Sports Scientist Ross Tucker breaks downs the Shelby Houlihan case for us

The real world were strict liability is designed for minor administrative offences.

Then you should have replied to the OP who created the thread title, rather than responding to my post with off-topic responses about points not raised or under discussion.

It was undisputed by all parties that the nandrolone was ingested, i.e. something she ate resulted in the doping ban -- the "substantiantion" is in the case.

Recall you replied to my post that said what is relevant is not what she ordered, but what she actually ate, curiously arguing that what she ate is not relevant in a case where nandrolone ingestion is undisputed.

You can't get a nandrolone positive from ordering a burrito and getting a receipt.

Wada code based on strict liability which excludes the value of doper.

What scenario did I make up? I contasted Houlihan, with past convictions, like CJ Hunter. Rather than trying to describe all sanctioned athletes with the same terms, and treating them as if they were the same, and giving them the equal amounts of emotional hate and disgust, I would attempt to be more accurate and respond proportionally.

If I were Shelby's lawyer today, I would say don't fight it if you don't have a sample of the burrito to test. Plead "no contest", and get a 1-year reduction for not fighting it. She could then run the next Olympics.

I'm fixated on a food truck? Weird. Nike was not a party to the dispute, so it is normal that they did not duplicate anything.

It was noted that for a few months in 2020, things were not normal, because of a pandemic perturbing supplies, e.g. of corn, of workers, of butchers, of truck drivers, of inspectors, etc. It would be "possible but unlikely" for anyone to recreate this rare scenario, one month after the fact, long after things started coming back to normal.

Since it is in Ross's long Q&A, let's imagine for a moment, the hypothetical athlete who ingested a burrito containing the organs of a cryptorchid that Prof. McGlone said can slip past the USDA inspectors into the food supply, older than 6-months due to delays in butchering, that was fed soy, something Prof. McGlone conceded happened during the pandemic when corn supply was low, and tested positive with results that Prof. Ayotte routinely found in her labs from pork meat/offal ingestion, both levels and isotopes, according to at least three of her published peer-reviewed papers.

Imagine how difficult would it be for that athlete to prove the nature of the ingredients in a burrito long eaten and discarded, more than 1 month after the fact, with the concrete evidence required to meet a burden of "more likely than not", without having preserved the uneaten portion of the burrito. Ross estimated the cost would skyrocket to six-figures, and the likelihood of finding another "needle in the haystack" would still be infeasible.

The predictable outcome is that indirect evidence of witnesses, lie detectors, and hair tests, falls far short of the concrete direct evidence needed, and is no match for general national statistics that are estimated to be a less than 1 in 10,000 chance, despite 121,000,000 opportunities per year, especially in an artificial framework where the victim must find concrete evidence and the accusers have no burden to prove anything they allege, and the judge is authorized to presume guilt until proven innocent.

I would be interested in the pre trial pleadings about what evidence could be submitted.I am surprised Ayotte was the sort of witness she was allowed to be.
I would get a mass spec expert to take her apart and thus the original findings that were selected to be presented.

If the carbon isotope results can be shown to be unreliable then she might win with that.

Without WADA reform for these kinds of cases, even that would change very little.

What Houlihan would need to "win" is summarized quite well in the CAS report:

Supposing Houlihan's legal team succeeds in dismantling the experts piece by piece and completely reversing the whole AIU "cascade of near zero probabilities" analysis. Houlihan is still required to build a pro-active case with specific and concrete elements. It is not enough to demonstrate a possibility, and the WADA Code makes it clear that establishing the source is really, really, important. This is not an easy task without samples to test. The CAS doesn't need the AIU or its experts in order to still decide that Houlihan falls short due to a lack of specific and concrete elements that establish the source and non-intent.

The only way (I see) she "wins" is:

- The WADA lab reports it as an ATF, due to invocation of pork

- The AIU treats it as an ATF, due to invocation of pork (Here I suspect USADA, who has shown much more sympathy fairness to innocent athletes, would have taken a path like this, and opted to perform more tests before prosecution, if at all)

- The CAS Panel decides that an ATF was the correct call

- Houlihan doesn't give up her right to a first decision, and then, on appeal, is lucky enough to get a CAS Panel like Lawson's, who also expressed sympathy for the extreme burden placed on athletes, as well as questioned the accuracy of the testimony of the experts

... but against a hostile ADA or ADO, the WADA Code makes things easier for ADAs and ADOs, having been burned too many times by athletes like Armstrong who can run circles around them if WADA doesn't remove the most common athlete defenses.

You miss my point.

The original findings are found to be at fault.

Clearly, that isn't yours.

What I said was this, in response to your point that breaking the rules doesn't make her a doper:

It does if they are rules against doping and she tests positive for a banned drug.

It appears reading a full sentence is beyond you.

You invent things to cover your mistakes.

Now; what is the standard of proof applied to doping convictions. You said beyond reasonable doubt.

Any apology from misleading cos you don’t read the rules.

I think you will find that a doper is a regular user and not one caught by strict liability.

Still not explained why one breach of the doping rules does not warrant the term doper but an other does.
King Mr Tautology fails yet again.

So; a non fault doping conviction still makes that person a doper?

And does the breach of the rules of association make a doper ?

I argue that the word doper is a personal value judgement and not an objective fact.

Sigh. I did not say that. I said that is the criminal standard of proof. Doping cases are not criminal cases. The standard applied is that of most civil cases, which is the balance of probabilities.

No. A doper is anyone convicted of an anti-doping offence who tests positive for a banned drug for which they have no accepted excuse. It also helps that it is deemed intentional because they cannot show otherwise. Regular use does not have to be proven to establish doping - to have doped once and been caught is enough.

A tautology is saying the same thing twice. Clearly, I did not do that, as I said nothing about doping offences that do not include a positive test. There is a difference with a whereabouts failure. A positive test shows they are unequivocally a doper; a whereabouts failure leaves an element of doubt although it is safe to presume they were likely doping (as WADA does, by imposing the same penalty).

I said nothing about a no fault breach. But in such a situation it is likely the athlete would be exonerated because the breach wasn't intentional and they probably exercised due care. I also said nothing about breaching rules of association. You are merely shifting the goal posts.

It is enough that someone has tested positive for a banned drug for which they have no acceptable excuse for me to say they are a doper. What else are they?