to blame for the "bait and switch" (appears to be the expert witnesses and possibly the AIU), but more broadly, who is to blame for railroading Houlihan to a 4-year ban without being required to make a complete case for "doping", and subsequently "intentional doping".
A failed doping test is not a presumption. It has to meet a standard of proof that confirms the positive test as a fact. It was so confirmed. A confirmed doping positive is itself "evidence".
What was determined to be "probable" was based on the evidential material before the Court. It was not subjective. If it were so it could have been contested before an appellate court, to challenge CAS's interpretation of the facts. It wasn't. It couldn't be. It also couldn't be falsified.
The same test was applied to her defence. She failed to meet it - as you do. Again and again. Your "possibilities" get you nowhere. They lack sufficient factual support to be deemed as even "probable" let alone certain. You are like the losing counsel in a case who can't let it go that you have lost and there are no grounds for an appeal.
It's true that a "failed doping test" is not a presumption, but reporting it as an AAF is presumed to be "scientifically valid" and "in accordance with the ISL".
It's true this reporting should meet an even higher standard of proof, but it was never held to that higher standard.
When you say what the CAS "determined to be "probable"", what exactly are you referring to? I cannot find any CAS finding they determined to be "probable", let alone based on evidential material. I can only find findings like "possible", "possible but unlikely", and "possible but improbable", and other variations. Do you mean 98: "the Panel finds that the Athlete proved on the balance of probabilities that she purchased and ate a burrito on the evening of 14 December 2020." That is the only finding I find that could possibly be considered "probable" based on evidential material.
CAS is the final appeal. Why are you talking about appellate courts?
I didn't lose anything. Houihan "lost" based on a series of presumptions.
Nothing changes by adding "as pork ingredients". The counter-examples also show that "she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients" is false.
Calling chorizo pork sausage or not does not change the fact that neither you nor Houlihan have provided any evidence for any pork ingredient other than butt (often used for chorizo) and stomach (often used for offal).
Still don't agree? What is then your evidence for which pork ingredient in the chorizo (pork sausage)? Crickets.... still no counter-examples with evidence for different pork ingredients...
Since you are wrong there, all your subsequent "conclusions" are also wrong.
You suggested I would "stop blaming World Athletics for correctly calling it meat and or stomach". This is false as I do not blame World Athletics. I felt it necessary to clarify, not who I think is to blame for the "bait and switch" (appears to be the expert witnesses and possibly the AIU), but more broadly, who is to blame for railroading Houlihan to a 4-year ban without being required to make a complete case for "doping", and subsequently "intentional doping".
And yet, it was part of the "Claimant's submissions", and Claimant = World Athletics. And as I have proven to you with a direct quote, Houlihan herself called it "meat" as well in the LR interview, and also in the CAS report. Prof Jahren also called it "pork-meat meal", btw. Courtney and Lindsey Frerichs also both called it "meat" in their testimonies. Go and blame them. But no, you ignore all these facts, and still insist it's "bait and switch" when WA does it.
Finally, you deflected to "presumptions" from this "bait and switch" nonsense for calling it "meat", and pretended that I asked about it lol.
P.S. Dr Strahm, also from Team Houlihan, called it "pig stomach". Poor rekster, literally everyone but you sides with the evidence that is was meat and or stomach.
And of course, as you very well know, the whole procedure got even the approval from the normally so critical USADA leader Tygart. Straight from his podcast:
The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence
Agreed! Yes, the facts and the data and the evidence are all quite clear, no "bait and switch" anywhere.
The Athletics Integrity Unit that handled it did exactly what they were supposed to do under the rules
Nothing changes by adding "as pork ingredients". The counter-examples also show that "she only provided evidence for butt and stomach as pork ingredients" is false.
Calling chorizo pork sausage or not does not change the fact that neither you nor Houlihan have provided any evidence for any pork ingredient other than butt (often used for chorizo) and stomach (often used for offal).
Still don't agree? What is then your evidence for which pork ingredient in the chorizo (pork sausage)? Crickets.... still no counter-examples with evidence for different pork ingredients...
Since you are wrong there, all your subsequent "conclusions" are also wrong.
Chorizo is a clearly another pork ingredient in one of the pork stomach burritos. The evidence before the CAS, and Team WA/AIU, is in paragraph 99: "the food truck pig stomach burritos on its menu on the evening of 14 December 2020 were: i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito."
Where is the evidence for "butt often used for chorizo", and "stomach often used for offal"?
The relevant question is exactly when and where Team Houlihan allegedly narrowed what they meant by "pig offal" and "a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal"? Where can that explanation be found in the CAS report? What I find is a clear yet unexplained disconnect from what Houlihan claimed, and Dr. Strahm says throughout the CAS report, with what the WA/AIU and their expert witnesses say Houlihan allegedly claimed.
What would convince you that Shelby was doping intentionally?
Evidence of intent.
A CIR value less in the exogenous range less than -27.
A concentration significantly higher than what Prof. Ayotte found (130-140 ng/ml from a sample of 3 volunteers; elsewhere she reported 160 ng/ml) in her studies on intact boar offal consumption.
I find it simply not credible that a distance athlete on a sophisticated American flagship team would intentionally and knowingly orally ingest such low quantities of easily detectable nandrolone.
And yet, it was part of the "Claimant's submissions", and Claimant = World Athletics. And as I have proven to you with a direct quote, Houlihan herself called it "meat" as well in the LR interview, and also in the CAS report. Prof Jahren also called it "pork-meat meal", btw. Courtney and Lindsey Frerichs also both called it "meat" in their testimonies. Go and blame them. But no, you ignore all these facts, and still insist it's "bait and switch" when WA does it.
