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

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Garbage. I come back to the CAS verdict because you continually misrepresent what it means.

If Houlihan had supplied the burrito as evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion. The odds are it almost certainly would have confirmed what the experts said - a "near zero" likelihood of contamination. But you will always go with what is least possible over what is probable; CAS - and any other rational mind - doesn't.

If your goalpost is evidence, the only evidence confirming anything is the failed drug test. Only a drug cheat or an apologist says it isn't. Your "what ifs" are mere speculation. Facts always beat speculation.

For the last time, Houlihan is not Getzman. With two different individuals the facts can never be the same. That one athlete has doped or not has nothing to do with any other case. Getzmam obtained evidence that exonerated him - she didn't - and there is nothing to suggest from his case that she could have.

So Tygart has a law background - so do I. But you agree with him solely because it suits you. And you have no legal training that would enable you to judge who is correct. Tygart's views remain his own; he hasn't convinced the anti-doping authorities - who know as much if not more than he does. I go with WADA. It's an easy call, as you say.

Rather than repeatedly wasting your words barking up the wrong goalpost, why not simply respond to the many requests for evidence for your own claims that cannot be found in the verdict? If you truly had a law background, and such evidence truly existed, that should be straightforward. Without such evidence, I will simply apply your own standard, and rightfully ignore them as pure fantasy.

Regarding the evidence of a positive result, according to the WADA guidelines on nandrolone, the evidence of a positive result can indicate doping (AAF), or not (ATF).

Regarding Getzmann, I can only hope it's the last time. Indeed, Houlihan is not Getzmann. Yet without the unconsumed painkiller, Getzmann would be on the same train as Houlihan, subject to the same "near zero" argument from "experts", and the subject of ridicule from "fans" in handball forums, like "handballlivs". They would be co-passengers on the same train to a 4-year ban. The difference between Getzmann and Houlihan is a non-negligible degree of luck. This is not a proper basis for justice.

I agree with Tygart, because he cares about the injustice of innocent athletes being railroaded to 4-year bans through no fault of their own. "Strict liability" hurts innocent athletes, and that hurts the sport, not to mention contradicts the mission of WADA. Getzmann was harmed (1+ year suspension, 10,000+ Euros out of pocket, and still guilty under the WADA Code). Jarrion Lawson was harmed (1 year ban and still guilty under the WADA Code). Ajee Wilson was harmed (national record stripped, and still guilty under the WADA Code). These are not what-ifs, but realities.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Rather than repeatedly wasting your words barking up the wrong goalpost, why not simply respond to the many requests for evidence for your own claims that cannot be found in the verdict? If you truly had a law background, and such evidence truly existed, that should be straightforward. Without such evidence, I will simply apply your own standard, and rightfully ignore them as pure fantasy.

Regarding the evidence of a positive result, according to the WADA guidelines on nandrolone, the evidence of a positive result can indicate doping (AAF), or not (ATF).

Regarding Getzmann, I can only hope it's the last time. Indeed, Houlihan is not Getzmann. Yet without the unconsumed painkiller, Getzmann would be on the same train as Houlihan, subject to the same "near zero" argument from "experts", and the subject of ridicule from "fans" in handball forums, like "handballlivs". They would be co-passengers on the same train to a 4-year ban. The difference between Getzmann and Houlihan is a non-negligible degree of luck. This is not a proper basis for justice.

I agree with Tygart, because he cares about the injustice of innocent athletes being railroaded to 4-year bans through no fault of their own. "Strict liability" hurts innocent athletes, and that hurts the sport, not to mention contradicts the mission of WADA. Getzmann was harmed (1+ year suspension, 10,000+ Euros out of pocket, and still guilty under the WADA Code). Jarrion Lawson was harmed (1 year ban and still guilty under the WADA Code). Ajee Wilson was harmed (national record stripped, and still guilty under the WADA Code). These are not what-ifs, but realities.

