The one who does not understand "the balance of probabilities" is you, since you confuse it with what may merely be possible. No one outside the Houlihan defenders disputes that CAS properly decided the case on the evidence before it according to the balance of probabilities. On the basis of that test she was deemed to have committed an intentional ADRV. Case closed - except to doping deniers (of whom you lead the brigade).
"A careful reading of the CAS report and the WADA Code shows intent was presumed for sanctioning purposes, rather than established to any higher intellecutal or legal standard than presumption. The shortcuts in the WADA Code are not the right investigative process to uncover the truth beyond reasonable doubts."
Your reading comprehension is atrocious, Armstrong
You quote that rubbish as though it were fact rather than an intentional (there's that word again) distortion of the process for self-serving ends. Sanctioning an athlete means finding facts that establish and confirm guilt. That is what happened to Houlihan. The "truth beyond reasonable doubts" is irrelevant because it is not a criminal process; the test is the balance of probabilities, which is what civil courts apply (as CAS is) and what we typically use in everyday life. According to that standard most of us are satisfied Houlihan intentionally doped. You think you know better but all you do is show your bias (you think Houlihan is "nice" - spare me) and that you are out of your depth because you have no grasp of the legal processes. Fortunately, your views are irrelevant as to how they work and Houlihan has got what she deserved.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
"Houlihan’s attorneys said she must have consumed uncastrated boar meat to trigger a positive test. But the food truck in Beaverton, Oregon, where Houlihan ate, orders its pork from a Tyson plant that does not process boar meat. The panel found that Houlihan failed to establish that the burrito she ate contained boar offal. The levels of nandrolone found in Houlihan’s urine sample were two to three times higher than they would have been from eating contaminated food. Houlihan testified that she ate about three-quarters of a burrito. A World Athletics expert witness testified that she would have had to eat roughly twice as much meat to have the levels of nandrolone in her system that she did. The panel found that neither the polygraph test nor the hair analysis sample Houlihan’s team conducted in her defense were “sufficient for the Athlete to rebut the presumption that the ADRV (anti-doping rule violation) was intentional.”"
She seems like a genuinely wonderful person. I've followed her for years. Even if you think it's unlikely a burrito was the cause of the positive test, why are you so sure that Shelby intentionally cheated? People here often claim that this is the case and that she's a legit psychopath who refuses to admit what she's done wrong. But if she were a psychopath, why does she have so many friends and people around her who say she's an incredible person? And if she wanted an advantage, why would she choose to dope but not wear super shoes? Looking for genuine convo here - I just don't understand how anyone can smear Shelby online. I'm a huge fan of hers.
That is so logically sound! She’s a nice person to the press so she’s clearly not a doper.
I know a few dopers, and they are friendly enough people but they are still dopers. PEDs don’t turn you into some mustache twirling rood raged meanie head most of the time. It does turn you into a cheater though!
MAYBE (and that's a big "maybe") people would have given her some more credit if she and her coaches hadn't come out aggressively slamming anyone who'd dare question their integrity while, at the same time, obfuscating the facts around what happened.
She seems like a genuinely wonderful person. I've followed her for years. Even if you think it's unlikely a burrito was the cause of the positive test, why are you so sure that Shelby intentionally cheated? People here often claim that this is the case and that she's a legit psychopath who refuses to admit what she's done wrong. But if she were a psychopath, why does she have so many friends and people around her who say she's an incredible person? And if she wanted an advantage, why would she choose to dope but not wear super shoes? Looking for genuine convo here - I just don't understand how anyone can smear Shelby online. I'm a huge fan of hers.
