How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

do the research unbiased please wrote:

Classic rekrunner. That you need to keep twisting the experts' statements and attacking their credibility and leaving out facts proves that you have zero interest in (admitting) the intellectual truth.

"some amount less than 12,000 intact boars" was actually "far less than 1 in 10,000", and was later clarified to "there was about a 1 in 5,000,000 chance that boar would have gotten into the burrito..."

"and conceded that these pigs were eating soy in the right timeframe" was actually "Prof McGlone conceded at hearing that the diet of some pigs was altered during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the fact that the supply chain slowed down, which resulted in certain pig farms increasing the amount of soy fed to their pigs as opposed to corn. However, Prof McGlone submits that this practice was not maintained for a sustained period of time because of the (higher) costs of soybean and that corn remained overall the main diet source for all pigs in the United States."

You changed "increasing the amount of soy fed" into "these pigs were eating soy" and ignored the disclaimers "not maintained for a sustained period of time" and

"that corn remained overall the main diet source for all pigs in the United States." Classic rekrunner.

You also ignored two more problems with the burrito story, documented in the two unanimous CAS decisions, namely 109. *highly improbable" and 114. "improbable". Classic rekunner.

That makes your conclusion sound ridiculous:

"That makes the boar consumption scenario plausible, even if it is possible but unlikely."

What you so desperately try to sell as "plausible" and just "unlikely", is evidently a combination of four, in the order of the CAS sub-decisions, "improbable" and "highly improbable" and "improbable" and not "consistent" scenarios, all of which had to occur at the same time.

And CAS was rather generous by calling "far less than 1 in 10,000" just improbable, and the amount of nandrolone being about 10x too high for that stomach burrito was also just called improbable. Even the 10x is overly generous because that comparison was based on mature 3 year old pigs, not on the 6 - 12 months old youngsters that were used for the pork burrito. If it was pork, which was never proven btw,

rekrunner wrote:

Llyod Flandis wrote:

Again, for all the variables to line up , all these little itsy-bitsy What Ifs you are trying to get to happen at the same time, adds up to No Way.

That's what I'm thinking about the likelihood of a sophisticated endurance athlete taking easily detectable synthetic nandrolone on purpose, after the year 2000.

We can also make the same argument about being struck by lightning, yet it happens all the time. No one argues that lightning strikes never happen because it is possible but unlikely. That would be an inherently weak argument, and demonstrably false.

But since the burrito explanation couldn't be established on the balance of probabilties with specific and concrete elements, the next step would be to make a case that any alternative explanation is more likely to have happened to Houlihan, say to a standard of more likely than not, with specific and concrete elements -- something intellectually stronger than researchers being able to recreate pseudo-endogenous test values synthetically.

do the research unbiased please wrote:

Yes, we were talking about plausibility. That you chose to leave out half of the problems with that, and twisted the after half, speaks volumes: like Shelby and the AIU and WA CAS and Tucker and Tygart etc., you have finally realized that that is not plausible at all.

A chance of "far less than 1 in 10,000" does not increase if you arbitrarily look at all the pigs slaughtered in a whole year in the whole USA.

In fact, we know the slaughter date was in June, so you need to divide your annual number by 12. We have also seen the more precise chance of 1 : 5,000,000 instead of the vague "far less than 1 in 10,000". So if you want to play the game of how many pigs, let's try to look at the whole picture unbiased:

131,563,000 pigs slaughtered in 2020 -> 131,563,000 / 12 = 10,963,583 in June

Uncastrated pigs making it past the inspector in a given month:
10,963,583 / 5,000,000 = 2

Of course Tyson doesn't slaughter all of the pigs in the USA. More like 20%. So, 2/5 = 0.4 intact pigs

We have even more information. Tyson has several slaughterhouses, so... I stop here. Even you can see that the number of intact boar that made it through the inspection undetected in that given slaughterhouse in that month is actually "far less than 1".

And again, that is only one of the five problems with the burrito story, and not even the biggest problem.

So, not plausible at all.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Again, although you are sorely wrong about what I know about law, maybe because you are confused about what I say, e.g. accusing me of a lie for something I didn't say, all this talk about law is irrelevant, because we are talking about interpreting rules and rule violations.

But to follow your explanation, just like the presumption of innocence establishes a procedural requirement, the presumption of intent achieves the opposite: removing a procedural requirement. Whether it is a criminal presumption of innocence, or a contractual implied presumption of intent, neither of these presumptions are based on existing facts related to the case.

Your "cold facts" don't lead to a reasonable inference of intent. 1) A positive test can be intentional, or intentional, or endogenous (i.e. not a rule violation). This fact does not reasonably further any inference of intent; and 2) alleging something is "most likely", especially based on no facts or evidence, is not a fact. Who put it there is irrelevant to intent, and there was no suggestion or argument that anyone other than Houlihan put it there. An athlete can put it exogenous (rule violation) or endogenous (no rule violation) nandrolone in their system intentionally, or unintentionally. Neither of your "cold facts", alone or combined, permit a reasonable inference of intent.

Even if it were reasonable to infer intent, this does not contradict the only point all along, that intent was deemed by the CAS without seeing or considering any supporting facts or evidence establishing the athlete intent to violate rules, to any legal standard. If there were any such supporting facts or evidence, it would be trivial to point me to the specific numbered paragraphs in the CAS report, instead of playing your childish games where you pretend to be knowledgeable.

do the research unbiased please wrote:

You didn't address the problems, you just babbled on about your illusions.

That you call the problems that led to Houlihan's ban now "alleged problems", is yet another example of you desperately trying to make the burrito joke "plausible" without any argument whatsoever.

And now, you write "It also doesn't seem plausible that Prof. McGlone would have overestimated the order of magnitude of intact boars entering the normal food chain by a factor of 500." Seriously?

