How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

I answered twice -- I am none of these things. You can bet what you want, but it confirms to me that you are in the category of persons who wants to believe things you have no knowledge of.

I am not even defending Shelby per se, but questioning a process that Tygart describes can railroad athletes who have done nothing wrong to 4 year bans, much of which seems to be based on both bad science and bad law.

I don't know why you focus on me -- it takes two to tango, and I am not responding to myself. Why is it so important for everyone to pretend that presumptions are findings of facts, and remain virtually uninformed about the process?

See how you pompous you are. I give an opinion that given how obsessed you are with Houlihan's case, you may have personal or professional involvement with her, and you tell me that "I'm in a category of persons who wants to believe things you have no knowledge of." Lol. Apparently you can't even recognize your obsession with this.

To one of my original points, why don't you then collaborate with Tygart on this? (explain to him how passionate you are by showing him this thread & all your dozens of posts). If you contend that your not defending "Houlihan per se" but questioning a process that Tygart sees problems with, then why not direct your emotions & passions toward getting the system changed? You could get signatures from other athletes & start a petition. You could use social media as platform to pursue your cause. Again - reach out to Tygart & try to do something about it. Going around in circles her in an ad nuseam debate isn't going to change anything.

Otherwise, if you're not personally or professional involved with Houlihan, and you're not willing to collaborate with Tygart, then you're simply grandstanding & trying to show your self-perceived superior intellect that you're always right on every doping matter & people who disagree are always wrong. And you're demeaning to other posters - you feel the need to correct some poster's grammar with your use of "[sic]" a lot of times (that's so ridiculous on an informal discussion forum. Lol). And always quick to point out how inferior some of us are who disagree with you.

I think you're just an insecure person using these threads to grandstand & show what you believe to be your super Intellect. But hey if that's how you cope with your insecurities, then so be it.

since this thread keeps getting thrust back to the top of the boards, if there is any media out there, I beg you to ask her a real question or two upon your return. Choose from the following:

1. the CAS Report as well as Ross Tucker have concluded that your isotope signature line up with 19-NOR-Andro, and that it was not a "trace" amount as you say Have you heard of 19-NOR-Andro before? (she's going to say she hasn't but it'll be a good body language test).

2. What do you have to say to your competitors who are uncomfortable racing you or feel it is unfair because they don't believe you?

3. You say that one way you want to make a change in the system is that the burden of proving intent should be on the AIU in cases with "trace" amounts. But how would the AIU be able to prove intent in any circumstance? And wouldn't that make microdoping easier to get away with?

4. what specifically, did you use the funds you raised through your Gofundme for?

5. How come you won't make public your test results? Will you in the future?

1-no

2-Shelby has been tested more than they have. Toughen up.

3-Let them figure it out.

4-Luving expenses. All money is green. The money isn't separate.

5-Will you make your sex life public? How about tax returns?

3. its always "trace amounts". If it seems comparably low, like, "That won't even help" low, what was it a few days ago? 1 week ago? The doper might have been peaking a few days earlier, it's only a low-ish number because it it wasn't taken last night.

Still can't catch up. They only determined something because she couldn't produce an acceptable alternative explanation. Logic - which you don't understand - required then that she was the only source, because she failed to establish any other likely cause - and there had to be a cause. Bad luck, Shelby.

I ignore your completely irrelevant drivel and get to the actual point. Wasted on you, of course.

If it wasn't accidental contamination how would testing even "small amounts" (it wasn't) not be an intentional act. What else does she put in her mouth without realising it? The mind boggles.

Said of so many cheats and criminals. "They would never do it!"

Pompous? That sounds like a big word. Are you trying to deal with your own feelings of inferiority?

So you want to give your opinion ask me lots of irrelevant personal questions. My turn.

Why is it important for you to assume and decide this must be personal for me? Are you projecting your own mindset onto me to help you make sense of something you can't otherwise comprehend? How does settling this question about an anonymous forum poster in your mind change any of the real world facts and assumptions surrounding this case?

It's the third time you ask me the same irrelevant questions -- what do you recommend is the non-pompous response? I already politely said "no" the first two times. If you are entitled to express your opinion, so am I.

