How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

"Intentionally eating a burrito" (how do you eat it accidentally? Christ, you're a moron) is not a violation because burritos aren't a form of doping. The burrito had nothing to do with the presence of nandrolone in her body. It was rejected as the cause, or the "source", as you put it. As an explanation of possible contamination it was assessed as being of "near-zero likelihood", according to experts, and came nowhere near meeting the test of the balance of probabilities, according to CAS. So you are lying again, as usual.

You really are exposing yourself and your ignorance. A process that follows the principles of the law is not a process that is necessarily concerned with breaches of the law or of specific statutes. Contract law is simply an example - which you show you haven't understood. There is nothing that is "pseudo-legal" about this process. You want to know why? Because it has kept Houlihan out of competition for 4 years. There is nothing "pseudo" about that. It had to have legal authority.

Hardly. He just repeated what had already been directed at him. But I can see why the slower among you think he was first.

She might have taken a 19-Norandrosterone supplement where several brands with different strengths are available on the internet. This is an oral compound (tablets or capsules) as opposed to an injectable form of nandrolone. 19-Norandrosterone can convert to nandrolone metabolites

19-Norandrosterone may be detected for months, with anecdotal events pointing to more than 18 months past last injection. Metabolites formed after oral administration of norsteroids remain detectable for only a few days.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Significance of 19‐norandrosterone in athletes' urine samples

Nandrolone and other 19‐norsteroid potent anabolic steroids have been prohibited in sports for 30 years. The detection of the main urinary metabolite—19‐norandrosterone—in amounts greater than 2 ng/ml constitutes an adverse a...

Link:pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC26574...

I don't know the details of the case - was this an IC or OOC test? If it was IC, she missed judged the off-phase use of the compound. With an OOC positive, something might have been going on with the ABP. Keep in mind that with steroidal module, you'll see fluctuations & patterns with certain hormonal markers that would prompt a target OOC test.

I'm not saying 100% this the way it happened, just offering a plausible explanation. Using injectable forms of nandrolone with the exceptionally long glow times wouldn't be very smart by elite athletes knowing they're are subjected to testing. Oral forms would be the better way to go if they can circumvent the ABP.

You always see yourself projected onto others.

You keep hammering points that were never in dispute, I guess to give the impression that you possess superior than common knowledge in at least one field.

This is all a sideshow distraction because you wanted to argue that presumption means something different in the law. You said in criminal law, presumptions are always fact based. The counter-example that proves you wrong is the presumption of innoncence. Eventually you back-pedalled to say "typically" -- but even that remains unsupported, not to mention irrelevant to the main point you keep avoiding.

The cold fact remains that there were no facts or evidence or proof of athlete intent before the CAS. Intent was deemed by the CAS without considering any evidence of athlete intent, purely and solely on a presumption that was established in the WADA Code in 2015.

If that is wrong, simply point me to the paragraph in the CAS report where they identified and discussed such facts or evidence or proof that meets all the required elements of WADA's definition of intent.

Again -- the ignorant moron you are seeing is your own reflection.

The burrito was never conclusively rejected. The CAS ruled that she didn't meet her evidentiary burden, as she couldn't identify the more likely than not source with "concrete and specific elements" -- something the CAS acknowledged and reported as difficult to provide and could be impossible to prove: "such proof is difficult to provide" and "an impossible proof either leads to a reversal of the burden of proof or to the irrefutable assumption".

The "experts" put forth an argument, with several simplified assumptions, about the general population. This allows us to make general conclusions about the general population, but it is not specific and concrete to Houlihan, and may or may not be applicable to her case.

The only conduct identified that the athlete engaged in before the CAS was that she ordered and ate a burrito. This conduct is inarguably intentional, but doesn't meet the explicit requirements in the WADA Code means to be considered an intentional rule violation.

One unproven alternative is contaminated supplements. This might meet the "risky" requirement. But there was no evidence before the CAS regarding any such conduct related to supplements.

Another unproven alternative is nandrolone products purchased on Amazon -- but again, no evidence that the athlete engaged in any such conduct.

That's all we can really say with the current set of facts and evidence: "she might have taken ..."

This was an OOC test in urine, which exceeded the 2 ng/ml thresholds.

There are multiple plausible explanations. Real intellectual work needs to be done to stop talking about what might be and what can be believed, before we can draw firm conclusions based on tangible facts and evidence.

Oral forms may be the way to go to avoid detection, but also wouldn't be very smart. Smart athletes would know that orally ingesting small amounts of nandrolone is largely ineffective because most of it is filtered out at first pass -- never making it into the bloodstream.

LOL. FYI all "plausible explanations", f. ex. pill A, pill B, cream C, contaminated testo..., amount to intentional doping, because clearly it wasn't in the burrito, Houlihan herself ruled out her supplements for obvious reasons, and sabotage or framing by WADA - the topic of the thread is not plausible at all.

