The word "Shelby" triggers exactly the same arguments endlessly repeated on every other thread about her. No one is persuaded to a belief they don't already hold, but best of all it changes nothing in the processes and outcome of the case. The apologists continue to lose.
What "triggered" me here is that someone alleged that Shelby was a liar, which presupposes that we know the truth. Finding the truth was not part of the process, nor an outcome of the case. If anything, the CAS found that "the Athlete was a credible witness".
You got triggered because of an alleged presupposition (which wasn't one - you can detect a lie without knowing the truth), but the outright lies of the OP and conspiracy theories didn't trigger you? 🤔
There is no proof of intent in the CAS decision, only presumption.
Wrong - as always. She was given the opportunity to rebut the presumption with evidence. The onus was on her as the drug was in her system. She failed to establish accidental contamination. That is why the finding was her offence was intentional. Her attempted defence, put to the test, was inadequate. She doped.
Au contraire.
This is not proof of intent. The rules do not require proving intent. They do permit presuming intent, in order to deem intent, when completely absent of proofs.
According to the rules, whether she "doped" is an independent question, from the consequence of whether the doping was "intentional". The CAS Panelists were not of single mind that her test results were properly considered "doping", because the WADA Lab guidance is ambiguous on how to interpret the results when an athlete invokes intact boar consumption.
What "triggered" me here is that someone alleged that Shelby was a liar, which presupposes that we know the truth. Finding the truth was not part of the process, nor an outcome of the case. If anything, the CAS found that "the Athlete was a credible witness".
You got triggered because of an alleged presupposition (which wasn't one - you can detect a lie without knowing the truth), but the outright lies of the OP and conspiracy theories didn't trigger you? 🤔
I looked at the OP's OP, for any outright lies and conspiracy theories. He does blame WADA for many things, when WADA didn't play any active role beyond authoring the Code and relevant TDs. He also says Salazar doped athletes, which has yet to be established, with the exception of one excess saline infusion for Magness. And he accuses some "committee" of being arbitrary, hating America, and potentially lacking jurisdiction. Which lies and conspiracies do you think should have triggered me, in a thread about Shelby?
The question here is whether Shelby ever lied, and about what. I'm not so concerned about feigning injury while being quietly suspended, in a process that could have gone her way in a slightly different split decision about the WADA Lab reporting, with no need of making anything public. At some point after the process, Shelby said she wasn't 100% sure where the nandrolone came from, whether from a burrito, from vitamins, or some other unindentified source. This may still be true. But after reconstructing food logs and testing vitamins proved negative, they had strong reasons to believe that a burrito consumed 10 hours before was the most likely, if not only possible, source. Unfortunately the Code and precedent requires her to find "specific and concrete elements" to help prove it, something that is difficult, if not impossible, to find one months after the fact, when the best evidence has been consumed or discarded.
Note that the same can be said for the CAS/WA/AIU/"expert witnesses"/"fans" -- they cannot be 100% sure that Houlihan doped with nandrolone products purchased from Amazon (among many other things), and it would be lying to say they were.
Look, her and the entire group were too the gills, just look at her and her team mates, I’ve meet body builders less jacked. She has got to own that she got her doping routine wrong and took too much, used at the wrong time, or didn’t take another liquids (and was too dehydrated keeping it in her system) look, she was on EPO, growth hormones and got bused for testosterone. Next time she won’t be so lazy and needs to follow the instructions give, if she gets it wrong, to take a whereabouts like the others. ban hammer was right, just it should be have been 10 years instead. 2028 is going to be the most doped games to date. fast forward 20 years and see how many of these ‘clean’ athletes will have chronic or life limiting illnesses
Wrong - as always. She was given the opportunity to rebut the presumption with evidence. The onus was on her as the drug was in her system. She failed to establish accidental contamination. That is why the finding was her offence was intentional. Her attempted defence, put to the test, was inadequate. She doped.