First of all, you cannot calculate a factor when comparing "far less than 1 in 10,000" with "1 in 5,000,000". Second, there is a difference between "the probability of a cryptorchid actually entering the pork supply chain" and the "chance that boar would have gotten into the burrito". Third, the expert already alluded to that later on in the CAS report: "Thus, it is “near zero chance” that any boar meat would get mixed with conventional fresh pork products."

So your new spin "If he got that wrong by so much,..." falls straight back onto you. You either can't read, or are poorly informed, or have poor memory.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You keep ignoring the fact that the evidence presented by Houlihan was evidence that related to the issue of intent. If she had succeeded in her defence you would have trumpeted that she had "proven" her lack of intent - and she would have. But because she couldn't do that you say there was no "proof" of intent. Wrong. There was insufficient proof of lack of intent. You can't have it both ways. Her evidence was evidence relating to intent, but it wasn't strong enough to rebut the presumption that she intentionally took the substance found in her body. With her failure to do that the only explanation left was that she was the cause of the banned substance found in her system - nothing else was available. Your whining about "intent" is all based on the fact the onus fell on her to rebut a presumption that was the most likely - i.e. probable - explanation for a banned drug being in her body.

But in the end, this is all semantic drivel you are arguing. She's a convicted athlete who has served a 4 year ban. Whether you think she intended to take the nandrolone is completely irrelevant. CAS said she did - so you can go cry in the corner.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You keep ignoring the fact that the evidence presented by Houlihan was evidence that related to the issue of intent. If she had succeeded in her defence you would have trumpeted that she had "proven" her lack of intent - and she would have. But because she couldn't do that you say there was no "proof" of intent. Wrong. There was insufficient proof of lack of intent. You can't have it both ways. Her evidence was evidence relating to intent, but it wasn't strong enough to rebut the presumption that she intentionally took the substance found in her body. With her failure to do that the only explanation left was that she was the cause of the banned substance found in her system - nothing else was available. Your whining about "intent" is all based on the fact the onus fell on her to rebut a presumption that was the most likely - i.e. probable - explanation for a banned drug being in her body.

But in the end, this is all semantic drivel you are arguing. She's a convicted athlete who has served a 4 year ban. Whether you think she intended to take the nandrolone is completely irrelevant. CAS said she did - so you can go cry in the corner.

"related to" looks like new weasel words.

So your response to "no one made the more likely than not case for intent" is that it was Houlihan who made the more likely than not case for intent, as a consequence of the law of "false choice fallacy"?

And once again, you concede intent was not established, but a presumption to be rebutted -- essentially making my whole point. And now you are effectively making the point that the AIU/WA/"WADA Lab"/"expert witnessses" provided no facts or evidence "related to" intent to the CAS. Only Houlihan did.

Even then you have it backwards. At best, Houlihan's evidence "relates to" non-intent. It is you who wants it both ways, wanting to draw a conclusion in the opposite direction of the evidence.

The reason I say "no proof of intent", is not based on subjective opinions, themselves based on presumptions and assumptions and incomplete facts, but that WA/AIU/"WADA Lab"/"expert witnsesses" simply provided no facts or evidence of intent for the CAS to consider. You seem to agree, as you can point to no such facts or evidence.

Failing to establish non-intent still leaves both possibilities open: that it was either intentional, or not intentional. This was only resolved in a weak way, by rules drafted by anti-doping lawyers that permit presuming intent without any specific facts or evidence.

She was convicted -- based on presumptions and policies and burdens that can railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans for the actions of others unknown to the athlete.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You keep ignoring the fact that the evidence presented by Houlihan was evidence that related to the issue of intent. If she had succeeded in her defence you would have trumpeted that she had "proven" her lack of intent - and she would have. But because she couldn't do that you say there was no "proof" of intent. Wrong. There was insufficient proof of lack of intent. You can't have it both ways. Her evidence was evidence relating to intent, but it wasn't strong enough to rebut the presumption that she intentionally took the substance found in her body. With her failure to do that the only explanation left was that she was the cause of the banned substance found in her system - nothing else was available. Your whining about "intent" is all based on the fact the onus fell on her to rebut a presumption that was the most likely - i.e. probable - explanation for a banned drug being in her body.

But in the end, this is all semantic drivel you are arguing. She's a convicted athlete who has served a 4 year ban. Whether you think she intended to take the nandrolone is completely irrelevant. CAS said she did - so you can go cry in the corner.

"related to" looks like new weasel words.

So your response to "no one made the more likely than not case for intent" is that it was Houlihan who made the more likely than not case for intent, as a consequence of the law of "false choice fallacy"?

And once again, you concede intent was not established, but a presumption to be rebutted -- essentially making my whole point. And now you are effectively making the point that the AIU/WA/"WADA Lab"/"expert witnessses" provided no facts or evidence "related to" intent to the CAS. Only Houlihan did.

Even then you have it backwards. At best, Houlihan's evidence "relates to" non-intent. It is you who wants it both ways, wanting to draw a conclusion in the opposite direction of the evidence.

The reason I say "no proof of intent", is not based on subjective opinions, themselves based on presumptions and assumptions and incomplete facts, but that WA/AIU/"WADA Lab"/"expert witnsesses" simply provided no facts or evidence of intent for the CAS to consider. You seem to agree, as you can point to no such facts or evidence.

Failing to establish non-intent still leaves both possibilities open: that it was either intentional, or not intentional. This was only resolved in a weak way, by rules drafted by anti-doping lawyers that permit presuming intent without any specific facts or evidence.

She was convicted -- based on presumptions and policies and burdens that can railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans for the actions of others unknown to the athlete.