OP, I would like to engage in a civil, genuine conversation about this. My understanding of your post is that you think Shelby is clean because she appears to be a good person with a lot of friends who also think that she is a good person. I don’t think that being a good person makes it impossible for you to take performance enhancing drugs. You can still be a nice and genuinely incredibly person and cheat. A poster just quoted from an article that said the amount of nandrolone in Shelby’s system was 2-3 times what would be expected from a food contamination test. I recall Shelby saying that she only had minimal amounts of nandrolone in her system. She lied. Her team only backtracked on the burrito defense after it didn’t work. I’m not sure if she intentionally cheated or not but the evidence isn’t good. It seems like her ban is well deserved based on the amount in her system. One theory that I have is that she was taking a grey area supplement that either had nandrolone in it or was contaminated. Since it was a grey area supplement, she isn’t going to come out and say that she took it. It’s a bad look either way. Maybe her teammates were also taking this. She had an injury in 2019/2020 (or maybe that was just a cover for why she wasn’t racing). Maybe she was taking a grey area supplement to help heal her injury.
She seems like a genuinely wonderful person. I've followed her for years. Even if you think it's unlikely a burrito was the cause of the positive test, why are you so sure that Shelby intentionally cheated? People here often claim that this is the case and that she's a legit psychopath who refuses to admit what she's done wrong. But if she were a psychopath, why does she have so many friends and people around her who say she's an incredible person? And if she wanted an advantage, why would she choose to dope but not wear super shoes? Looking for genuine convo here - I just don't understand how anyone can smear Shelby online. I'm a huge fan of hers.
That is so logically sound! She’s a nice person to the press so she’s clearly not a doper.
I know a few dopers, and they are friendly enough people but they are still dopers. PEDs don’t turn you into some mustache twirling rood raged meanie head most of the time. It does turn you into a cheater though!
LOL. Shelby was as obvious a dope cheat as you will ever find. It is always evident in the results before she ever had a positive test. You can always tell just by the times.
Uhh.. maybe because Shelby's situation is relatively unique? Or maybe because it's easier to learn more about a person who speaks fluent English and does frequent interviews? This seems pretty obvious.
Her situation isn't unique. She's just another convicted doper. But her fans can't get over it. And nor can she, so the excuses never stop.
It is unique. The assumption, here, is that a world famous athlete who it is assumed wished to cheat took something that lingers in the fat cells of the system rather than took something fast in and out. No-one takes nandrolone. Even when prohormones came out, which were quick acting, nandrolone metabolites (from the 19-Nor Androstenedione) were still showing up. She wouldn't be so blithe (or stupid) as to take a nandrolone-based drug. Nandrolone also holds water from salt retention. Again, makes no sense. And, if it makes no sense, it usually isn't true.
"A careful reading of the CAS report and the WADA Code shows intent was presumed for sanctioning purposes, rather than established to any higher intellecutal or legal standard than presumption. The shortcuts in the WADA Code are not the right investigative process to uncover the truth beyond reasonable doubts."
Your reading comprehension is atrocious, Armstrong
You quote that rubbish as though it were fact rather than an intentional (there's that word again) distortion of the process for self-serving ends. Sanctioning an athlete means finding facts that establish and confirm guilt. That is what happened to Houlihan. The "truth beyond reasonable doubts" is irrelevant because it is not a criminal process; the test is the balance of probabilities, which is what civil courts apply (as CAS is) and what we typically use in everyday life. According to that standard most of us are satisfied Houlihan intentionally doped. You think you know better but all you do is show your bias (you think Houlihan is "nice" - spare me) and that you are out of your depth because you have no grasp of the legal processes. Fortunately, your views are irrelevant as to how they work and Houlihan has got what she deserved.
It's disappointing that some people are still not acquainted with the facts of the case, nor the law of the case.
Contrary to your imagination, the sanction is not based on any identifiable "finding (of) facts that establish and confirm" "intentional", but rather the weaker double negative finding of insufficient facts to the contrary. As a consequence, the finding of "intent" you are satisfied with was never established by the CAS to your preferred civil standard of "balance of probability", but rather to the lowest possible standard in existence, "presumption".
Seems like someone who passed the bar should understand the subtle nuance between "finding facts that establish and confirm intent" and "presuming intent until established otherwise solely for the purpose of determining sanction".
But don't take my word for it. Let's see what the CAS and WADA told us, in their own words, to their own self-serving ends ...