Under the anti-doping rules a positive test is ALWAYS evidence of doping, subject to any further evidence that is accepted as a defence against the breach.

Strict liability requires evidence to establish a breach; what it does not require is evidence of intent. That does not preclude a finding of intent on the evidence available. A banned drug in an athlete's body can create a presumption of intent, as it did in Houlihan's case. It is analogous to embezzled funds appearing in your bank account; if you were the only person with access to your account, it can be presumed you put those funds there - unless you can show that someone else did. Under the analogy, she couldn't.

You may complain that strict liability may sometimes penalise athletes who are innocent, like Getzmann, but such cases - since we know them by name - are incredibly rare, whereas virtually every doper would escape sanction if WADA had to prove intent. I know which is the lesser of two evils - that an occasional mistake is made or that athletes can dope with impunity.

But Houlihan is no Getzmann. She's a Kiprop or a Ramzi, or another Ben Johnson. It isn't luck that is the difference between Getzmann and Houlihan, it is evidence. The difference in outcome between them is therefore the right result.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Rather than repeatedly wasting your words barking up the wrong goalpost, why not simply respond to the many requests for evidence for your own claims that cannot be found in the verdict? If you truly had a law background, and such evidence truly existed, that should be straightforward. Without such evidence, I will simply apply your own standard, and rightfully ignore them as pure fantasy.

Regarding the evidence of a positive result, according to the WADA guidelines on nandrolone, the evidence of a positive result can indicate doping (AAF), or not (ATF).

Regarding Getzmann, I can only hope it's the last time. Indeed, Houlihan is not Getzmann. Yet without the unconsumed painkiller, Getzmann would be on the same train as Houlihan, subject to the same "near zero" argument from "experts", and the subject of ridicule from "fans" in handball forums, like "handballlivs". They would be co-passengers on the same train to a 4-year ban. The difference between Getzmann and Houlihan is a non-negligible degree of luck. This is not a proper basis for justice.

I agree with Tygart, because he cares about the injustice of innocent athletes being railroaded to 4-year bans through no fault of their own. "Strict liability" hurts innocent athletes, and that hurts the sport, not to mention contradicts the mission of WADA. Getzmann was harmed (1+ year suspension, 10,000+ Euros out of pocket, and still guilty under the WADA Code). Jarrion Lawson was harmed (1 year ban and still guilty under the WADA Code). Ajee Wilson was harmed (national record stripped, and still guilty under the WADA Code). These are not what-ifs, but realities.

Under the anti-doping rules a positive test is ALWAYS evidence of doping, subject to any further evidence that is accepted as a defence against the breach.

Strict liability requires evidence to establish a breach; what it does not require is evidence of intent. That does not preclude a finding of intent on the evidence available. A banned drug in an athlete's body can create a presumption of intent, as it did in Houlihan's case. It is analogous to embezzled funds appearing in your bank account; if you were the only person with access to your account, it can be presumed you put those funds there - unless you can show that someone else did. Under the analogy, she couldn't.

You may complain that strict liability may sometimes penalise athletes who are innocent, like Getzmann, but such cases - since we know them by name - are incredibly rare, whereas virtually every doper would escape sanction if WADA had to prove intent. I know which is the lesser of two evils - that an occasional mistake is made or that athletes can dope with impunity.

But Houlihan is no Getzmann. She's a Kiprop or a Ramzi, or another Ben Johnson. It isn't luck that is the difference between Getzmann and Houlihan, it is evidence. The difference in outcome between them is therefore the right result.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Under the anti-doping rules a positive test is ALWAYS evidence of doping, subject to any further evidence that is accepted as a defence against the breach.

Strict liability requires evidence to establish a breach; what it does not require is evidence of intent. That does not preclude a finding of intent on the evidence available. A banned drug in an athlete's body can create a presumption of intent, as it did in Houlihan's case. It is analogous to embezzled funds appearing in your bank account; if you were the only person with access to your account, it can be presumed you put those funds there - unless you can show that someone else did. Under the analogy, she couldn't.

