No, I'm not any closer, Bozo. I don't follow women's track, and don't know who is in Houlihan's orbit (motive and opp).
There are many here who do, however. Are you one of them, Bozo? Why so tight lipped? Cat got your tongue? Yeah, we thought so.
Sorry if I offended you.
But from the lack of progress, it would seem that not many of the self-professed Bozos here know who is in Houlihan's orbit (motive and opp).
Neither do I, and wouldn't like to speculate.
Why don't you want to speculate? Hits too close to home, eh? Flying too close to the sun. Maybe you're not too adroit at handling the truth of the matter, Bozo.
"Contrary to your misrepresentations, my view of Shelby's defence is that she was burdened with an impossible task requiring luck to succeed without the best evidence of being able to test the alleged source one month after the fact."(quote)
Unlike you - but like the expert evidence before the Panel - I consider Houlihan was lucky that the alleged source wasn't there to test, as the experts estimated the likelihood of the burrito being the cause of her positive test was "close to zero". Not a leg to stand on. Houlihan's failure was like that of any guilty party in proceedings, which is a weak case. To say that if they had a stronger case they might have won is blindingly obvious - but that is exactly what they don't have.
Your consideration doesn't contradict anything I said, and, lacking substance, doesn't impact my view of Houlihan's defence.
Because you claim anything is "possible" even without evidence. Hence, your fantasies. And garden fairies.
More fantasy. I did not make the claim "anything" is "possible", but rejected your nonsensical claim that possibilities "require" evidence.
You are welcome to prove me wrong, but please stick to real-world proofs, rather than fantastic creatures from your homeland.
If it is a "nonsensical claim" to say that "possibilities require evidence" then that is essentially saying "anything is possible". Anything must be possible, if evidence is not required to say it is so. Another of your spectacular self-contradictions.
"Contrary to your misrepresentations, my view of Shelby's defence is that she was burdened with an impossible task requiring luck to succeed without the best evidence of being able to test the alleged source one month after the fact."(quote)
Unlike you - but like the expert evidence before the Panel - I consider Houlihan was lucky that the alleged source wasn't there to test, as the experts estimated the likelihood of the burrito being the cause of her positive test was "close to zero". Not a leg to stand on. Houlihan's failure was like that of any guilty party in proceedings, which is a weak case. To say that if they had a stronger case they might have won is blindingly obvious - but that is exactly what they don't have.
Your consideration doesn't contradict anything I said, and, lacking substance, doesn't impact my view of Houlihan's defence.
If I am "not contradicting" you then I am either in agreement with you (I am not) or you are conceding you are in agreement with me. That must be it. Better late than never.
Talking of "lacking substance", what were you saying again about the evidence that Houlihan couldn't produce?
But from the lack of progress, it would seem that not many of the self-professed Bozos here know who is in Houlihan's orbit (motive and opp).
Neither do I, and wouldn't like to speculate.
Why don't you want to speculate? Hits too close to home, eh? Flying too close to the sun. Maybe you're not too adroit at handling the truth of the matter, Bozo.
Oh, I'm not one to participate in innuendo and bathroom talk.
More fantasy. I did not make the claim "anything" is "possible", but rejected your nonsensical claim that possibilities "require" evidence.
You are welcome to prove me wrong, but please stick to real-world proofs, rather than fantastic creatures from your homeland.
If it is a "nonsensical claim" to say that "possibilities require evidence" then that is essentially saying "anything is possible". Anything must be possible, if evidence is not required to say it is so. Another of your spectacular self-contradictions.
Sabotage is not impossible, therefore it is a possibility. No evidence required.
Your consideration doesn't contradict anything I said, and, lacking substance, doesn't impact my view of Houlihan's defence.
If I am "not contradicting" you then I am either in agreement with you (I am not) or you are conceding you are in agreement with me. That must be it. Better late than never.
Talking of "lacking substance", what were you saying again about the evidence that Houlihan couldn't produce?
OK, you've convinced me.
The burrito story is possible because, as you argued (emphasis yours), "CAS accepted contamination was possible on the evidence submitted".
Given that no one has provide any evidence of intent, I agree with you that intentional doping must be impossible.
Why don't you want to speculate? Hits too close to home, eh? Flying too close to the sun. Maybe you're not too adroit at handling the truth of the matter, Bozo.
