"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."
There are those on this board and on this thread who simply cannot accept that.
I have told you dozens of time that I accept she was guilty but not of cheating.
Wada and CAS have agreed that such is the outcome of the way the rules are constructed.
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.
No one claims she is guilty of a criminal infraction. Doping is not a crime. But "guilt" is used here in the sense she was found to have been in violation of anti-doping rules. It was also deemed intentional, and therefore not accidental.
Read the rules esp Rule 10 and them apologise.
And then check out what deemed means esp in the context of the rules.
Why do you invent that I said a criminal infraction when I explicitly said the opposite.
That which is based on verifiable factual evidence, as the case was, and according to explicit criteria or tests is not subjective. It is the opposite.
You would never grasp a tautology even if you tripped over one every day.
You yet again confuse the evidence with the decision by mixing up finding with decision.
School child mistake but one you still fail to grasp.
It's quite simple but a determination of guilt or innocence is based on findings of fact, according to the evidence. The evidence against Houlihan included a positive test for a banned substance for which no justifiable explanation was accepted, through lack of supportive evidence and argument. Those were findings that confirmed what was deemed an intentional breach of the anti-doping rules, which resulted in the decision to ban her for 4 years. You're welcome.
No one claims she is guilty of a criminal infraction. Doping is not a crime. But "guilt" is used here in the sense she was found to have been in violation of anti-doping rules. It was also deemed intentional, and therefore not accidental.
Read the rules esp Rule 10 and them apologise.
And then check out what deemed means esp in the context of the rules.
Why do you invent that I said a criminal infraction when I explicitly said the opposite.
Because you keep insisting that cases like these should be based on the criminal standard of proof, which is "beyond reasonable doubt". It is "the balance of probabilities".
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.
Interesting post...
Good for you to realize your prejudgements and bias instead of applying science, data, and analytical thinking. The same methods should apply whether the athlete is an upper-middle class American white girl like Houlihan, or whether we are talking about the 50 impoverished Kenyans sanctioned for nandrolone between 2004 and 2018.
The questions surrounding Prof. Ayotte are not emotional or evil, but related to the published data in her peer-reviewed work (i.e. as much as 130 ng/ml and -23.6 per mille) versus what she represented to the CAS Panel was her experience (2.5 ng/ml is a max in the literature, and -18-21.5 per mille).
There are similar factual questions with Prof. McGlone's testimony, and how, despite conceding things were different during the pandemic, still arguing that nothing statistically changed.
In a criminal court, the AIU would have to gather much more "real" evidence specific to Houlihan to get a conviction. The burden on the AIU would not be so lax as permitted by WADA, especially after 2015 changes to the Code. In a real criminal court, the AIU would actually have to prove two points 1) that a crime actually occurred, and 2) that it was intentional.
The main issue that Houlihan faced is the same for all cases of potential accidental ingestion: the fairness of any athlete being required to establish the source of a banned substance and proving the nature of ingredients ingested more than one month in the past, without a sample to test. Athletes are expected to train and race, and should not have to become experts in the history of meat, supplement, or pharmaceutical industries, as to how these things are manufactured, produced, processed and distributed in their country.
The CAS conversation started there -- it was 44 pages, and virtually none of that conversation was about a beef burrito, nor did it establish that she actually ate a beef burrito.
You are missing the real point. The CAS report falls far short of establishing that Shelby actually doped, as understood in the real world. This is because the source of the nandrolone was not established.
On the contrary. "In the real world" she is a convicted doper.
No -- we can only say this in the artificial context of the WADA Code.
And then check out what deemed means esp in the context of the rules.
Why do you invent that I said a criminal infraction when I explicitly said the opposite.
Because you keep insisting that cases like these should be based on the criminal standard of proof, which is "beyond reasonable doubt". It is "the balance of probabilities".
To be precise: CAS banned her for two intentional antidoping rule violations after she tested positive for nandro, namely 2.1 ("Presence of a Prohibited Substance...") and 2.2. ("Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance"). Most people would call that doping.
Wada did not publicly comment on Houlihan. But the Wada rules say breaking 2.1 or 2.2 etc. amounts to doping:
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.
Tucker said:
With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion.” Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty. There is much unknowable in between, but the contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.
So, guilty in a doping case. Sounds like doping to me.
To be precise: CAS banned her for two intentional antidoping rule violations after she tested positive for nandro, namely 2.1 ("Presence of a Prohibited Substance...") and 2.2. ("Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance"). Most people would call that doping.
Wada did not publicly comment on Houlihan. But the Wada rules say breaking 2.1 or 2.2 etc. amounts to doping:
ARTICLE 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.11 of the Code.
Tucker said:
With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion.” Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty. There is much unknowable in between, but the contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.
So, guilty in a doping case. Sounds like doping to me.
But doping according to the real world is not what you would seek to suggest is what Wada implies.
You would not say a whereabouts failure is doping.
"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."
There are those on this board and on this thread who simply cannot accept that.
Exactly.
She's a straight up piece of garbage at this point.
"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."
There are those on this board and on this thread who simply cannot accept that.
Exactly.
She's a straight up piece of garbage at this point.
Appalling judgement on someone found guilty of a strict liability offence based on not being able to account for what she ate or was administered a month earlier.
But doping according to the real world is not what you would seek to suggest is what Wada implies.
You would not say a whereabouts failure is doping.
I don't "seek to suggest"; I simply reminded you of Wada's definition of doping, with a direct quotation from their code, so that you will stop making remarks like this one: "Even Wada avoids such words."
Yes, most people would not count a whereabouts failure as doping, but Wada evidently does.
Most people would however count violating 2.1 ("Presence of a Prohibited Substance...") and 2.2 ("Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance") as doping (after someone tested positive for anabolic steroids!). What is your definition of doping?
She's a straight up piece of garbage at this point.
Appalling judgement on someone found guilty of a strict liability offence based on not being able to account for what she ate or was administered a month earlier.
LOL - she claims to have eaten some cake (no nandro) and a burrito (CAS: improbable to have nandro, highly improbable to have elevated androgens, highly improbable to cause such high nandro levels, and not consistent with the measured CIR). Allegedly she wasn't administered anything, and there is also no nandro in calcium tablets.
Open and shut case. But I waste my time here again.
Appalling judgement on someone found guilty of a strict liability offence based on not being able to account for what she ate or was administered a month earlier.
LOL - she claims to have eaten some cake (no nandro) and a burrito (CAS: improbable to have nandro, highly improbable to have elevated androgens, highly improbable to cause such high nandro levels, and not consistent with the measured CIR). Allegedly she wasn't administered anything, and there is also no nandro in calcium tablets.
Open and shut case. But I waste my time here again.
I would have found her guilty of the offence but that does not justify the vile insult based on a strict liability.
I am appalled that you should identify with such a vile insult.