Finally, you deflected to "presumptions" from this "bait and switch" nonsense for calling it "meat", and pretended that I asked about it lol.
P.S. Dr Strahm, also from Team Houlihan, called it "pig stomach". Poor rekster, literally everyone but you sides with the evidence that is was meat and or stomach.
Saying "meat" and/or "stomach" does not exclude any other offal organs which may also be in the burrito.
Dr. Strahm refers to "meat and offal" throughout the report. The one time he says "pig stomach" is in a rebuttal to Prof. McGlone (who inexplicably reduced the claim to pork stomach), to say there is no research on pig stomach to support Prof. McGlone (something Prof. McGlone conceded). The one time he says "pig meat", he claims that the WADA Expert Group accepts as a fact that "pig meat" can produce values up to 10 ng/ml, and yet he still concludes with "it is impossible to exclude ... intact pig offal".
But most importantly, the CAS does not report any significant evolution from the initial claim "the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal".
Rebuttals of "meat" and "stomach" is a partial rebuttal. The part rebutting the "offal" in Houlihan's claim, that the CAS tells us she maintained, is inexplicably missing.
And of course, as you very well know, the whole procedure got even the approval from the normally so critical USADA leader Tygart. Straight from his podcast:
The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence
Agreed! Yes, the facts and the data and the evidence are all quite clear, no "bait and switch" anywhere.
The Athletics Integrity Unit that handled it did exactly what they were supposed to do under the rules
Agreed! No blaming the AIU.
He didn't criticize the AIU here for doing what the rules allow them to do, but he has often criticized the rules themselves for allowing anti-doping organizations to railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans who have done nothing wrong. And in another interview, he says he was more skeptical of the AIU than of Houlihan.
Chorizo is a clearly another pork ingredient in one of the pork stomach burritos. The evidence before the CAS, and Team WA/AIU, is in paragraph 99: "the food truck pig stomach burritos on its menu on the evening of 14 December 2020 were: i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito."
Unbelievable. Do you really think so?? Your evidence only shows that the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito was on the menu, not that chorizo contained a different pork ingredient. Yet you somehow claim "Chorizo is a clearly another pork ingredient" as if chorizo were a piece of a pig, not a meal.
Clearly you must have noticed that by you being unable to answer the simple question:
What is then your evidence for which pork ingredient in the chorizo (pork sausage)?
"which pork ingredient"? No answer, only deflection, deflection, deflection, post after post after post. Just admit that I was right all along.
Saying "meat" and/or "stomach" does not exclude any other offal organs which may also be in the burrito.
More deflections. No one did. But you, and only you, blamed the Claimant for "saying "meat" and/or "stomach"", calling it "bait and switch" for inexplicable reasons. Maybe for the fun of it, so some posters would point out your nonsense?
Convicted doper Shelby almost as good as a freshman! Woohoo!
Therefore that freshman must be doping in an outrageous manner.
If all of you drug cartel believers are right, then that is 100% what is happening.
This is a seriously dim post. You do know there are major differences between male and female athletes? A freshman can easily be as fast as a pro female. A 14 year old could be.
A failed doping test is not a presumption. It has to meet a standard of proof that confirms the positive test as a fact. It was so confirmed. A confirmed doping positive is itself "evidence".
What was determined to be "probable" was based on the evidential material before the Court. It was not subjective. If it were so it could have been contested before an appellate court, to challenge CAS's interpretation of the facts. It wasn't. It couldn't be. It also couldn't be falsified.
The same test was applied to her defence. She failed to meet it - as you do. Again and again. Your "possibilities" get you nowhere. They lack sufficient factual support to be deemed as even "probable" let alone certain. You are like the losing counsel in a case who can't let it go that you have lost and there are no grounds for an appeal.
It's true that a "failed doping test" is not a presumption, but reporting it as an AAF is presumed to be "scientifically valid" and "in accordance with the ISL".
It's true this reporting should meet an even higher standard of proof, but it was never held to that higher standard.
When you say what the CAS "determined to be "probable"", what exactly are you referring to? I cannot find any CAS finding they determined to be "probable", let alone based on evidential material. I can only find findings like "possible", "possible but unlikely", and "possible but improbable", and other variations. Do you mean 98: "the Panel finds that the Athlete proved on the balance of probabilities that she purchased and ate a burrito on the evening of 14 December 2020." That is the only finding I find that could possibly be considered "probable" based on evidential material.
CAS is the final appeal. Why are you talking about appellate courts?
I didn't lose anything. Houihan "lost" based on a series of presumptions.
It is impossible to debate with one who lies with virtually every sentence.
Unbelievable. Do you really think so?? Your evidence only shows that the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito was on the menu, not that chorizo contained a different pork ingredient. Yet you somehow claim "Chorizo is a clearly another pork ingredient" as if chorizo were a piece of a pig, not a meal.
Clearly you must have noticed that by you being unable to answer the simple question:
What is then your evidence for which pork ingredient in the chorizo (pork sausage)?
"which pork ingredient"? No answer, only deflection, deflection, deflection, post after post after post. Just admit that I was right all along.
Who says "pork ingredient" must be "a piece of pig", and not pork sausage? It is your question that is wrong.
This whole tangent is all a deflection from the relevant fact that Houlihan's maintained claim of "offal" remains only partly rebutted.
The fact is that both grease and chorizo were in the burrito, and both the AIU and the CAS were aware of this, while the rebuttal is limited to pork meat and outer stomach.
Your answer to that undisputable fact was just deflection, post after post after post. Just admit that I was right all along.