Oh, I'm not one to participate in innuendo and bathroom talk.
As someone fairly well versed in the technology, and who visits a lab where this is tested, and has had several technical conversations with experts there, let me just tell you what the science may say:
The CAS ruling was that she could not establish the source of the nandrolone, on the balance of probability.
No, you are correct when it comes to oral vs injected. You can tell from the profile of the levels since taking it and the half life etc, but that is not their job, nor were they in a position to do so, i.e. they didn't take time interval samples since ingestion/injection.
Ingestion by burrito during a pandemic remains a possibility,///////, it could have been, and still can be, a burrito,
No, you are misreading or misunderstanding the process and the reports. Labs simply report on findings, so look at the expert interpretation - Tucker gave agood summary. The burrito defence is improbable (possible) at the levels found even if all boars were uncastrated, and further unlikely given non castrated boar meat is rare.
That only addresses the levels. The IRMS then distinguishes between source, i.e. it is not the same as nandrolone from a boar...period. The lawyers , being smart alec lawyers and not scientists thought that they could pull this off.
To re-iterate, it is not their job to find the source. They test for presence. It is the athlete's responsiblity to not take performance enhancing drugs, or not get caught, and they should be aware of all the supplemenst they take. The overwhelming majority of people now take drugs for lifestyle diseases, they look after their medication, why can't a professional athlete...please..
Lastly, my expert colleagues tell me that they find more nandrolone in the general public (than athletes), i.e. just coming from random police samples, and it is rife in the gym goer population, and extremely easy to source on internet.
Really lastly, also, the sampling and targeting has improved immensely, with testing , lets put it this way, not being 'so random' anymore. They are watching performances, blood profiles, injury recovery, where they are in career - start of contract vs end of contract etc etc, obviously talking about all sports, the big money guys etc
If it is a "nonsensical claim" to say that "possibilities require evidence" then that is essentially saying "anything is possible". Anything must be possible, if evidence is not required to say it is so. Another of your spectacular self-contradictions.
Sabotage is not impossible, therefore it is a possibility. No evidence required.
As is a warehouse in Arizona. But keep going with your arguments without substance. What is probable never features.
If I am "not contradicting" you then I am either in agreement with you (I am not) or you are conceding you are in agreement with me. That must be it. Better late than never.
Talking of "lacking substance", what were you saying again about the evidence that Houlihan couldn't produce?
OK, you've convinced me.
The burrito story is possible because, as you argued (emphasis yours), "CAS accepted contamination was possible on the evidence submitted".
Given that no one has provide any evidence of intent, I agree with you that intentional doping must be impossible.
But unfortunately for you - and Shelby - what was seen as "possible" was discounted on "the balance of probabilities". So you lose.
CAS found evidence of intent - the presence of a banned drug for which there was no acceptable explanation - but you are still trying to get your head around what constitutes evidence. To you she had to say outright - "I meant to do it", rather than an inference that could be drawn from the facts, as intent typically is when it is denied.
The burrito story is possible because, as you argued (emphasis yours), "CAS accepted contamination was possible on the evidence submitted".
Given that no one has provide any evidence of intent, I agree with you that intentional doping must be impossible.
But unfortunately for you - and Shelby - what was seen as "possible" was discounted on "the balance of probabilities". So you lose.
CAS found evidence of intent - the presence of a banned drug for which there was no acceptable explanation - but you are still trying to get your head around what constitutes evidence. To you she had to say outright - "I meant to do it", rather than an inference that could be drawn from the facts, as intent typically is when it is denied.
Given no evidence of intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge, you've convinced me that by definition all of these things are impossible.
No one actually provided evidence of a norsteroid precursor. Must also be impossible.
Did the fallen tree make a sound? Impossible.
Is Schroedinger's cat dad or alive? Both possibilities are impossible.
But unfortunately for you - and Shelby - what was seen as "possible" was discounted on "the balance of probabilities". So you lose.
CAS found evidence of intent - the presence of a banned drug for which there was no acceptable explanation - but you are still trying to get your head around what constitutes evidence. To you she had to say outright - "I meant to do it", rather than an inference that could be drawn from the facts, as intent typically is when it is denied.
Given no evidence of intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge, you've convinced me that by definition all of these things are impossible.
No one actually provided evidence of a norsteroid precursor. Must also be impossible.
