Yes. The Swiss Federal Court only looked at two minor procedural issues and were precluded from looking at the facts of the case.
Source? Didn't you claim to have no connections to that doper?
Swiss Federal Court decisions are available to the public. I’m sure that JG or people from some other site will translate the ruling from French to English.
Yes. The Swiss Federal Court only looked at two minor procedural issues and were precluded from looking at the facts of the case.
Source? Didn't you claim to have no connections to that doper?
The Court didn't deal with the facts of the case because these were not in dispute. The so-called "minor procedural issues" were Houlihan attempting to introduce as evidence that which she failed to present in arbitration. It was rejected for the following reasons.
From the decision:
"It follows that the applicant cannot base her request for review on the testimony of Dr. C.________ because she has failed to demonstrate that she could not have invoked it in the previous procedure, condition no. 5 mentioned above thus not being carried out. The interested party is therefore not admissible to produce other means of evidence to establish a fact that it failed to prove during the arbitration procedure."
"Therefore, there is no need to examine whether the evidence relied on by the applicant would be conclusive, in the sense that it would be sufficient on its own to convince the arbitrators of the existence of a case of false positive."
To put it simply, she was trying to adduce evidence to establish a fact she previously failed to prove, which she had not been barred from presenting earlier. Two strikes. It meant the Court had no need to consider whether the evidence could have altered the outcome. Three strikes.
Source? Didn't you claim to have no connections to that doper?
The Court didn't deal with the facts of the case because these were not in dispute. The so-called "minor procedural issues" were Houlihan attempting to introduce as evidence that which she failed to present in arbitration. It was rejected for the following reasons.
From the decision:
"It follows that the applicant cannot base her request for review on the testimony of Dr. C.________ because she has failed to demonstrate that she could not have invoked it in the previous procedure, condition no. 5 mentioned above thus not being carried out. The interested party is therefore not admissible to produce other means of evidence to establish a fact that it failed to prove during the arbitration procedure."
"Therefore, there is no need to examine whether the evidence relied on by the applicant would be conclusive, in the sense that it would be sufficient on its own to convince the arbitrators of the existence of a case of false positive."
To put it simply, she was trying to adduce evidence to establish a fact she previously failed to prove, which she had not been barred from presenting earlier. Two strikes. It meant the Court had no need to consider whether the evidence could have altered the outcome. Three strikes.
The Swiss law firm only appealed for two minor procedural reasons. But that was my point. Only one hearing looked at the facts of the case. And for the main part of the Houlihan defense, she lost by a vote of 2-1. We only get to read the majority decision of the two arbiters who believed the two prosecution witnesses (one of whom was caught provided false information at a previous hearing).
Don't be fooled or fool yourself. No court heard or disproved anything I wrote.
Here's another thing I learned:
- No national or international athlete has stepped forward and publicly condemned Shelby for intentional doping, cheating, or lying
They didn't have to. The decision speaks for itself.
If you say the 2 courts didn't say anything about what you wrote that shows your statements had no bearing on the case.
That wasn't the question of the thread. Do you expect anything anyone says in this thread, or any other thread, to have a bearing on the case? We are one year after the fact, after the last chance of appeal.
As you have identified no specific question or contradiction, I will presume you are simply not able to raise any genuine dispute.
I also note you haven't claimed to learn anything, meaning none of your posts are relevant to this thread.
They didn't have to. The decision speaks for itself.
If you say the 2 courts didn't say anything about what you wrote that shows your statements had no bearing on the case.
That wasn't the question of the thread. Do you expect anything anyone says in this thread, or any other thread, to have a bearing on the case? We are one year after the fact, after the last chance of appeal.
As you have identified no specific question or contradiction, I will presume you are simply not able to raise any genuine dispute.
I also note you haven't claimed to learn anything, meaning none of your posts are relevant to this thread.
I have learned that the doping apologists like yourself have not altered your position a whit but if anything have become more entrenched.
The points you raise are your own private fixations. They don't show you have learned anything but have continued to disappear down your own rabbit hole.
The Court didn't deal with the facts of the case because these were not in dispute. The so-called "minor procedural issues" were Houlihan attempting to introduce as evidence that which she failed to present in arbitration. It was rejected for the following reasons.
From the decision:
"It follows that the applicant cannot base her request for review on the testimony of Dr. C.________ because she has failed to demonstrate that she could not have invoked it in the previous procedure, condition no. 5 mentioned above thus not being carried out. The interested party is therefore not admissible to produce other means of evidence to establish a fact that it failed to prove during the arbitration procedure."
