How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

Why do you spin all the time so hard? "no shortage of opinions"? All outside experts agreed: it was not in the burrito.

Whether that is true or not, that is still just their opinion, and I only give opinions the weight of supporting facts. I'm not spinning their opinions so much as giving them their proper weighted consideration.

And it's beside the point. These opinions about burritos do nothing to establish that the presumed, but wholly unproven, doping scenario is likely. Five years later, and this alternative speculated suggestion has yet to undergo any intellectual scrutiny, from neither experts nor fans alike, and is completely lacking in factual support.

Further to this, I do recall Shelby reported as saying after her comeback:

"Everything went smoothly. Houlihan was welcomed back by fans and competitors with open arms. She said she didn't hear one boo. Fellow runners told her they were happy to see her back."

and again from Shelby:

"Not even really a single instance of negativity, which honestly I’m pretty shocked about," Houlihan said. "I'm sure at some point I will get something. It's been really relieving. My whole exposure has just been the internet the last four years. I haven't really been a part of the running community. Getting in person, it's been night and day different."

It looks like it is mainly the "internet" which is toxic.

At her peak she looked like the russian and soviet athletes of the past. Marina savinova,nedhezha olizarenko ,yekaterina podkopeva and others. She was more muscled than tatiana kazinkina,but she reminded me of her. She also reminded me of asli cakir altptekin from turkey.That tells me all i need to know.

Because of the drugs that were found in her system, and her self-admitted lack of an explanation.

1. The above is a terrible sentence. Improved writing may help the impact of your communications.

2. The test results were not "ambiguous." Quite the opposite: the test results provided an objective quantitative measure of a banned substance in the athlete's system.

1) Thanks for the constructive feedback. I asked ChatGPT to improve it: "Certainly! Here's a clearer and more polished version of your sentence: "While the possibility of ingestion through pork offal has been thoroughly scrutinized—with plenty of opinions offered, even by outside experts—the alternative theory of intentional doping has not undergone any serious examination or intellectual scrutiny by anyone, including experts. Nor has it been supported by any concrete evidence beyond the ambiguous results of the test itself.""

2) It is the interpretation of the test results that is ambiguous, without unambiguously identifying the source. These test results could be from doping, or could not be. Recall the CAS Panel was split on this point, which further confirms the ambiguity of interpretation. And they ruled that the source was not identified.

Savinova is the one I always thought of when seeing Shelby but Kazinkina definitely has the look too.

Of course she cheated.

.... just stop.

She's a lying, cheating, pathetic scumbag. She should have banned from the sport for life.

Zero tolerance for cheating, and even less tolerance than that for the "Poor me!" lying and gaslighting routine. Shut up and take your consequences.

What if she never lied and never cheated? Many people are confused about the likelihood that she may have cheated, conflating it with an unrelated national likelihood (not applicable during the pandemic) that pork offal from uncastrated pigs (on increased soy diets) would be available for public consumption.

Recall she was convicted on presumptions, not specific facts. Everyone seems to forget what the CAS clearly wrote.

Houlihan would not be the first victim of a WADA Code tipped in the favor of anti-doping organizations against all athletes.

The opposite is true - you are either confused or are trying to confuse us. Any way... did you thank Armstrong yet for giving you yet another opportunity to defend this doper? Are you enjoying it so far?

What if... you really are him? ... or you'd stop making excuses for dopers?

The opposite of what? The problem is that no one really knows what is "true" -- only what was presumed. Maybe Houlihan knows, but then again, maybe not.

I guess I have to thank you. We were talking about her reputation among "fans".

If you want to suggest that Houlihan doped, someone has to make the case for it, without resorting to presuming the conclusion.

That's ridiculous.

Here are the specific facts: she had a PED in her system, above an acceptable level, and could not present a coherent and credible defense for why.

That is literally the only fact relevant, and just because you don't like it for whatever reason, that doesn't suddenly make it a matter of opinion.

Fair.

It's not so ridiculous as the arbitration panel was split on this very point.

Your fact is not so black-and-white. Her level would be acceptable depending on the source. But the source was not identified. The problem with her "defense" was not coherence or credibility, but the requirement to establish, with "specific and concrete elements", the "more likely than not" source. This is known to be a difficult, if not impossible, proof for athletes to provide.

The WADA Code will convict doping athletes the same as innocent athletes who cannot provide such sufficient proof to meet their burden. It doesn't require or make a distinction.

It's not that I don't like your fact. What is missing are the remaining facts necessary to establish she doped (or cheated or lied).

That's ridiculous. The panel was not split on the fact that she did "not present a coherent and credible defense" for her positive test.

Rather the panel voted 2 : 1 that the lab followed the TD2021 (which arguably was irrelevant anyway because it came into effect after the lab finished its report) to the letter. Apparently the lone, weird dissenter did not appreciate that the lab did not ask for a second opinion (though that was clearly optional). Read the report. The panel was unanimous in rejecting the burrito theory, several times over to be precise. Stop gaslighting.

I have no doubt that her defense was coherent and credible. That very scenario has been studied by WADA for decades. If you say the CAS Panel was unanimous on these points, they didn't say so. These terms are not in the CAS report, except to say that Houlihan was credible.

According to the report, the CAS panel was split on the point whether the AAF was properly determined and whether any ADRV was established -- i.e. whether the test results show that Houlihan "doped".

You keep sidestepping the point that CAS report omits. The CAS report did not intellectually scrutinize the alternative intentional doping scenario, but started with presumptions that that was the scenario to be rebutted. A unanimous finding that the pork offal consumption evidence before them failed to meet the athlete's required burden is not an argument that establishes any of the suggested alternative theories.

No one has yet made the case establishing the intentional doping scenario to any intellectual or legal burden, beyond the burden of presumption. I don't make these presumptions.