Why do you focus on me, for my giving my opinion? Why does my opinion trigger so many others? The hate for Shelby seems to be a nationwide obsession, disproportionate for a verdict explicitly based on a presumption. I generally post to point out flaws and faith and fallacy and to provide supplementary facts, whereever it exists, whether the subject is moon landings, or flat-earth, or vaccines, or convictions based on presumptions, assumptions, and fallacies. Shelby seems to gain the most traction among and trigger a small band of posters who apparently don't know what "presumption" means, and don't understand the potential for injustice under "strict liability" and "guilty until proven innocent" policies. Not too long ago, during the Russian-IAAF scandal, people asked if me I was related to Paula. Why is personal relation the goto presumption? I also speak on behalf of East Africans and their world-wide domination since the 1980s, long before EPO -- do you think I'm related to them too?

Bad science and bad law and false convictions and an uninformed fan base who prefer to believe in conspiracies can only hurt the sport.

I've seen a lot of counterclaims that it wasn't "trace amounts", but I haven't ever seen the original claim coming from Shelby.

WADA calls Shelby's amount "usual" and "in the low range", in their nandrolone guidance to the WADA Labs. It seems trivial to quibble over whether "trace amount" can not apply to something "usually in the low ng/ml range (less than 10 ng/ml)", and she should have said "low amount".

I am already at the finish line. To the extent you contradict the CAS's clear explanation, I have to agree with the CAS, who explicitly said they presumed and then deemed intent.

Logic doesn't say that an inability to establish the source means it must be intentional. This requires bypassing logic with a big leap of faith enabling jumping to the conclusion.

It seems you ignore many things, and fall back on your inaccurate imagination of what must have happened, despite the CAS clearly explaining otherwise. Ignoring too many things only makes you ignorant.

Ross Tucker, who is more informed than you, said "Houlihan’s more important claim is this: according to the 2021 TD, the lab did not have enough information to issue an Adverse Analytical Finding". The less important claim, which gets the most focus, is the finding of intent only made possible by deeming the presumption of intent.

It is more important, because if the AAF was improperly reported, through a deviation from WADA's guidelines, the remaining process is improper. There would be no charge of an ADRV, no need to ask for Houlihan's explanation, and no need to involve the CAS.

The higher burden of properly establishing the AAF in the first place is on WA/AIU, not Houlihan.

This is not a conspiracy theory, as one of the CAS Panelists was persuaded that the WADA Lab deviated from its guidelines, when it reported the AAF.

1. Did Shelby ever say "trace"? WADA says anything less than 10 ng/ml is "usual" and "in the low range".

2. Is this hypothetical? Are any competitors uncomfortable? Do they feel it is unfair? Do they not believe her? I haven't seen any competitors' comments. Reporters should ask the competitors to speak their mind -- maybe athletes don't because they realize this could happen to them.

3. The need for expressly establishing "intent" was newly introduced in 2015, and seems ill-informed and ill-intentioned. WADA knew that "intent" was hard to prove, and they knew that proving the source of substances was also difficult to prove. Why was it so important to shift this known difficult burden from the anti-doping organizations onto the athlete, after hearing feedback from a judge that "such a proof is difficult to provide" and cautioned that "an impossible proof either leads to a reversal of the burden of proof or to the irrefutable assumption of an anti-doping rule violation"?

4. Legal and scientific expenses including appeals to the Swiss Court?

5. HIPPA?

The source was established. It was her. Nothing else was accepted as the cause of the presence of a banned substance in her system because she couldn't show it wasn't her. So she was banned. You aren't at the finish line. You haven't even made the start.

The weight of the evidence was against Houlihan - including her own, which was not accepted by a court. You are obsessed with arguing what the Court rejected, that does not meet the test of the balance of probabilities, and that you cannot prove. There is nothing "scientific" in that approach, it does nothing to aid the integrity of the sport, and shows only that you are afflicted by a diagnosable disorder.

Good point. The population is 8 billion so let's assume that close to 90% are honest people. That means when 7 billion people tell you that they don't cheat or lie, they are being honest. Using your logic, she is almost Definitely clean.

You cannot establish one alternative by rejecting another. Even if we rejected the nandrolone from pork explanation, there is no reason to prefer the alternative of intentional doping with a nor-steroid precursor, over unintentional doping by contamination of supplements (Tygart's preferred hypothesis).

But let's suppose it was established that Houlihan was in fact the source of the nandrolone. Since the athlete herself is the source, it must be endogenous, by the very definition of endogenous. And according to the Code, it follows that since she succeeded in establishing the source as herself, she must also have established non-intent.

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I still have to agree with how the CAS explained they arrived at their decision -- by presuming and then deeming intent, with no discussion of establishing a most likely source.