"Therefore, there is no need to examine whether the evidence relied on by the applicant would be conclusive, in the sense that it would be sufficient on its own to convince the arbitrators of the existence of a case of false positive."
To put it simply, she was trying to adduce evidence to establish a fact she previously failed to prove, which she had not been barred from presenting earlier. Two strikes. It meant the Court had no need to consider whether the evidence could have altered the outcome. Three strikes.
The Swiss law firm only appealed for two minor procedural reasons. But that was my point. Only one hearing looked at the facts of the case. And for the main part of the Houlihan defense, she lost by a vote of 2-1. We only get to read the majority decision of the two arbiters who believed the two prosecution witnesses (one of whom was caught provided false information at a previous hearing).
She appealed on the only grounds she could find. The facts couldn't be disputed. She lost two appeals. According to any standard, that shows there is no doubt about the outcome. Guilty.
Source? Didn't you claim to have no connections to that doper?
Swiss Federal Court decisions are available to the public. I’m sure that JG or people from some other site will translate the ruling from French to English.
Do you realize that in the court of public opinion you have actually done Shelby more harm than good? You're a sketchy anonymous "source" that Shelby has used to her advantage. Do you know how suspicious that makes you--and her--look? You could have any motive, any agenda. You could be Shelby, know Shelby, or work for Shelby. No one puts a lot of stock into what you are saying substance wise because you have chosen to remain hidden.
The Swiss law firm only appealed for two minor procedural reasons. But that was my point. Only one hearing looked at the facts of the case. And for the main part of the Houlihan defense, she lost by a vote of 2-1. We only get to read the majority decision of the two arbiters who believed the two prosecution witnesses (one of whom was caught provided false information at a previous hearing).
She appealed on the only grounds she could find. The facts couldn't be disputed. She lost two appeals. According to any standard, that shows there is no doubt about the outcome. Guilty.
No one can appeal a CAS decision to the Swiss Federal Court on factual grounds unless completely new and substantial evidence is found that hadn’t been raised at the CAS hearing. Therefore, Houlihan had one hearing where arbiters looked at the facts of the case. I go over some of the various appeal options to the Court in my editorial (https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html )
going to add one more thing to the "what we still don't know" category:
We still don't know what Colleen Quigley knew.
Colleen's departure in January was strange and sudden. It had probably been brewing that she wanted to move to another sponsor, but leaving right around the time Shelby was given a ban?
Colleen was pretty defamed on this site, with most people believing all of BTC disliked her but it's possible that there was some (righteous) self preservation happening. Colleen has since started to follow her old teammates like Infeld, Fraser and others, but does not follow Shelby anymore.
The Swiss law firm only appealed for two minor procedural reasons. But that was my point. Only one hearing looked at the facts of the case. And for the main part of the Houlihan defense, she lost by a vote of 2-1. We only get to read the majority decision of the two arbiters who believed the two prosecution witnesses (one of whom was caught provided false information at a previous hearing).
She appealed on the only grounds she could find. The facts couldn't be disputed. She lost two appeals. According to any standard, that shows there is no doubt about the outcome. Guilty.
That wasn't the question of the thread. Do you expect anything anyone says in this thread, or any other thread, to have a bearing on the case? We are one year after the fact, after the last chance of appeal.
As you have identified no specific question or contradiction, I will presume you are simply not able to raise any genuine dispute.
I also note you haven't claimed to learn anything, meaning none of your posts are relevant to this thread.
I have learned that the doping apologists like yourself have not altered your position a whit but if anything have become more entrenched.
The points you raise are your own private fixations. They don't show you have learned anything but have continued to disappear down your own rabbit hole.
It seems to be your private fixation too.
My starting position was robust, based on all the established facts and evidence, as well as historical facts. It still is.
Like any good scientist, I would only consider altering my position when presented with a tangible contradiction. If I'm so wrong, that should have been easy.
That wasn't the question of the thread. Do you expect anything anyone says in this thread, or any other thread, to have a bearing on the case? We are one year after the fact, after the last chance of appeal.
As you have identified no specific question or contradiction, I will presume you are simply not able to raise any genuine dispute.
I also note you haven't claimed to learn anything, meaning none of your posts are relevant to this thread.
I have learned that the doping apologists like yourself have not altered your position a whit but if anything have become more entrenched.
The points you raise are your own private fixations. They don't show you have learned anything but have continued to disappear down your own rabbit hole.
If you bothered to read the rules you may realise how you are seen with your entrenched fixations and that are down a rabbit hole with your backside invitingly pointed skywards.