As you are someone who purports to "grasp the legal processes", these eight (8) extracted quotes from the CAS and the WADA Code should not be too burdensome for you to interpret.
The CAS told us:
"90. In the present case, the burden of proof that the ADRV was not intentional is on the Athlete,"
(48 paragraphs repeatedly asserting then discrediting "not intentional", while never providing evidence of Athlete "intent")
"139. Finally, although the Athlete was a credible witness and has brought compelling character witness evidence in support of her defense, she ... did not bring forward sufficient objective evidence that would warrant the application of Rule 10.2.1 a. of the WA ADR." (see WADA 10.2.1.1 below)
"140. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the ADRV was unintentional, and the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional."
CAS conclusion: "Intent" neither "established" nor "confirmed" by "finding facts", but rather "deemed" based on a finding that "the Athlete" "did not bring forward" "sufficient objective evidence" of "unintentional".
Here are the relevant quotes from the WADA Code, showing the rules that control the CAS, that the athlete must establish "not intentional", according to a "special definition of "intentional" ... to be applied solely for the purposes of Article 10.2" i.e. determining the sanction:
"10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method"
"10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility, subject to Article 10.2.4, shall be four (4) years where:"
"10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance or a Specified Method, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional."
"10.2.3 As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. [59]"
"59 [Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of "intentional" which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.]"
Notes:
- We can find nowhere any support for a suggestion of "finding (of) facts that establish and confirm" "intentional".
- The ball is in your court to "find facts" that can show a material distinction between how I characterized "intent", allegedly for my own self-serving ends, and how the CAS explained it, and how the WADA Code defines it, for their own respective self-serving ends.
- Although WADA provides a "special definition" of "intentional", there is no specific conduct identified, or evidence establishing such conduct, that Houlihan allegedly engaged in, by the WA/AIU or the CAS that meets the criteria in 10.2.3.
- As there were no facts before the CAS establishing "intentional" to any standard stronger than "presumption", and similarly there were no facts identifying the conduct the Athlete was alleged to have engaged in, there is no rational tangible basis for the general public (i.e. "people here") to be more certain of something that the CAS did not find to any certainty beyond the legal standard of "presumption".
Her situation isn't unique. She's just another convicted doper. But her fans can't get over it. And nor can she, so the excuses never stop.
It is unique. The assumption, here, is that a world famous athlete who it is assumed wished to cheat took something that lingers in the fat cells of the system rather than took something fast in and out. No-one takes nandrolone. Even when prohormones came out, which were quick acting, nandrolone metabolites (from the 19-Nor Androstenedione) were still showing up. She wouldn't be so blithe (or stupid) as to take a nandrolone-based drug. Nandrolone also holds water from salt retention. Again, makes no sense. And, if it makes no sense, it usually isn't true.
Yeah, the idea that she intentionally cheated with nandrolone is insane and nonsensical
You quote that rubbish as though it were fact rather than an intentional (there's that word again) distortion of the process for self-serving ends. Sanctioning an athlete means finding facts that establish and confirm guilt. That is what happened to Houlihan. The "truth beyond reasonable doubts" is irrelevant because it is not a criminal process; the test is the balance of probabilities, which is what civil courts apply (as CAS is) and what we typically use in everyday life. According to that standard most of us are satisfied Houlihan intentionally doped. You think you know better but all you do is show your bias (you think Houlihan is "nice" - spare me) and that you are out of your depth because you have no grasp of the legal processes. Fortunately, your views are irrelevant as to how they work and Houlihan has got what she deserved.
It's disappointing that some people are still not acquainted with the facts of the case, nor the law of the case.
Contrary to your imagination, the sanction is not based on any identifiable "finding (of) facts that establish and confirm" "intentional", but rather the weaker double negative finding of insufficient facts to the contrary. As a consequence, the finding of "intent" you are satisfied with was never established by the CAS to your preferred civil standard of "balance of probability", but rather to the lowest possible standard in existence, "presumption".