Did the fallen tree make a sound? Impossible.
Is Schroedinger's cat dad or alive? Both possibilities are impossible.
You win. You won.
You keep failing on your definition of evidence. "Evidence" to you is only what you consider evidence. A court doesn't agree with you.
No one except you is interested in whether the fallen tree made a sound. The only issue is whether it fell. Apparently so. Dead cats aside, too, what is beyond doubt is that Shelby had a banned substance in her system for which there was no legitimate explanation. You think it's unfair that the onus was on her to show her innocence, but it is like she was caught with her hand in the till with a fist full of money and couldn't show that she didn't mean to take it.
Given no evidence of intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge, you've convinced me that by definition all of these things are impossible.
No one actually provided evidence of a norsteroid precursor. Must also be impossible.
Did the fallen tree make a sound? Impossible.
Is Schroedinger's cat dad or alive? Both possibilities are impossible.
You win. You won.
You keep failing on your definition of evidence. "Evidence" to you is only what you consider evidence. A court doesn't agree with you.
No one except you is interested in whether the fallen tree made a sound. The only issue is whether it fell. Apparently so. Dead cats aside, too, what is beyond doubt is that Shelby had a banned substance in her system for which there was no legitimate explanation. You think it's unfair that the onus was on her to show her innocence, but it is like she was caught with her hand in the till with a fist full of money and couldn't show that she didn't mean to take it.
Not bright are you.The police would still have prove intent.No matter how many times you are told you still will not grasp the burdens of proof.You are either a fool or a liar....please advice.
Given no evidence of intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge, you've convinced me that by definition all of these things are impossible.
No one actually provided evidence of a norsteroid precursor. Must also be impossible.
Did the fallen tree make a sound? Impossible.
Is Schroedinger's cat dad or alive? Both possibilities are impossible.
You win. You won.
You keep failing on your definition of evidence. "Evidence" to you is only what you consider evidence. A court doesn't agree with you.
No one except you is interested in whether the fallen tree made a sound. The only issue is whether it fell. Apparently so. Dead cats aside, too, what is beyond doubt is that Shelby had a banned substance in her system for which there was no legitimate explanation. You think it's unfair that the onus was on her to show her innocence, but it is like she was caught with her hand in the till with a fist full of money and couldn't show that she didn't mean to take it.
I failed by agreeing with you? You are probably right.
Even if we stretched to the point of breaking and accepted for argument's sake that "not enough evidence of not intentional" constitutes "evidence of intent", adopting what you consider evidence, where is the evidence of knowledge or fault or negligence or norsteroid precursor?
By your standard, all of these things are not even possibilities. What a fantastic world you live in.
Getting back to sabotage, wouldn't previous precedents be enough evidence to establish the possibility that it could happen again?
As someone fairly well versed in the technology, and who visits a lab where this is tested, and has had several technical conversations with experts there, let me just tell you what the science may say:
The CAS ruling was that she could not establish the source of the nandrolone, on the balance of probability.
No, you are correct when it comes to oral vs injected. You can tell from the profile of the levels since taking it and the half life etc, but that is not their job, nor were they in a position to do so, i.e. they didn't take time interval samples since ingestion/injection.
Ingestion by burrito during a pandemic remains a possibility,///////, it could have been, and still can be, a burrito,
No, you are misreading or misunderstanding the process and the reports. Labs simply report on findings, so look at the expert interpretation - Tucker gave agood summary. The burrito defence is improbable (possible) at the levels found even if all boars were uncastrated, and further unlikely given non castrated boar meat is rare.
That only addresses the levels. The IRMS then distinguishes between source, i.e. it is not the same as nandrolone from a boar...period. The lawyers , being smart alec lawyers and not scientists thought that they could pull this off.
To re-iterate, it is not their job to find the source. They test for presence. It is the athlete's responsiblity to not take performance enhancing drugs, or not get caught, and they should be aware of all the supplemenst they take. The overwhelming majority of people now take drugs for lifestyle diseases, they look after their medication, why can't a professional athlete...please..
Lastly, my expert colleagues tell me that they find more nandrolone in the general public (than athletes), i.e. just coming from random police samples, and it is rife in the gym goer population, and extremely easy to source on internet.