That proves intentional doping beyond any reasonable doubt - the intellectual mind would realize that instead of stubbornly repeating the wording of the WADA code and the CAS decision for years.

BTW - no that it matters for the case - the "most of it is filtered out at first pass" is naturally irrelevant (not to mention that Houlihan doesn't appear super smart with all her actions). Smart athletes - guided by their team docs, checked by the team's internal tests - would maximize the dosage in the evening so it's below threshold in the urine 34 hours later, then use their quiet doorbell to not hear the tester the next morning. Once they are up to 2 "missed" tests within 12 months, decrease the dosage to below threshold 10 hours later, until "missed" test no. 1 has expired. Same with EPO and HGH. Rinse and repeat. That way, they get quite some PEDs into their system over time.

Is your claim that every runner is doping?

No. Never said that, never thought that.

Is your claim that the nandrolone was neither in the burrito nor in the supplements?

You claimed that she isn't smart because she got caught. That insinuated that every runner who isn't dumb is able to dope. You should despise all runners then because it sounds like they are smart and they get away with doping. You should feel sorry.for Shelby if you think she isn't smart. That isn't something that she has control over.

LOL. Wrong. Read again.
Is your claim that the nandrolone was neither in the burrito nor in the supplements?

I read it again. I am not arguing but merely asking. I don't claim to be smart. I don't claim to have a great understanding of how doping works. But it seems pretty clear that you said Shelby isn't smart and that smart runners can get away with doping.

Now you are getting closer. To be more precise, I said "that Houlihan doesn't appear super smart with all her actions", not that "she isn't smart because she got caught".

Her actions include the insistence on that stupid burrito joke, her appealing to the Supreme Court with no reasonable point, her grifting on gofundme for a mere $15,000, her inability to find a (part-time) job better than driving for Chipotle, her using a teenager's podcast for her propaganda, her look-at-me time trials during important races and so on.

Slipping up with her dosage (or using a cheap, contaminated testosterone source) further completes the picture of her not being super smart, but that could happen to everyone once in a while.

Yes, in general smart and careful dopers can get away with doping. That is not just my opinion, but proven by the fact that the doping prevalence is substantially higher than the number of caught dopers, as well as several peer-reviewed publications.

That does not mean that everybody dopes. First of all, not everybody is smart, and second, not everybody is so unethical that they would choose doping.

Plausible is a low bar, and depends on the believer. The CAS doesn't rule on plausibility. Even the burrito is plausible, once you read all of the material and testimony from the expert witnesses. One expert cautiously estimated some amount less than 12,000 intact boars pass USDA inspectors each year in the US for consumption on the market, and conceded that these pigs were eating soy in the right timeframe. That makes the boar consumption scenario plausible, even if it is possible but unlikely.

The fact remains that there were no facts or evidence before the CAS for any alternative scenarios, e.g. pills, creams, supplements. None of these alternate scenarios were argued with evidence, let alone proven, and therefore intentional doping was not proven to any standard. The only evidence of any intentional conduct before the CAS was ordering and eating a burrito, and that doesn't meet WADA's requirement for their meaning of "intent" with respect to rule violations.

The CAS made it clear that they deemed intent based on a presumption codified in 2015 -- something that does meet WADA's requirement.

Glad to hear that she isn't dumb for getting caught. Does that mean she was smart for getting caught? What makes you think everyone isn't doping if it is easy to do?

This sounds more like fan fiction and conspiracy rather than reality.

Assuming for argument that it is smart to ingest easily detectable steroids at any dosage, the best way to game the system with nandrolone would be to take norethisterone for "birth control", so you can ramp up the nandrolone levels to 10 ng/ml or even higher. The lab won't do a GC/C/IRMS test if THNE is present. Any nandrolone results from female athletes using norethisterone will not be reported as an AAF, but at worst as an ATF.

But the smart goal is not to get PEDs in your system at all costs, but to only do things which are proven to be effective at improving your best performance.

Since you don't know anything about the law you don't know that the presumption of innocence is not the only application of a presumption. You also don't know that that particular presumption isn't an inference of fact, as other presumptions can be. (And btw the way, you ***** liar, I didn't say the presumption that you intend the natural consequence of your actions is the only presumption in the criminal law). The "presumption of innocence" doesn't presume "innocence" as a fact; it establishes a procedural requirement that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise it must acquit. Innocent until proven guilty. Yet other presumptions can be that on the basis of given facts certain other inferences of fact can be formed. They don't have to be independently proven. They follow from prior facts.

The "cold fact" is that CAS didn't prove intent because it didn't have to; it was an inference that could be reasonably made on the facts that 1) she tested positive and 2) the most likely cause of a banned substance in the athlete's body is they put it there, because someone had to, UNLESS they can show a reasonable likelihood of some other cause for which she couldn't be responsible. She couldn't show that. Every time you open your mouth ignorant vomit comes out.