She lost her case and all appeals. That means it is case closed. 4 year ban, see you when it is over. Why the need for Tygart and people here to keep harping on it.
She broke the rules but that does not mean she is a cheat ; that point needs not to be forgotten.
The anti-doping body is culpable to admit the errors they made and how hasty and incomplete their judgements on Shelby Houlihan’s case are.
Again, which "anti-doping body"? Neither CAS (which made the original judgement) nor SFT (which confirmed the original judgement) are an anti-doping body.
And do you have any evidence whatsoever that that body (bodies?) made errors? And that the judgements were "hasty and incomplete"?
Why did the things presented as defense not cut it? Could it be because the board governing that decision was concerned with itself, rather than the athlete?
LOL. Back to Square One again?
Here is why "the things presented as defense", i.e. the nandrolone was in the doper's burrito, did not cut it:
1) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that an intact boar made it into the burrito ("improbable", CAS wrote). {At this point, the case is lost, in contrast to the Lawson and Wilson cases, where the beef - not pork - contamination was judged to be "more likely than not"} But wait, that is only the beginning. There is more: 2) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that a stomach offal burrito even from an intact boar would have caused such high nandro levels ("improbable", CAS wrote). {extra icing} 3) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that a stomach offal burrito even from an intact boar would have caused such high androgen levels ("highly improbable", CAS wrote). {nail in the coffin} 4) According to CAS, we can rule out that the nandro came from "commercial pork" (not "consistent with", CAS wrote). And according to CAS, the food truck obtained their food from a commercial plant that used commercial pork from commercial farmers.
With that, the coffin was burned, and all ashes spread out over the ocean.
Case closed. Later then confirmed by the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
"the board governing that decision"? What board are you talking about?
INRS? AIU? WA? WADA? CAS? SFT?
There’s no imagination in that at all. Just an indictment, based upon the judgement of a governing body that you seem to have put absolute trust in.
Could it be possible that CAS was wrong in its judgement of “probability”? This takes imagination beyond “us vs. them” or “I’m right, you’re wrong...case closed.”
The anti-doping body is culpable to admit the errors they made and how hasty and incomplete their judgements on Shelby Houlihan’s case are.
Again, which "anti-doping body"? Neither CAS (which made the original judgement) nor SFT (which confirmed the original judgement) are an anti-doping body.
And do you have any evidence whatsoever that that body (bodies?) made errors? And that the judgements were "hasty and incomplete"?
CAS is essentially the same thing as WADA/AIU. CAS functions to protect those organizations, rather than the athletes. That’s not how court cases are supposed to be handled - in the United States, we call this “conflict of interest,” or “monopoly” in the business world, when all of the organizations are in bed together. They’re looking to protect each other.
The errors are CAS’ failure to even hear the testimony of respected food scientists on the part of the defense. CAS cannot speak to why they refused to hear pertinent testimony from the defense. That is what we call “bias.” That is why people like Tygart have lost trust in WADA/AIU/CAS, which more or less function together on cases like this.
There is a reason while people HATE to hear about the Jarrion Lawson case, because there was no way around having to admit that they screwed up and that Ayotte gave false testimony.
I believe that WADA/AIU knows that they screwed up on Shelby’s case but is unwilling to admit they messed up, so they put pressure on CAS to validate their initial judgement.
In the long term, people will learn the truth, which will ultimately lead to a complete reassessment of these conflict of interests.
Correct, I am not imaging anything. Instead I read the full report, and concur with Prof McGlone's (from Texas Tech) arguments, the CAS conclusions, the SFT, and the comments of the two independent scientists consulted on this matter by Runner's World and Letsrun, respectively.
No, it is not possible that they all were wrong on all four points (and the fourth wasn't about a "probability"). Therefore clearly the nandro did not come from the burrito.
It's reassuring that you understand as little about the OJ Simpson case as you fail understand why Houlihan was found guilty. She was treated the same way and according to the same process as any other athlete who has been shown to have committed a violation. She was given the opportunity to present a defence. It didn't cut it. It failed the test of probability. Clean sport won. Close the door on your way out.
Tygart is right. That "same way' and "same process" is a broken process that doesn't always protect innocent athletes.
Why did the things presented as defense not cut it? Could it be because the board governing that decision was concerned with itself, rather than the athlete?
LOL. Back to Square One again?
Actually Tygart is taking it back to square zero. The process the CAS had to use to prosecute a case of possible ingestion by pork is broken.
Could it be possible that CAS was wrong in its judgement of “probability”? This takes imagination beyond “us vs. them” or “I’m right, you’re wrong...case closed.”
I think about this as well. How is the probability of pig offal in the food supply determined? I can't imagine there is a lot of grant money to study this, or a lot of scientists building their cv publishing on the odds of boar meat ending up in the sausage in a food truck burrito.
There’s no imagination in that at all. Just an indictment, based upon the judgement of a governing body that you seem to have put absolute trust in.
Could it be possible that CAS was wrong in its judgement of “probability”? This takes imagination beyond “us vs. them” or “I’m right, you’re wrong...case closed.”
Actually "casual obsever" is wrong about what has to be proved on the balance of probability (according to the broken Code).
Correct, I am not imaging anything. Instead I read the full report, and concur with Prof McGlone's (from Texas Tech) arguments, the CAS conclusions, the SFT, and the comments of the two independent scientists consulted on this matter by Runner's World and Letsrun, respectively.
No, it is not possible that they all were wrong on all four points (and the fourth wasn't about a "probability"). Therefore clearly the nandro did not come from the burrito.
