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

My argument is that I don't create these fictional possibilities, but rather it's a frequent by-product of a WADA Code tweaked to make prosecutions easier for anti-doping bodies.

It's the WADA Code that allows prosecuting these cases without the need to gather enough evidence to differentiate genuine intentional doping for performance benefit, from accidental, unknowing rule violations.

I guess this illustrates you can argue what you want when you make up what words mean.

In the dictionary, cheating is to "act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage."

Neither the AIU nor the CAS, established "act dishonestly", "act unfairly", or "in order to gain an advantage".

Re-reading what you wrote:

"the evidence was conclusive in the context of the WADA code which is what all athletes sign up for and need to abide by. the people who matter (not you, sorry) found it to be so."

cheating is not within the "context of WADA" so wasn't "found to be so" by "the people who matter (not you, sorry)".

If she ingested it without her knowledge that is the same as that someone or something else was responsible. She tried to argue that and failed. So it was her. There was no alternative.

What does “ So it was her” mean?

You 3 are amazing.

I have just read that one of the CAS panel has broken cover and said that “ She was clearly innocent but we were told we had to find her guilty”

You will have to be bothered to do your own reading as I am not going to help as I may have misquoted or made it up and I don’t want to be exposed.But the burden is on you to prove that this event did not take place.

Is English not your first language? It meant she was the author of her own offence.

No, it isn't. It is your usual bullsh*t until it's reported and acknowledged to be accurate. Nothing you say is.

Without evidence, everything you say is pure fantasy, according to your own standard.

Whether it was someone else, or it was her, doesn't establish her knowledge.

Here's another possibility you have ignored: the likelihood of proving "not intentional", one month after the primary evidence is gone, is low, particularly when the source was not established, as the CAS ruled. This can be easily seen from other cases, like the innocent athlete Simon Getzmann, who would have boarded the same train to a 4-year ban, but for the luck of having one last pain-killer to test, and a father who could pay for testing while he was unemployed.

If Houlihan still doesn't know the source today, still speculating that "it could have been someone around me", then it follows that she would be unlikely able to prove "not intentional" (WADA says it would be "highly unlikely" to establish "not intentional" without first establishing the source), and this is consistent with her ingesting it without her knowledge, or someone giving it to her to ingest, without her knowledge.

This possibility is effectively undisputed by all parties, because no one has even tried.

Regarding other alternatives, similarly no one else has even tried, let alone tried and failed.

Lacking evidence, by your standard, you should categorize every alternative as pure fantasy.

You have to prove it is false; that has been the burden you place on others when you put stuff in quotes and won’t support it.

And am I wrong when I explain what the burdens of proof are or to correct you when you said; persistently; that the bladder is part of the digestive system.

Ah; back to intent!

So your logic says as if you can’t account for possession you must be guilty of a deliberate action. Why do you think that you are better than the anti doping world?

You might actually be a worse liar than rekrunner.

I would be very bad at lying.

Yes, you are bad at it. Nothing you say is believable.

You can spend another 1000 hours pretending to be an expert on the WADA/AIU/CAS code and logic/reasoning. No one is listening.

Shelby is a drug cheat.

You are not only one of the worst liars who comes to this site, you are also a virtuoso of stupidity. No one achieves that on the scale at which you practice it. You have made a monument out of coming to erroneous conclusions on an elaborate artifice of falsehoods.

That Houlihan says she doesn't know where the nandrolone came from amounts to nothing. It is a mere denial of guilt with no facts to support it. You can base no argument on it. She claimed that the nandrolone was the result of consuming contaminated food; the argument failed because the evidence did not favour her argument; it lacked a convincing factual basis. She had no other explanation (until now, when she suggests possible sabotage - another argument with no facts to support it). Thus, the arguments for her innocence were and are devoid of substance. Your speculations add nothing - they are empty "what ifs".

As against that, the presence of a banned drug in her body was undeniable. That is irrefutable evidence of guilt. It also has a factual basis - unlike her defence. The nandrolone could not have simply materialised in her body; it had to be put there, whether by accident or intention. Questions of fact - as these are - depend on evidence to resolve them; there was NO evidence that unequivocally demonstrated what she claimed. It was mere speculation. The factually necessary conclusion on the balance of probabilities is that she was therefore the only cause of the nandrolone in her body. Hence, CAS determined she failed to rebut the presumption she had intentionally doped. That presumption is sustained by the elimination of her claimed alternative explanation.

As for Getzman - so what? It is an entirely different case; nothing in it is persuasive of Houlihan's innocence. It is also the only case in thousands where you can point to a decision being overturned - but it had to be so on further evidence. Houlihan can't produce that evidence, so she isn't Getzman.

These points have been endlessly explained to you but you cannot get past your obsession with excusing convicted dopers and denying the realities of the practice. The result is that you have consigned yourself to an asylum where you alone think you are the voice of reason. Your reason left you a long time ago.

The anti-doping world doesn't have to prove intent. But it lays the blame at the feet of the athlete when the athlete cannot show they weren't responsible for their being doped. If an accidental or otherwise external cause isn't accepted that necessarily only leaves the athlete as the cause. That cause will be either intent or negligence. But while neither has to be proven, fault is a necessary inference from the facts in the absence of a legitimate explanation. That is why a positive test without acceptable excuse results in a conviction and a ban.

Once more you are guilty of asylum levels of tautological illogicalities.

But then you have never once made any reference to the Wada Code.

Perhaps you would like to explain how nandrolone from an alleged contaminated burrito came to be found in her urine. She ate the burrito - digested it even, did she not?