Seems like someone who passed the bar should understand the subtle nuance between "finding facts that establish and confirm intent" and "presuming intent until established otherwise solely for the purpose of determining sanction".
But don't take my word for it. Let's see what the CAS and WADA told us, in their own words, to their own self-serving ends ...
As you are someone who purports to "grasp the legal processes", these eight (8) extracted quotes from the CAS and the WADA Code should not be too burdensome for you to interpret.
The CAS told us:
"90. In the present case, the burden of proof that the ADRV was not intentional is on the Athlete,"
(48 paragraphs repeatedly asserting then discrediting "not intentional", while never providing evidence of Athlete "intent")
"139. Finally, although the Athlete was a credible witness and has brought compelling character witness evidence in support of her defense, she ... did not bring forward sufficient objective evidence that would warrant the application of Rule 10.2.1 a. of the WA ADR." (see WADA 10.2.1.1 below)
"140. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the ADRV was unintentional, and the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional."
CAS conclusion: "Intent" neither "established" nor "confirmed" by "finding facts", but rather "deemed" based on a finding that "the Athlete" "did not bring forward" "sufficient objective evidence" of "unintentional".
Here are the relevant quotes from the WADA Code, showing the rules that control the CAS, that the athlete must establish "not intentional", according to a "special definition of "intentional" ... to be applied solely for the purposes of Article 10.2" i.e. determining the sanction:
"10.2 Ineligibility for Presence, Use or Attempted Use or Possession of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method"
"10.2.1 The period of Ineligibility, subject to Article 10.2.4, shall be four (4) years where:"
"10.2.1.1 The anti-doping rule violation does not involve a Specified Substance or a Specified Method, unless the Athlete or other Person can establish that the anti-doping rule violation was not intentional."
"10.2.3 As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk. [59]"
"59 [Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of "intentional" which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.]"
Notes:
- We can find nowhere any support for a suggestion of "finding (of) facts that establish and confirm" "intentional".
- The ball is in your court to "find facts" that can show a material distinction between how I characterized "intent", allegedly for my own self-serving ends, and how the CAS explained it, and how the WADA Code defines it, for their own respective self-serving ends.
- Although WADA provides a "special definition" of "intentional", there is no specific conduct identified, or evidence establishing such conduct, that Houlihan allegedly engaged in, by the WA/AIU or the CAS that meets the criteria in 10.2.3.
- As there were no facts before the CAS establishing "intentional" to any standard stronger than "presumption", and similarly there were no facts identifying the conduct the Athlete was alleged to have engaged in, there is no rational tangible basis for the general public (i.e. "people here") to be more certain of something that the CAS did not find to any certainty beyond the legal standard of "presumption".
Rekrunner, thank you for doing all of this work. Armstrong - RIP, lol
Contrary to what you learned in DARE, no one is handing out free drugs - especially nandrolone.
I’m of the opinion that there are three options:
1) She is cheating and got caught… seems unlikely unless she already had too many whereabouts misses, otherwise skip the test, or she messed up her dose so it showed when it shouldn’t.
2) Someone messed up her dose intentionally or otherwise. Ex. Someone was giving her something without her knowing and gave her too much so it showed on the test.
3) She accidentally took something. Ex. Someone else in the group was taking something and she accidentally grabbed the wrong drink.
I have no idea if she was intentionally cheating, but if she was, they all know that you just miss the test if you know you’ll test positive. So it feels like someone close might have known she was doping and sabotaged her (but how would they know when the test would be) or it was an accident. Anyway, only logical options seem to be accidentally taking too much, or getting someone else’s dose. Either way, that means she or someone else was doping but she was still surprised to be caught.
1. She was staying over at Matt Centro's at the time. This could have been motivation to do the test and hope for the best or else looks suspicious. We don't know what went on at BTC, who was doing what under who's nose. I know Matt has his question marks, but maybe Shelby was doping and didn't tell him about it. Thus having to take the test. OR maybe she already had wheraeabouts violations.
