How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

What has liking anyone got to do with whether an athlete doped or not? Of course - if you like them they don't dope.

Because I'm a fan of drawing attention to the doping in the sport.

Nope. CAS has made it clear she took a banned substance. "Before" is long gone.

They actually said "she has failed to establish the source of the 19-NA detected in her urine sample". Care to try again?

If she was the source, then the nandrolone must be endogenous, and not doping.

Nope. The CAS did not conclude she took a banned substance. Care to try again?

If you would just finally read the CAS report, you wouldn't have to make these things up.

Ummm.... they banned her for doping with nandrolone, which is a banned substance, remember?

She failed to establish the source she claimed - which was accidental contamination. That left her as the source. By that it means she popped a nasty little pill into her lying mouth. (You know all about having a lying mouth). So the finding was of an intentional ADRV. I see again you can follow the facts or legal reasoning involved.

Yes, CAS did conclude that. That's why they convicted her of an "intentional ADRV". You show in these doping threads that you have amassed more lies than Trump.

This was based on presumptions, following the failure of Houlihan to persuade the panel that she established the source as most likely. At most, the taking of a banned substance was a suggestion from an "expert witness". There was no conclusion from the CAS that "she took a banned substance". The ingestion of endogenous nandrolone in USDA approved pork is not banned and would not be considered doping, and the CAS maintained that possibility throughout the report.

You are right to observe again that I "can follow the facts or legal reasoning involved".

Recall, you said "They didn't say she didn't "establish the source"", but you were wrong -- they explicitly said that.

The CAS did not view or express their decisions with weird terms like "accidental contamination" versus "her as the source". These are your own weird imaginary fabrications trying to make sense of concepts just beyond your grasp that don't conform with your preconceived notions.

Sources are tangible things like pork, or supplements, or nasty little pills. Leaving "her as the source" can only mean her body produced the nandrolone organically and endogenously -- which is not doping. Or alternatively, she intentionally ate a greasy burrito, but couldn't establish that that was the most likely source of the nandrolone.

A burrito that couldn't be produced as evidence was ruled out on the grounds of probability - more specifically, a lack of probability; in fact a whole "cascading series of improbabilities". That left nandrolone found in her urine sample, which, through biological necessity, had to get there through ingestion - the same process which incidentally and obviously applied to consuming a burrito. Since CAS decided the burrito argument didn't wash she had to have ingested the nandrolone in the usual way - a pill. CAS didn't spell that out because it didn't have to. Logic required it, and not a presumption. Nothing else was left as an explanation once the burrito defence was rejected. The ingestion of a banned substance could only have been intentional - unless you're arguing it found its way into her mouth through a will of its own.

Why do you put yourself through these weird verbal gymnastics when the CAS already made their decisions, and their reasons for their decisions, so clear? They clearly explained what was established, what was possible, what was presumed, what was deemed, and what was suggested. There is no need for you to fabricate or imagine all these other things that the CAS didn't say, or contradict the CAS, just because you disagree with the CAS's clear explanations.

Clearly, no one established the source, and no one established intent. This only works against the accused athlete and in favor of the anti-doping organizations.

Long story short: they banned her for *intentional* doping with nandrolone, which is a banned substance.

But keep talking why not.

But before you go on and on and on with your deflection that there may be a tiny chance that the nandrolone was in the burrito, you should reflect on the meaning of "concluded" - a conclusion does not mean it was 100.0000000000000000000000% proven.

The short story we were talking about is that the "CAS has made it clear she took a banned substance."

According to WADA, the presence of a low amount of nandrolone from pork ingestion is not banned. It's not doping, and it's not an intentional rule violation.

What the CAS made clear was that "she has failed to establish the source of the 19-NA detected in her urine sample to the applicable standard of proof, and did not bring forward sufficient objective evidence that would warrant the application of Rule 10.2.1 a.of the WA ADR."

However rare nandrolone in a burrito might be in the USA pre-pandemic, the CAS only made clear that Houlihan's arguments and evidence established that the burrito was the source with a probability less than 50%, when compared to other suggested alternatives, and unsuggested alternatives.