You may complain that strict liability may sometimes penalise athletes who are innocent, like Getzmann, but such cases - since we know them by name - are incredibly rare, whereas virtually every doper would escape sanction if WADA had to prove intent. I know which is the lesser of two evils - that an occasional mistake is made or that athletes can dope with impunity.

But Houlihan is no Getzmann. She's a Kiprop or a Ramzi, or another Ben Johnson. It isn't luck that is the difference between Getzmann and Houlihan, it is evidence. The difference in outcome between them is therefore the right result.

I see once again, the appeal for real evidence goes ignored, in favor of more fantasy explanations. Just a reminder that the evidence here is a one-time ingestion of a small quantity of nandrolone, most of which never entered the bloodstream due to firstpass, in Dec. 2020 with no competitions. Every conclusion beyond that is without evidence and therefore fantasy.

But it's posts like this that are demonstrably false that make me question your competence in any domain, despite your self-proclaimed background. (Here's a quiz: can you remember person, woman, man, camera, TV?)

According to the applicable WADA guideline on nandrolone, once there is a positive test for nandrolone, in the low ng/ml range, there are four possible paths:

- the lab reports it as a "Negative Finding" -- no case

- the lab reports it as an "Atypical Finding (ATF)" -- no ADRV, but need to collect more data

- the lab reports it as an "Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)", and the athlete can prove non-negligence or non-intent, and gets a reduced or waived sanction

- the lab reports it as an "Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)", and the athlete cannot prove non-negligence or non-intent, and gets anywhere from 3 years (for not contesting) to life (repeat ADRV)

The question I raised is whether the results from an analysis that may not be used can be considered conclusive.

Your embezzled funds analogy fails here, as 1) the bank also has access to your account, and 2) there would be evidence of the "source" transaction that caused the funds to appear.

A better analogy is giving jay-walkers the death penalty without chance of appeal, if they cannot prove they crossed at the cross-walk on a green light after being found on the other side of the street.

How can you say "incredibly rare" (do you have evidence of false conviction rates or is it your pure fantasy?) when Tygart reported 27 cases (this is what evidence looks like) in the USA alone since 2015? What is incredibly rare is that we would know the names, as there are many "what-ifs" where we don't know the details, because athletes didn't contest it (too poor to come up with 5-figures), or their federation didn't publish the details, like the AIU and the CAS do. It's analogous to WADA finding 1-2% positive, while but believing doping prevalence is 30-50%. There are a lot of what-ifs that require fantasy.

Why would you say "virtually every doper would escape sanction"? Here I only talk about the fraction of cases involving small amounts of a banned substance consistent with something everyone must do several times a day -- eating meals. You also ignore that proven innocent Getzmann was still penalized with a 1-year suspension, and is out more than 10,000 Euros, and the verdict is still guilty.

In first world countries that aspire for justice, we value protecting the innocent even if it means letting some guilty ones go free. It is far far worse to punish athletes guilty of non-intentional ingestion without their knowledge, treating them like intentional cheats with a 4-year ban, than to not punish athletes intentionally ingesting small amounts of an exogenous substance -- small amounts not considered or proven to be beneficial -- where most of it gets filtered out on first pass, never making it into the bloodstream.

You illustrate precisely the problem with the whole adjudication process permitted by WADA Code not requiring evidence of intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge. Is Houlihan like Getzmann without the luck, or is she like Ramzi or Ben Johnson or Lance Armstrong or CJ Hunter? Since the WADA Code doesn't require evidence, there is no way to determine, as such findings not based on evidence are pure fantasy.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I see once again, the appeal for real evidence goes ignored, in favor of more fantasy explanations. Just a reminder that the evidence here is a one-time ingestion of a small quantity of nandrolone, most of which never entered the bloodstream due to firstpass, in Dec. 2020 with no competitions. Every conclusion beyond that is without evidence and therefore fantasy.

