Sports Scientist Ross Tucker breaks downs the Shelby Houlihan case for us

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

And now we've come full circle and that only took two days.

The relevant question is not what she ordered, but what she actually ate.

I'm discussing the CAS panel finding that what she ate is possibly contrary to what she ordered (see paragraphs 99-101).

Note there is no receipt from Amazon for nandrolone products, so this is pure imagination.

Since you clearly don't understand how findings of fact are arrived at, what is considered merely "possible" has been negated - trumped - by the exercise of the balance of probabilities, which dismissed the excuse of food contamination. She couldn't produce evidence to support her claim - and neither can you. Your conjecture on this point is rendered irrelevant by the court's decision based on its findings. Despite what you continue to argue, there is no relevance to the question of what she ate because the Court did not accept the explanation of food contamination. As an unsubstantiated excuse, it remains in the realm of bullsh*t.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

And now we've come full circle and that only took two days.

The relevant question is not what she ordered, but what she actually ate.

I'm discussing the CAS panel finding that what she ate is possibly contrary to what she ordered (see paragraphs 99-101).

Note there is no receipt from Amazon for nandrolone products, so this is pure imagination.

Since you clearly don't understand how findings of fact are arrived at, what is considered merely "possible" has been negated - trumped - by the exercise of the balance of probabilities, which dismissed the excuse of food contamination. She couldn't produce evidence to support her claim - and neither can you. Your conjecture on this point is rendered irrelevant by the court's decision based on its findings. Despite what you continue to argue, there is no relevance to the question of what she ate because the Court did not accept the explanation of food contamination. As an unsubstantiated excuse, it remains in the realm of bullsh*t.

Melted ice cream physique wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The supporting evidence isn't anything Ross says but is the CAS decision, which is the finding that Houlihan doped. But keep believing the moon landings were faked in a warehouse in Arizona.

I’m no flatearther or anything but the moon landings did not happen. There are dozens of massive science problems with the official narrative and the video evidence, but here are three simple ones:
- so easy to get there that they manage to figure it out in less than 10 years starting in an era when people sent telegrams and before television, but no Earthling has managed it in the 50 years since? Imagine what technology was like in the 60s. The computing power of an iPhone would require at least a 1960s warehouse, if even possible. Yet they were playing golf and driving a dune buggy around up there. LOL
- NASA lost all original video from all moon landings. What?

- no engine exhaust mark on the surface of the moon under the lander. Try holding a hair drier overtop of a pile of sand. Now remember that the moon is covered in silt, basically powered. yet no displacement whatsoever. LOL

Any real engineer or physicist thinks the moon landings are are complete fiction… Stanley Kubrick’s best work… but very few are crusaders looking to expose this NASA lie … so they keep there mouth shut.

Using the moon landing as a universal truth to help prove your argument may need a rethink.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Melted ice cream physique wrote:

I’m no flatearther or anything but the moon landings did not happen. There are dozens of massive science problems with the official narrative and the video evidence, but here are three simple ones:
- so easy to get there that they manage to figure it out in less than 10 years starting in an era when people sent telegrams and before television, but no Earthling has managed it in the 50 years since? Imagine what technology was like in the 60s. The computing power of an iPhone would require at least a 1960s warehouse, if even possible. Yet they were playing golf and driving a dune buggy around up there. LOL
- NASA lost all original video from all moon landings. What?

- no engine exhaust mark on the surface of the moon under the lander. Try holding a hair drier overtop of a pile of sand. Now remember that the moon is covered in silt, basically powered. yet no displacement whatsoever. LOL

Any real engineer or physicist thinks the moon landings are are complete fiction… Stanley Kubrick’s best work… but very few are crusaders looking to expose this NASA lie … so they keep there mouth shut.

Using the moon landing as a universal truth to help prove your argument may need a rethink.

You are clearly at home here. You and rekrunner (and liar soorer under his multitude of pseudonyms) aren't by any chance related?

Fedupityy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Since you clearly don't understand how findings of fact are arrived at, what is considered merely "possible" has been negated - trumped - by the exercise of the balance of probabilities, which dismissed the excuse of food contamination. She couldn't produce evidence to support her claim - and neither can you. Your conjecture on this point is rendered irrelevant by the court's decision based on its findings. Despite what you continue to argue, there is no relevance to the question of what she ate because the Court did not accept the explanation of food contamination. As an unsubstantiated excuse, it remains in the realm of bullsh*t.

You continue to distort normal logic. It is a tautology to say the courts decision was based on the finding ; the courts decision was the finding.Or the findings was the decision.

The finding were the subjective assessment of the panel; you distort as if the findings were actual science.

Fedupityy wrote:

TrackCoach wrote:

Like most people on this board, I was initially a Houlihan supporter for the simple reason I didn't think she fit the profile of what 'I thought' a doper was. My thoughts were mostly rooted in my prejudgments and biased opinion as opposed to any science, data or objective analytical thinking. That's a mindset a lot of us locked ourselves into, but I broke out of it quicker than most once I started to get some information and opened myself up to the possibility and then the likelihood Houlihan was a doper. I caught quite a bit of flack when I came out against Houlihan because at the time the majority of this board was firmly in the Houlihan camp. The things that opened my eyes were precisely the things that caused me to close my eyes in the first place. Being an educated, upper middle-class American White girl who everyone liked and whose career we've followed does not mean you have earned a greater presumption of guilt or innocence over other athletes who are different in certain ways. The other thing that helped me think straight about this situation was the demonization of Prof Christiane Ayotte. This reminded me of the same thing that happened to Dr. Henry Lee, forensic scientist in the OJ Simpson trial and ore recently Dr. Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Advisor to the President. These are smart, highly credentialed, and esteemed individuals who were demonized by some mainly because they were less than perfect at some point in their career now, they are reaching a conclusion that does not fit with your 'opinion'.

With all of that said, I would prefer to see 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person get falsely convicted. That is the logic behind the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal trial. If Houlihan was put before a criminal trial jury, she would be found guilty. Humans have the innate ability to believe what they want to believe, that is why we have cults and all the crazy cultural and political nonsense that is currently dividing us in America. But the facts are the facts, and you don’t get to choose your facts. The facts are, there is overwhelming verifiable evidence of guilt and almost no verifiable evidence of innocence in the Houlihan case.

Yet again; there is no division in thinking between guilt of braking the rules and guilt of cheating.They are not automatically the same.

Would a criminal court found her guilty of cheating ie proved intent beyond reasonable doubt.I know this actually is not a criminal case but you brought the matter up in that context.