“Probability” is laughable when it comes to banning an athlete. That’s like saying that we should believe that NBA teams will always 100% of the time win games when it shows 99.9% probability they will win the game on ESPN’s probability system. Only trouble is ESPN is wrong in these situations multiple times a year, when a team comes back from a deficit they had .1 or even .01 or less chance of coming back from.

Probability is not good enough for banning an athlete. It is however good enough for making people believe what they want to believe about Shelby Houlihan on LetsRun.com.

Typically probability is presented as a range, e.g. with 95% confidence intervals indicating the uncertainty of the prediction.

There are two problems with the pre-supposed composite near-zero probability argument.

The first problem is that it is based on a number of unproven assumptions: i.e. nandrolone in pork meat and stomach from a corn-fed 6-month old cryptorchid.

The second, and far worse problem, is the false impression that this probability, even when proved and corrected, answers an important question before the CAS. The probability of nandrolone in one pork burrito, among a nation of pork burritos, is not an equivalent substitute for the probability that a pork burrito is the most likely source of the nandrolone among all the possible sources (e.g. compared to supplement contamination, and oral nandrolone from Amazon).

In other words, with numbers, the probability that one burrito can contain intact boar offal can be far less than 0.01%, while the probability among pork eaters who test positive for a low amount of nandrolone can be 33% or 50% or 90%, without contradiction. This is because these probabilities answer very different questions. One answers how many athletes we should expect to test positive for nandrolone from pork, out of all innocent athletes plus athletes testing positive from other sources, while the other answers which proportion of positive tests for nandrolone are the result of pork ingestion.

In an actual case by case consideration, "specific and concrete" facts will render these general probabilities useless. The problem for athletes is, when they cannot provide such evidence (because "Such proof (how the substance entered the body) is difficult to provide"), they are unable to overcome the implied presumption that the rule violation was intentional. Furthermore, a near-zero argument is technically not even required, since that is the presumption, and not where the burden lies.

"However rare nandrolone in a burrito might be in the USA pre-pandemic"

LOL... "might" ? "pre-pandemic"? If you really read the CAS report, you'd know they also made clear that nandrolone in a burrito was extremely rare in the USA during the pandemic.

"a probability less than 50%" - cascade of improbabilities ---> way less than 50%! Like 0.000000.....1%

Funny how you always insist that everyone else uses exactly CAS' words, but you get to whitewash everything. Why do you do all this PR for this doper? The above has nothing to do with the 2015 code that you typically claim to be your motivation.

PR for who? I don't know if she is a doper yet, as it hasn't been factually established to any standard stronger than presumption.

The above is directly connected to the expert opinion of the proposed 2015 WADA Code changes by Judge Jean-Paul Costa: "Such proof (how the substance entered the body) is difficult to provide."

I point posters to the CAS's words to remind posters what the CAS said their own decisions were, and what their justifications for their decisions were, when posters make exagerrated and false claims going far beyond what the CAS decided and why. Or I point out what the CAS said Houlihan's claim was, to contrast it with WA/AIU and "expert witnesses" restated claim. Or I point to concessions made by Houlihan's accusers supporting Houlihan's arguments, making them plausible, when posters conclude otherwise.

Here you illustrate perfectly that you haven't yet understood that two independent probabilities are different because they answer very different questions. You cannot substitute one for another in a meaningfully valid way.

I don't whitewash anything, but merely point out all the factual gaps and inconsistencies and logical flaws in arguments and decisions only made possible by first presuming the conclusions. While the CAS can accurately describe their opinions, and their bases for them, in their own words, this doesn't mean their conclusions, based on presumptions and other opinions (themselves based on unproven assumptions), are themselves facts.

Whether she did or she didn't, she has already served her ban. And she I'm fine with her having a second chance.

And for those of you who you Holier Than Thou people who believe there should be no path to redemption, I'd love to take an unfiltered look into your perfect lives to see what you've been up to over the years, and to see all of the lies you've told.