Au contraire.
This is not proof of intent. The rules do not require proving intent. They do permit presuming intent, in order to deem intent, when completely absent of proofs.
According to the rules, whether she "doped" is an independent question, from the consequence of whether the doping was "intentional". The CAS Panelists were not of single mind that her test results were properly considered "doping", because the WADA Lab guidance is ambiguous on how to interpret the results when an athlete invokes intact boar consumption.
It is proof. The drug was in her system. There were only two possibilities; either she took the drug or ingestion was accidental (nothing else was argued). Because she is deemed to be responsible for what is in her body the onus fell on her to show cause that wasn't intentional doping or negligence. She argued accidental contamination but it failed to meet the test of the balance of probabilities. So, on the evidence - a positive test and her trying to argue contaminated food - the conclusion on the balance of probabilities - the civil law test - had to be intentional doping. Nothing else rebuts that.
Shelby Busted: “WADA and AIU are corrupt! They totally framed Shelby, railroaded her in a kangaroo court, and singled her out for being a talented white American!!!”
Africans Busted: “About time! Filthy cheaters enabled by unethical Euro agents! Thank God that WADA and AIU are using their 100% foolproof science to bust these cheats!!!”
6. Ross Tucker basically figured out what she did based on her numbers.
Something I wonder about is,
he suggested she took 19-norDHEA, a precursor in oral supplements. Did she test her supplements for this or directly for nandrolone? It would not test positive for nandrolone if it contained only this precursor.
It is proof. The drug was in her system. There were only two possibilities; either she took the drug or ingestion was accidental (nothing else was argued). Because she is deemed to be responsible for what is in her body the onus fell on her to show cause that wasn't intentional doping or negligence. She argued accidental contamination but it failed to meet the test of the balance of probabilities. So, on the evidence - a positive test and her trying to argue contaminated food - the conclusion on the balance of probabilities - the civil law test - had to be intentional doping. Nothing else rebuts that.
The CAS decision does not even attempt to gather any proof of intent, let alone show it. At best it decides based on an incomplete proof by contradiction, rendered invalid by its incompleteness.
You are too funny, Rekrunner. First you write "What "triggered" me here is that someone alleged that Shelby was a liar", then you admit that she is indeed a liar (but that doesn't interest you, allegedly). So you weren't really triggered, evidently. Just keep trolling, why not, the show must go on.
It is proof. The drug was in her system. There were only two possibilities; either she took the drug or ingestion was accidental (nothing else was argued). Because she is deemed to be responsible for what is in her body the onus fell on her to show cause that wasn't intentional doping or negligence. She argued accidental contamination but it failed to meet the test of the balance of probabilities. So, on the evidence - a positive test and her trying to argue contaminated food - the conclusion on the balance of probabilities - the civil law test - had to be intentional doping. Nothing else rebuts that.
The CAS decision does not even attempt to gather any proof of intent, let alone show it. At best it decides based on an incomplete proof by contradiction, rendered invalid by its incompleteness.
You fail to understand how intent can be inferred, not merely presumed. When the facts show only two possibilities, that the athlete either took the drug resulting in a positive test or, alternatively, that contamination was accidental, and the latter is ruled out because of lack of evidence, then doping MUST be intentional; there can be no other explanation on the facts before the court.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
It is proof. The drug was in her system. There were only two possibilities; either she took the drug or ingestion was accidental (nothing else was argued). Because she is deemed to be responsible for what is in her body the onus fell on her to show cause that wasn't intentional doping or negligence. She argued accidental contamination but it failed to meet the test of the balance of probabilities. So, on the evidence - a positive test and her trying to argue contaminated food - the conclusion on the balance of probabilities - the civil law test - had to be intentional doping. Nothing else rebuts that.
The CAS decision does not even attempt to gather any proof of intent, let alone show it. At best it decides based on an incomplete proof by contradiction, rendered invalid by its incompleteness.
