How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

think about it, 3.5 years have passed wrote:

Literally makes zero sense.

I don’t care how many apologists there are for WADA out there, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out WADA was wrong from the very beginning.

Nandrolone in a person’s body does not mean they were using it as a performance enhancing substance.

No one has proved that the nandrolone was there in her body for the sake of enhancing performance. So some arbitrary, United States hating committee decides they have jurisdiction to ban an American athlete. That doesn’t mean she cheated. It just means they made a choice to ban her because someone else would “gain from it.”

If you’re not a hobby jogger or lazy finger pointer stop talking trash about Shelby and move on with your life.

Alberto Salazar doped athletes. Jerry Schumacher did not and NO, Shelby wasn’t some rogue one off. Use common sense and see that WADA is not an unbiased organization…it has motives and interests, just like any other body.

Use a little imagination in how you see Shelby’s case and don’t just assume that she cheated because WADA told you that she did.

WADA 100% gets some cases wrong, just as it gets some right. In this case they were wrong, but they will never admit as much, just like all political organizations and major figures…blame someone else for your own error.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Which evidence of intent was against her? You never answered that question with something concrete, just fallacy.

The CAS said that the presumptions were against her, and decided a 4-year sanction based on the presumptions.

I'm not obsessed with arguing what the CAS rejected, but rather obsessed with what the WA/AIU/WADA Lab established before the CAS, and what they failed to establish, stripped of any adverse presumptions. No party established the source of the nandrolone, and no party established intent.

think about it, 3.5 years have passed wrote:

Literally makes zero sense.

I don’t care how many apologists there are for WADA out there, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out WADA was wrong from the very beginning.

Nandrolone in a person’s body does not mean they were using it as a performance enhancing substance.

No one has proved that the nandrolone was there in her body for the sake of enhancing performance. So some arbitrary, United States hating committee decides they have jurisdiction to ban an American athlete. That doesn’t mean she cheated. It just means they made a choice to ban her because someone else would “gain from it.”

If you’re not a hobby jogger or lazy finger pointer stop talking trash about Shelby and move on with your life.

Alberto Salazar doped athletes. Jerry Schumacher did not and NO, Shelby wasn’t some rogue one off. Use common sense and see that WADA is not an unbiased organization…it has motives and interests, just like any other body.

Use a little imagination in how you see Shelby’s case and don’t just assume that she cheated because WADA told you that she did.

WADA 100% gets some cases wrong, just as it gets some right. In this case they were wrong, but they will never admit as much, just like all political organizations and major figures…blame someone else for your own error.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

Which evidence of intent was against her? You never answered that question with something concrete, just fallacy.

The CAS said that the presumptions were against her, and decided a 4-year sanction based on the presumptions.

I'm not obsessed with arguing what the CAS rejected, but rather obsessed with what the WA/AIU/WADA Lab established before the CAS, and what they failed to establish, stripped of any adverse presumptions. No party established the source of the nandrolone, and no party established intent.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The evidence of intent was the presence of a banned drug in her system that she had ingested which she couldn't show was the result of accidental contamination. Consequently, ingestion being an intentional act this meant she intended to ingest the banned substance. Since accidental contamination was ruled out there was no alternative explanation for her testing positive. You can now go to your psychiatric appointment.

That is not evidence of an intentional rule violation.

By your logic, the failure to provide sufficient evidence for nandrolone ingestion by pork proves all alternatives simultaneously, i.e. unknown ingestion by contaminated supplements and vitamins, and sabotage, and any other potential scenarios.

Note that the suggested ingestion of a nor-steroid precursor was also not established on the balance of probabilites. By your logic, this failure to meet the balance of probabilities must prove non-intentional ingestion by pork.

In any case, the CAS never ruled out "accidental contamination". Balance of probabilities is less than or greater than 50%, and not exactly 0% or exactly 100%.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The balance of probabilities is not measured according to percentages. The criterion is what is "more probable than not", when all the relevant factors are taken into account. A "series of cascading improbabilities" indicates why CAS didn't buy her defence.

The ruling out of accidental contamination on the evidence does not prove the other alternatives that you suggest, because there was no evidence for them. What wasn't contested was that the banned substance was ingested - this is how it came to be found in her urine. With no evidence presented for any of the other possible causes it necessarily left that she intentionally ingested the drug i.e. she put it in her mouth knowing what she was doing, because the drug had to be ingested to be in her system. She produced no alternative explanation that was accepted for how it was ingested. For contaminated supplements or sabotage to be credible there would have to be evidence for such. She had none, so she didn't argue it. In the absence for evidence of such causes it must require the intentional ingestion of the drug. She had to put it in her mouth, and since it wasn't a burrito that contaminated her it had to be a nasty little pill.

You neither understand how the law works, how rules are interpreted judicially or even what the meaning of English language terms are. With your ridiculous obsession for proving what cannot be proven against everything to the contrary, you are the least equipped of anyone on this site to analyse these issues.