Why are people here so certain that Shelby intentionally cheated?

griles17 wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Your "reality" is wrong. Since her defence failed that only left her as the author of her doping violation. There was no one else. Hence, on the basis of the balance of probabilities - which is the standard in civil courts - her violation was deemed intentional by CAS. It was the same process in a civil court that found OJ liable for the deaths of his girlfriend and lover. Are you going to dispute that as well?

But it isn't wrong. I think you're confused here. I never said that decision of the court to uphold the ban was wrong. What I said is that a positive test + failed defense does not necessarily imply intentional doping. Anyone with even the most basic capacity for reason will see that this is the case. I do not think you are in a position to comment on the intelligence of others, lol

"Since her defense failed that only left her as the author of her doping violation." This is a pretty egregious error in basic reasoning. It's even worse when you consider the incredibly lower prior odds of someone like Shelby doping, but I'm sure we would disagree strongly on those odds

rekrunner wrote:

griles17 wrote:

She seems like a genuinely wonderful person. I've followed her for years. Even if you think it's unlikely a burrito was the cause of the positive test, why are you so sure that Shelby intentionally cheated? People here often claim that this is the case and that she's a legit psychopath who refuses to admit what she's done wrong. But if she were a psychopath, why does she have so many friends and people around her who say she's an incredible person? And if she wanted an advantage, why would she choose to dope but not wear super shoes? Looking for genuine convo here - I just don't understand how anyone can smear Shelby online. I'm a huge fan of hers.

It is a good question, but one that is unlikely to get the introspective reflection it deserves.

A related question -- we know what fans and pundits think about the burrito "excuse". But do any of her competitors believe she intentionally doped? None have really stepped forward to condemn her. Do they find intentional doping likely, or do they see her as a victim of a process that could one day get them?

A careful reading of the CAS report and the WADA Code shows intent was presumed for sanctioning purposes, rather than established to any higher intellecutal or legal standard than presumption. The shortcuts in the WADA Code are not the right investigative process to uncover the truth beyond reasonable doubts.

I have a few theories, but I cannot speak for the psychology of others.

The main theory is that people do not genuinely understand the different probabilities being tossed around. They do not understand that the probability of a burrito containing intact soy-fed boar offal, out of all the pork burritos across America, is not the same probability that she was burdened with to establish non-intentional, and is not the same probability that the burrito she ate is the source of the nandrolone, out of all the possible sources. They believe that the AIU's "near zero" cascaded probability of pre-supposed factors about burritos is a strong "proof" of a "near one" probability that she doped intentionally. Statistics can be used to estimate nationwide expectations, but not individual exceptions. If she had retained the uneaten portion of the burrito and tested that burrito, all of these nationwide population probabilities about what happened before COVID supply issues, will be rendered meaningless, one way or the other.

People love scandals, and many "fans" of athletics want to believe that doping in athletics is widespread like we saw in cycling in the '90s, and many will cling to every example that confirms their wants. They want to believe in excessive doping being excessively covered up. The actual doping history for distance runners is sparse, with the conversation quickly digging up ancient history of East German women, or the Chinese women, or Lance Armstrong or Marion Jones.

rekrunner wrote:

Let's get real wrote:

Well rekrunner...if you can't trust CAS...then who can you trust?

I want to believe that Shelby didn't intentionally dope. And I believed that with Armstrong & Marion Jones - and look where that got me! 🙄

What are you talking about? On the topic of intent, I seem to be in the minority one of the few who trusted the CAS. They clearly explained intent is a presumption that doesn't need to be established to any standard, but needs to be rebutted on the balance of probabilities. Houlihan's evidence and arguments fell short of rebutting that presumption, missing the most important evidence -- the source.

Regarding Armstrong and Marion Jones, maybe you should ask yourself why you were wrong then, and if you learned the right lesson, or if you might be wrong again? My recommendation is to be cautious with conclusions not supported by specific facts and evidence.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It is a good question, but one that is unlikely to get the introspective reflection it deserves.

A related question -- we know what fans and pundits think about the burrito "excuse". But do any of her competitors believe she intentionally doped? None have really stepped forward to condemn her. Do they find intentional doping likely, or do they see her as a victim of a process that could one day get them?

A careful reading of the CAS report and the WADA Code shows intent was presumed for sanctioning purposes, rather than established to any higher intellecutal or legal standard than presumption. The shortcuts in the WADA Code are not the right investigative process to uncover the truth beyond reasonable doubts.

I have a few theories, but I cannot speak for the psychology of others.

The main theory is that people do not genuinely understand the different probabilities being tossed around. They do not understand that the probability of a burrito containing intact soy-fed boar offal, out of all the pork burritos across America, is not the same probability that she was burdened with to establish non-intentional, and is not the same probability that the burrito she ate is the source of the nandrolone, out of all the possible sources. They believe that the AIU's "near zero" cascaded probability of pre-supposed factors about burritos is a strong "proof" of a "near one" probability that she doped intentionally. Statistics can be used to estimate nationwide expectations, but not individual exceptions. If she had retained the uneaten portion of the burrito and tested that burrito, all of these nationwide population probabilities about what happened before COVID supply issues, will be rendered meaningless, one way or the other.

People love scandals, and many "fans" of athletics want to believe that doping in athletics is widespread like we saw in cycling in the '90s, and many will cling to every example that confirms their wants. They want to believe in excessive doping being excessively covered up. The actual doping history for distance runners is sparse, with the conversation quickly digging up ancient history of East German women, or the Chinese women, or Lance Armstrong or Marion Jones.

The one who does not understand "the balance of probabilities" is you, since you confuse it with what may merely be possible. No one outside the Houlihan defenders disputes that CAS properly decided the case on the evidence before it according to the balance of probabilities. On the basis of that test she was deemed to have committed an intentional ADRV. Case closed - except to doping deniers (of whom you lead the brigade).