The balance of probabilities is not an incomplete test; it is that used in all civil hearings. She argued a case of accidental contamination; she failed to prove it according to the civil standard of proof required. Intent can be inferred because the only explanation remaining was that she had to have taken the drug.
I don’t care how many apologists there are for WADA out there, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out WADA was wrong from the very beginning.
Nandrolone in a person’s body does not mean they were using it as a performance enhancing substance.
No one has proved that the nandrolone was there in her body for the sake of enhancing performance. So some arbitrary, United States hating committee decides they have jurisdiction to ban an American athlete. That doesn’t mean she cheated. It just means they made a choice to ban her because someone else would “gain from it.”
If you’re not a hobby jogger or lazy finger pointer stop talking trash about Shelby and move on with your life.
Alberto Salazar doped athletes. Jerry Schumacher did not and NO, Shelby wasn’t some rogue one off. Use common sense and see that WADA is not an unbiased organization…it has motives and interests, just like any other body.
Use a little imagination in how you see Shelby’s case and don’t just assume that she cheated because WADA told you that she did.
WADA 100% gets some cases wrong, just as it gets some right. In this case they were wrong, but they will never admit as much, just like all political organizations and major figures…blame someone else for your own error.
You are not very bright. You sound as if you are indeed Shelby Houlihan, so if you care about your reputation, as bad as it is, you would have been better served by staying quiet. Your lies really need to stop. Otherwise they will eat you alive.
You are too funny, Rekrunner. First you write "What "triggered" me here is that someone alleged that Shelby was a liar", then you admit that she is indeed a liar (but that doesn't interest you, allegedly). So you weren't really triggered, evidently. Just keep trolling, why not, the show must go on.
Doesn't seem all that funny to me when you read the post that "triggered" me and my triggered response.
The post that triggered me alleged that "small amount" was a lie, and that "significant amount" and a "large amount" were truths. Regarding "injury", the same poster did not consider "injury" a lie, but actually suggested that maybe she doped "to help with her injury".
My triggered response replied that WADA considers amounts smaller than 10 ng/ml "in the low ng/ml range" and "usual". Speaking of "doing unbiased research", it is my penchant for unbiased research that led me to WADA.
What concerns me more than claiming injury, is how the "expert witnesses" managed to alter Houlihan's original claim, and misrepresent what the "literature" says about maximum amounts, contradicting what WADA characterizes as "usual" and "low" amounts.
The CAS decision does not even attempt to gather any proof of intent, let alone show it. At best it decides based on an incomplete proof by contradiction, rendered invalid by its incompleteness.
You fail to understand how intent can be inferred, not merely presumed. When the facts show only two possibilities, that the athlete either took the drug resulting in a positive test or, alternatively, that contamination was accidental, and the latter is ruled out because of lack of evidence, then doping MUST be intentional; there can be no other explanation on the facts before the court.
That's a lot of singing and dancing about everything else but "proof of intent" which you argue can be found in the CAS decision. If you are correct, why not simply find it and quote it? Furthermore, the facts do not show only two possibilities -- that is a fallacy of false choice.
You originally referred to the "express decision" of the CAS, and not the "inferred decision". The CAS did not infer intent -- you did. The CAS said that intent is "presumed" and "must be deemed". And in fact, they presumed it and deemed it without any proof or supporting evidence, simply because the rules permit presuming and deeming intent without any proof of intent.
You fail to understand how intent can be inferred, not merely presumed. When the facts show only two possibilities, that the athlete either took the drug resulting in a positive test or, alternatively, that contamination was accidental, and the latter is ruled out because of lack of evidence, then doping MUST be intentional; there can be no other explanation on the facts before the court.
That's a lot of singing and dancing about everything else but "proof of intent" which you argue can be found in the CAS decision. If you are correct, why not simply find it and quote it? Furthermore, the facts do not show only two possibilities -- that is a fallacy of false choice.