Really lastly, also, the sampling and targeting has improved immensely, with testing , lets put it this way, not being 'so random' anymore. They are watching performances, blood profiles, injury recovery, where they are in career - start of contract vs end of contract etc etc, obviously talking about all sports, the big money guys etc
I'm not sure what you think I misread or misunderstood from my quotes. The CAS findings are fairly clear, and I think my quotes accurately represent these findings:
"First, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the Athlete’s burrito contained boar offal."
"Finally ... (the Athlete) has failed to established the source of the 19-NA detected in her urine sample to the applicable standard of proof, and did not bring forward sufficient objective evidence that would warrant the application of Rule 10.2.1 a. of the WA ADR"
If you still feel my quotes are deceptive, please use the CAS quotes instead.
The argument with "at the levels found" is one I find highly deceptive. First team Houlihan claimed it came from intact boar "offal". The AIU rebutted that intact boar "meat" doesn't produce high levels, that stomach probably wouldn't either (without data), and that 6-month old pigs wouldn't have high levels (data?), except maybe in the kidneys, liver, and testes, i.e. "offal". The AIU rebuttal appears to fail to rebut Houlihan's claim of "offal", and fails to mention research (with small sample sizes) that shows offal can produce levels more than 20x higher than Houlihan's. As little as 15 grams, or half an ounce, say ground up in a spicy chorizo, would be sufficient. Maybe more from a 6-month old pig, if Prof. McGlone's assumptions are correct during the pandemic.
From the CAS report, we saw that there are two possibilities capable of producing these IRMS values: 1) pigs with a soy-fed diet, and 2) one kind of norsteroid precursor. This is likely the primary reason why the WADA TD2021NA says the IRMS test may not be used following pork consumption. AIU expert Prof. McGlone conceded that during the pandemic, pigs exceptionally ate more soy, compared to normal times, when diets of commercial pork are mostly corn.
I don't doubt that many gym goers take nandrolone, especially when not subject to WADA. I have serious doubts that any American distance runner, male or female, especially from a sophisticated Nike team, in the last two decades would ingest small amounts on purpose, as it is easily detected, and the ingestion of small quantities is of questionable benefit.
You keep failing on your definition of evidence. "Evidence" to you is only what you consider evidence. A court doesn't agree with you.
No one except you is interested in whether the fallen tree made a sound. The only issue is whether it fell. Apparently so. Dead cats aside, too, what is beyond doubt is that Shelby had a banned substance in her system for which there was no legitimate explanation. You think it's unfair that the onus was on her to show her innocence, but it is like she was caught with her hand in the till with a fist full of money and couldn't show that she didn't mean to take it.
Not bright are you.The police would still have prove intent.No matter how many times you are told you still will not grasp the burdens of proof.You are either a fool or a liar....please advice.
Hi, liar soorer sock-puppet. Intent can be inferred from the facts. Hand in till, clutching money - you meant to take it.
You keep failing on your definition of evidence. "Evidence" to you is only what you consider evidence. A court doesn't agree with you.
No one except you is interested in whether the fallen tree made a sound. The only issue is whether it fell. Apparently so. Dead cats aside, too, what is beyond doubt is that Shelby had a banned substance in her system for which there was no legitimate explanation. You think it's unfair that the onus was on her to show her innocence, but it is like she was caught with her hand in the till with a fist full of money and couldn't show that she didn't mean to take it.
I failed by agreeing with you? You are probably right.
Even if we stretched to the point of breaking and accepted for argument's sake that "not enough evidence of not intentional" constitutes "evidence of intent", adopting what you consider evidence, where is the evidence of knowledge or fault or negligence or norsteroid precursor?
By your standard, all of these things are not even possibilities. What a fantastic world you live in.
Getting back to sabotage, wouldn't previous precedents be enough evidence to establish the possibility that it could happen again?
You don't agree with me - if you did your arguments would be sound. You require proof of intent of what doesn't require proof. Not every detail in the chain of events requires evidence. All that has to be shown is that she was the only credible author of her doping - and no one and nothing else was.
As for sabotage, that it might have occurred in other cases is in no way legally persuasive that it could have occurred in her case - without evidence of it occurring in her case. There is none. Nothing that applies in one case has any relevance to any other unless they share similar crucial facts. With regard to sabotage, those facts are missing in her case.
As I said, the analogy of her doping is that she was caught with her hand in the till, clutching the money. Her guilt is an easy conclusion.