2. if she was taking somethign that had nandrolone in it, then she knew she was taking it thus microdoping (IE Doping). Shelby knows where the source came from of that I am certain. "someone" didn't dope her. Nandrolone doesn't fall from trees.
3. Maybe? I guess you'd still have to drink more than just a swig of it.
Keep in mind "accidentally" taking too much nandrolone is still doping, and it's weird that you'd believe someone went out of their way to evilly sabotage her rather than just believe she intentionally doped herself.
Her situation isn't unique. She's just another convicted doper. But her fans can't get over it. And nor can she, so the excuses never stop.
It is unique. The assumption, here, is that a world famous athlete who it is assumed wished to cheat took something that lingers in the fat cells of the system rather than took something fast in and out. No-one takes nandrolone. Even when prohormones came out, which were quick acting, nandrolone metabolites (from the 19-Nor Androstenedione) were still showing up. She wouldn't be so blithe (or stupid) as to take a nandrolone-based drug. Nandrolone also holds water from salt retention. Again, makes no sense. And, if it makes no sense, it usually isn't true.
MANY runners have been caught for nandrolone, it was the third most used drug in Kenya that resulted in a ban.
Kara Goucher addressed this on the cleansport podcast. "She wouldn't be so stupid" is a biased assumption. Why would you think she wouldn't be? Do you know her personally?
She seems like a genuinely wonderful person. I've followed her for years. Even if you think it's unlikely a burrito was the cause of the positive test, why are you so sure that Shelby intentionally cheated? People here often claim that this is the case and that she's a legit psychopath who refuses to admit what she's done wrong. But if she were a psychopath, why does she have so many friends and people around her who say she's an incredible person? And if she wanted an advantage, why would she choose to dope but not wear super shoes? Looking for genuine convo here - I just don't understand how anyone can smear Shelby online. I'm a huge fan of hers.
I think she intentionally cheated and I will explain why.
1. Her progression. There have been threads that have covered how suspicious her progression was since about 2017 onwards. Shelby likes to say she was undertrained in college but that isn't true either. She was at Arizona State running 65+ miles a week. her progression even shocked her coaches and teammates. At the time she broke the 5K record (the first time) she had not yet broken 15:00 , and shalane who was pacing her had to scramble to get fitness. The sudden progression indicates cheating for sure.
Fresh off a long track season highlighted by an NCAA 1500m title and a 2:01.12 800m personal best, the Arizona State senior has her sights set on a national cross country title this fall.
2. The bogus excuse and press conference that followed. Why would she and her team be so shady in the presser if they didn't have something to hide. Why didn't they admit from the get go she ordered beef? Why did they insist that the meat excuse was real, and not the best they could do? Now Shelby is trying to blame the "low standards" of the supplement industry too, but do you really think someone dumped a bunch of synthetic nandrolone in her gummy vitamins?
3. The Ross Tucker article. Ross Tucker really zeroed in on what she was likely doing. It lines up with her numbers and her motives well.
"However, having explained what it is not, she then offers some insight into what the 19-NA may be. Her testimony, in Points 74 and 116, makes the fascinating observation that in recent years, they have begun noticing a new pattern of carbon isotope signatures in these 19-NA doping cases. She says that since 2018, 31 conclusive Adverse Analytical Findings for 19-NA can be divided into two distinct batches. One batch has an isotope signature around -29‰, while the other is clustered around -23‰. Presumably, the -29‰ is injected nandrolone, but the -23‰ belongs to what Ayotte describes as oral precursors of nandrolone. She even names two – 19-nor DHEA and nor-Andro, says they can be purchased on Amazon, and says that she has tested such a product and found that its isotopic signature was -23.8‰. Given that Houlihan’s 19-NA was measured at -23‰ , this is as close as Ayotte comes to offering what they believe to be the doping act in the Houlihan case, but of course, they never have to explain the origins of the 19-NA – that burden is on Houlihan."
Ross goes through the CAS decision step by step from beginning to end, clarifies some of the more esoteric aspects of the case and outlines in clear terms exactly what Houlihan argued and why he thinks CAS ultimately (correct...