You originally referred to the "express decision" of the CAS, and not the "inferred decision". The CAS did not infer intent -- you did. The CAS said that intent is "presumed" and "must be deemed". And in fact, they presumed it and deemed it without any proof or supporting evidence, simply because the rules permit presuming and deeming intent without any proof of intent.
Ok, you ***** moron - the drug was in her system, she couldn't show it was accidental contamination and no other cause was argued, so what does that leave?
That's a lot of singing and dancing about everything else but "proof of intent" which you argue can be found in the CAS decision. If you are correct, why not simply find it and quote it? Furthermore, the facts do not show only two possibilities -- that is a fallacy of false choice.
You originally referred to the "express decision" of the CAS, and not the "inferred decision". The CAS did not infer intent -- you did. The CAS said that intent is "presumed" and "must be deemed". And in fact, they presumed it and deemed it without any proof or supporting evidence, simply because the rules permit presuming and deeming intent without any proof of intent.
Ok, you ***** moron - the drug was in her system, she couldn't show it was accidental contamination and no other cause was argued, so what does that leave?
Ok, you ***** moron - the drug was in her system, she couldn't show it was accidental contamination and no other cause was argued, so what does that leave?
It leaves a trail of reasonable doubts.
Only to a disordered mind. If accidental cause is ruled out on the balance of probabilities that only leaves her as the agent of her doping. It must, on those facts, be deemed intentional according to the balance of probabilities. She didn't "accidentally" dope herself. No other measure is applied in a civil case, and not the criminal measure as it wasn't a criminal matter. You just show you would be incompetent to sit in a civil case since you fail to understand that distinction.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Only to a disordered mind. If accidental cause is ruled out on the balance of probabilities that only leaves her as the agent of her doping. It must, on those facts, be deemed intentional according to the balance of probabilities. She didn't "accidentally" dope herself. No other measure is applied in a civil case, and not the criminal measure as it wasn't a criminal matter. You just show you would be incompetent to sit in a civil case since you fail to understand that distinction.
Repeating the fallacy of false choices is still unpersuasive. It is still a fallacy.
Your summary of the "express decision" of this panel of arbiters, essentially resolving a contract dispute, is not very accurate, and falls far short of your original claim of providing "proof she committed an intentional violation". Recall, I don't limit myself to criminal or civil standards of argument, often based on no supporting data, but apply a more rigid scientific and logical standard based on all of the publicly known data and reason. The CAS cannot apply such high standards, because it is subservient to the WADA Code, while I am free to apply higher intellectual standards that have been in place for centuries and millenia.
Unlike you, when I say "reasonable" it is because I still have reasons to doubt the case that was made before the CAS for both "intentional" and "doping"."
Only to a disordered mind. If accidental cause is ruled out on the balance of probabilities that only leaves her as the agent of her doping. It must, on those facts, be deemed intentional according to the balance of probabilities. She didn't "accidentally" dope herself. No other measure is applied in a civil case, and not the criminal measure as it wasn't a criminal matter. You just show you would be incompetent to sit in a civil case since you fail to understand that distinction.
Repeating the fallacy of false choices is still unpersuasive. It is still a fallacy.
Your summary of the "express decision" of this panel of arbiters, essentially resolving a contract dispute, is not very accurate, and falls far short of your original claim of providing "proof she committed an intentional violation". Recall, I don't limit myself to criminal or civil standards of argument, often based on no supporting data, but apply a more rigid scientific and logical standard based on all of the publicly known data and reason. The CAS cannot apply such high standards, because it is subservient to the WADA Code, while I am free to apply higher intellectual standards that have been in place for centuries and millenia.
Unlike you, when I say "reasonable" it is because I still have reasons to doubt the case that was made before the CAS for both "intentional" and "doping"."
It.Just.Never.Ends. Oh My Gawwwd, just let it go. She didn't even eat pork, let alone boar nuts! 💉