But it's posts like this that are demonstrably false that make me question your competence in any domain, despite your self-proclaimed background. (Here's a quiz: can you remember person, woman, man, camera, TV?)

According to the applicable WADA guideline on nandrolone, once there is a positive test for nandrolone, in the low ng/ml range, there are four possible paths:

- the lab reports it as a "Negative Finding" -- no case

- the lab reports it as an "Atypical Finding (ATF)" -- no ADRV, but need to collect more data

- the lab reports it as an "Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)", and the athlete can prove non-negligence or non-intent, and gets a reduced or waived sanction

- the lab reports it as an "Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)", and the athlete cannot prove non-negligence or non-intent, and gets anywhere from 3 years (for not contesting) to life (repeat ADRV)

The question I raised is whether the results from an analysis that may not be used can be considered conclusive.

Your embezzled funds analogy fails here, as 1) the bank also has access to your account, and 2) there would be evidence of the "source" transaction that caused the funds to appear.

A better analogy is giving jay-walkers the death penalty without chance of appeal, if they cannot prove they crossed at the cross-walk on a green light after being found on the other side of the street.

How can you say "incredibly rare" (do you have evidence of false conviction rates or is it your pure fantasy?) when Tygart reported 27 cases (this is what evidence looks like) in the USA alone since 2015? What is incredibly rare is that we would know the names, as there are many "what-ifs" where we don't know the details, because athletes didn't contest it (too poor to come up with 5-figures), or their federation didn't publish the details, like the AIU and the CAS do. It's analogous to WADA finding 1-2% positive, while but believing doping prevalence is 30-50%. There are a lot of what-ifs that require fantasy.

Why would you say "virtually every doper would escape sanction"? Here I only talk about the fraction of cases involving small amounts of a banned substance consistent with something everyone must do several times a day -- eating meals. You also ignore that proven innocent Getzmann was still penalized with a 1-year suspension, and is out more than 10,000 Euros, and the verdict is still guilty.

In first world countries that aspire for justice, we value protecting the innocent even if it means letting some guilty ones go free. It is far far worse to punish athletes guilty of non-intentional ingestion without their knowledge, treating them like intentional cheats with a 4-year ban, than to not punish athletes intentionally ingesting small amounts of an exogenous substance -- small amounts not considered or proven to be beneficial -- where most of it gets filtered out on first pass, never making it into the bloodstream.

You illustrate precisely the problem with the whole adjudication process permitted by WADA Code not requiring evidence of intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge. Is Houlihan like Getzmann without the luck, or is she like Ramzi or Ben Johnson or Lance Armstrong or CJ Hunter? Since the WADA Code doesn't require evidence, there is no way to determine, as such findings not based on evidence are pure fantasy.

A post like that is definitely evidence of drugs - hallucinogenic drugs.

It is utterly irrelevant whether the drug is found in her bloodstream or in her urine: it is evidence of doping, either way. It shows as ever that your determination to see what isn't there - evidence of her innocence - blinds you to the evidence that does exist and resulted in her conviction, the presence of a banned drug in her body that could not be explained away. Without that evidence a conviction could not have been sustained against her. The further absence of evidence (hers) showing accidental cause resulted in a finding of intent. An intelligent child might understand that. Alas, it remains beyond you.

Your failure to grasp the embezzlement analogy does not surprise. It shows only your simple-minded literalism. The analogy says that there are funds in your account that are not legitimately yours that you cannot account for, that have no legitimate source - in the same way Shelby failed to account for the presence of a banned drug in her system. It was not an invitation to discuss the details of banking law.

What you also are unable to acknowledge is that the bar for Shelby to be exonerated was not set very high. All she had to demonstrate was a reasonable possiblity of accidental contamination. She couldn't even do that. But there isn't a doper that you won't die in a ditch for.