Shelby Quote " it could've been someone around me " .... Who is the saboteur 🧐?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The previous poster was essentially arguing that the term "evidence" is that which is deemed admissable in judicial proceedings - in which he is legally correct - but I was using it in the broader sense that as evidence it lends significant factual support (or not) to what was being argued, which was her claim of accidental contamination ; it didn't, and in that he agreed with me.

You do not understand what "the balance of probabilities" means. It is not establishing a percentage allocation to an argument but that the weight of the argument when all the evidence is taken into account leads to a conclusion that the argument is accepted or rejected. It is deemed probable or not. It is not numerically assessed, as you wrongly suggest.

Further, that the Panel dismissed each and every one of her individually argued grounds shows that in totality she was nowhere near approaching the balance of probabilities. The Panel essentially said "no" to everything she put forward towards her defence. That is a defence that simply has no legs to stand on.

The Panel also endorsed the position submitted by the Claimants, and conspicuously did not correct or qualify the following submission:

“The explanation pre-supposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero."

Your attempt to swing the scales towards Houlihan depend on acquiring favorable evidence which simply did not and does not exist. Personally, I wish she had been able to present the burrito in question to the Court; it is likely that the absence of nandrolone (as estimated by the experts at the hearing) would have exposed her for the doper and the liar she most likely is.

Thanks for the illustration of your contorted thinking. It's like looking into a kaleidescope. You arrive at a conclusion of "no evidence" only by employing a "broader sense" interpretation, and elsewhere, you provided the CAS ruling itself as the "evidence" that was considered by the CAS before the CAS arrived at the ruling. Is that the same "broader sense" meaning, or another one?

The poster "Investigations" you said agreed with you wrote "Yes, I am using it in a different sense. I am using it in the correct sense. You are using it incorrectly and having resort to what looks like conjured up legal standards such as "significant factual veracity" (what I think you are trying to say is relevant and sufficiently corroborated, but even that does not change what evidence means)."

Are you also using the term "agreed" in a broader sense? I agree with "Investigations".

In the correct sense, "Balance of probabilities" means relative to 50%, not 0%, regardless of whether the probability is numerically assessed.

The panel did not "dismiss" any of the argued grounds. The question is whether such national probabilies, can be applied to this specific case, when given the positive test result. To disprove the improbability, Houlihan would have needed something specific to her case that would alter these probabilities above the required "balance of probability" threshold. Going into an arbitration without specific evidence that could establish "more likely than not" was always a longshot.

rekrunner wrote:

join in its fun wrote:

the WADA code is unambiguous to everyone except those who are trying to muddy the waters for personal benefit.

Indeed I have to update my thinking to factor the potential bias and hidden agendas of arbitrators.

The AIU says the CAS is independent:

"The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) is the highest independent authority in international sport that resolves disputes through arbitration.
CAS is an independent body governed by the International Council of Arbitration for Sport (ICAS).
The main task of ICAS is to safeguard the independence of CAS and the rights of the parties."

But is the AIU also biased?

Note I also guidelines. Are WADA guidelines unambiguous? How can the TD2021NA be considered unambiguous if 1 CAS panelist ruled contrary to the other 2, based on the same set of undisputed and complete facts? Whether it is ambiguity or bias, both are concerning from an organization that is considered independent.

And there does appear to be fundamental ambiguity in the TD2021NA guideline. On the one hand, the guideline clearly says that the isotope analysis may not be used, when invoking pork consumption, but on the other hand, the CAS ruled that its use is proper according to the guideline. Are the different rulings here explained by the guideline ambiguity, or by arbitrator bias?

If we consider that every CAS ruling could be the subjective result of biased arbitratrors (and if two are biased, there is no reason to think the third is neutral, or that arbitrators don't have their own agenda), doesn't that greatly weaken any popular notion that Houlihan is an intentional cheat, based on the strength of a CAS ruling? Now as fans, we have to judge the impartiality of the CAS Panelists, or assess any hidden agendas.

Another one of my ideas is that, where the WADA Code is unambiguous, some of this unambiguity comes at the expense of fairness and justice to innocent athletes. Violations are clearly unambiguous because they are not muddied by having to establish intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge. And intent is artifically unambiguous by presuming it in all cases, unless established otherwise. (But even then, this is the subjective opinion of biased panelists.) This may make the rulings unambiguous, but not necessarily fair or accurate.

Is that ambiguity, or bias? Either way, it is deeply concerning.

Even when proven innocent, are the athletes rights safeguarded, as the AIU writes? They are still considered guilty in the eyes of WADA.

Jarrion Lawson won his appeal, and yet the AIU reports the CAS outcome as "Appeal upheld – the Athlete is found to have committed an ADRV but bears no fault or negligence and no period of ineligibility shall be imposed".

Simon Getzmann proved himself innocent, when a legal painkiller tested positive. Yet he still paid the price of a 1 year ban, 10,000 Euros for legal and scientific costs, and he is still guilty of an ADRV.

We can also reconsider the various Salazar rulings. Initially the AAA Arbitration Panel ruled Salazar committed 3 rule violations. Most people may have missed that the CAS Panel overruled 2 of these violations, and added 2 more that the AAA Panel missed. WADA ambiguity or aribitrator bias?