I’m offering the opportunity for you and everyone else to use their imagination that it is possible that these judgements were disproportionately weighed in terms of public opinion on the basis of “probability” against the weight of a potential truth that Shelby Houlihan had a substance in her body that was not ingested by her for the purpose of enhancing her performance.
That imagination is something that it is possible for you and everyone else on the Letsrun message boards to have regardless of the judgements made by people said to be “experts,” of whom none were with her on the night before the drug test and the morning of the test, or at any point in the months and weeks prior to the day of the test.
I think about this as well. How is the probability of pig offal in the food supply determined? I can't imagine there is a lot of grant money to study this, or a lot of scientists building their cv publishing on the odds of boar meat ending up in the sausage in a food truck burrito.
Boar meat and offal are quite normal and indeed specified within the food industry.
Correct, I am not imaging anything. Instead I read the full report, and concur with Prof McGlone's (from Texas Tech) arguments, the CAS conclusions, the SFT, and the comments of the two independent scientists consulted on this matter by Runner's World and Letsrun, respectively.
No, it is not possible that they all were wrong on all four points (and the fourth wasn't about a "probability"). Therefore clearly the nandro did not come from the burrito.
I’m offering the opportunity for you and everyone else to use their imagination that it is possible that these judgements were disproportionately weighed in terms of public opinion on the basis of “probability” against the weight of a potential truth that Shelby Houlihan had a substance in her body that was not ingested by her for the purpose of enhancing her performance.
That imagination is something that it is possible for you and everyone else on the Letsrun message boards to have regardless of the judgements made by people said to be “experts,” of whom none were with her on the night before the drug test and the morning of the test, or at any point in the months and weeks prior to the day of the test.
But the reason for ingestion does not matter. Whether she shot up in the bathroom or eight tainted meat a band substance was in her body and she gets four years. Full stop.
It's reassuring that you understand as little about the OJ Simpson case as you fail understand why Houlihan was found guilty. She was treated the same way and according to the same process as any other athlete who has been shown to have committed a violation. She was given the opportunity to present a defence. It didn't cut it. It failed the test of probability. Clean sport won. Close the door on your way out.
The question that arises out of this:
Why did the things presented as defense not cut it? Could it be because the board governing that decision was concerned with itself, rather than the athlete?
But the reason for ingestion does not matter. Whether she shot up in the bathroom or eight tainted meat a band substance was in her body and she gets four years. Full stop.
I’m offering the opportunity for you and everyone else to use their imagination that it is possible that these judgements were disproportionately weighed in terms of public opinion on the basis of “probability” against the weight of a potential truth that Shelby Houlihan had a substance in her body that was not ingested by her for the purpose of enhancing her performance.
That imagination is something that it is possible for you and everyone else on the Letsrun message boards to have regardless of the judgements made by people said to be “experts,” of whom none were with her on the night before the drug test and the morning of the test, or at any point in the months and weeks prior to the day of the test.
But the reason for ingestion does not matter. Whether she shot up in the bathroom or eight tainted meat a band substance was in her body and she gets four years. Full stop.
Someone else who posts without reading the rules or the decision . Why do people keep doing it.
Yes there would be an offence with a sanction and no it would not automatically be four years.
I’m offering the opportunity for you and everyone else to use their imagination that it is possible that these judgements were disproportionately weighed in terms of public opinion on the basis of “probability” against the weight of a potential truth that Shelby Houlihan had a substance in her body that was not ingested by her for the purpose of enhancing her performance.
That imagination is something that it is possible for you and everyone else on the Letsrun message boards to have regardless of the judgements made by people said to be “experts,” of whom none were with her on the night before the drug test and the morning of the test, or at any point in the months and weeks prior to the day of the test.
But the reason for ingestion does not matter. Whether she shot up in the bathroom or eight tainted meat a band substance was in her body and she gets four years. Full stop.
If an athlete has a substance in their body because of tainted meat, they should not be banned from the sport for any period of time - any athlete in the sport of site track & field would agree with that assertion.
Saying the athlete is responsible for what is in their sample is not good enough anymore - that is not an adequate defense on the part of the testers, which is exactly why Tygart believes Houlihan more than WADA/AIU.
The athletes need to be defended and protected, including all of the Africans who have had false Nandrolone positives as well, because of tainted meat.
I competed against doped athletes and I would absolutely say the thought that an innocent athlete would be banned is far worse than the cheaters being in the sport.
If athletes eat tainted meat, and test positive, should they be banned in any capacity? Open ended question for people on this forum.
Tygart believes that there is a strong possibility that Shelby Houlihan ate tainted meat - there’s a reason for that.
But the reason for ingestion does not matter. Whether she shot up in the bathroom or eight tainted meat a band substance was in her body and she gets four years. Full stop.
If an athlete has a substance in their body because of tainted meat, they should not be banned from the sport for any period of time - any athlete in the sport of site track & field would agree with that assertion.
Saying the athlete is responsible for what is in their sample is not good enough anymore - that is not an adequate defense on the part of the testers, which is exactly why Tygart believes Houlihan more than WADA/AIU.
The athletes need to be defended and protected, including all of the Africans who have had false Nandrolone positives as well, because of tainted meat.
I competed against doped athletes and I would absolutely say the thought that an innocent athlete would be banned is far worse than the cheaters being in the sport.
If athletes eat tainted meat, and test positive, should they be banned in any capacity? Open ended question for people on this forum.
Tygart believes that there is a strong possibility that Shelby Houlihan ate tainted meat - there’s a reason for that.
1. She ordered a carne asada burrito.
2. They followed the textbook defense laid out by just about every cyclist who tested positive in the late 90s and early 2000s. -attack the test, attack the system, play the victim card.
3. The burrito excuse was bull 💩 from the beginning.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.