Shelby Quote " it could've been someone around me " .... Who is the saboteur 🧐?

Armstronglivs wrote:

What has bogged this thread down - and so many others on the topic - is the misinterpretation of what is meant by claiming something is "possible". In a legal sense - which is how the word was applied in Houlihan's case - it requires evidence of some sort before it can even be presented as an argument. Without that it would simply be struck out. Houlihan presented sufficient evidence that the Panel conceded her argument was a "possibility" - but to the barest degree. Expert assessment was that the combination of events necessary for it to occur in her case was "close to zero".

However the crucial test is not what is possible but what meets the standard of "the balance of probabilities". She couldn't meet that - or indeed get anywhere near it. She simply didn't have the evidence. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that evidence existed somewhere. That is pure conjecture. Cases aren't decided by conjecture. So we accept conclusions based on what meets the balance of probabilities. Nothing argued here about her innocence will enable her to achieve that.

Fxtydfetx wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What has bogged this thread down - and so many others on the topic - is the misinterpretation of what is meant by claiming something is "possible". In a legal sense - which is how the word was applied in Houlihan's case - it requires evidence of some sort before it can even be presented as an argument. Without that it would simply be struck out. Houlihan presented sufficient evidence that the Panel conceded her argument was a "possibility" - but to the barest degree. Expert assessment was that the combination of events necessary for it to occur in her case was "close to zero".

However the crucial test is not what is possible but what meets the standard of "the balance of probabilities". She couldn't meet that - or indeed get anywhere near it. She simply didn't have the evidence. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that evidence existed somewhere. That is pure conjecture. Cases aren't decided by conjecture. So we accept conclusions based on what meets the balance of probabilities. Nothing argued here about her innocence will enable her to achieve that.

Wrong,bogged down by Armstronglivs still not knowing what the standard of proof is after 15,000 posts.

But then he has never bothered to read the rules.

Ecclesiastes wrote:

Fxtydfetx wrote:

Wrong,bogged down by Armstronglivs still not knowing what the standard of proof is after 15,000 posts.

But then he has never bothered to read the rules.

The bogging is the inability of some posters to understand that Houlihan should have run the sabotage defense, rather than the ludicrous Mexican burrito and cheese defense. She was misled by her inadequate sports lawyers, who are barely a step above criminal prosecutors as far as low level lawyers go.

If Houlihan had run the sabotage theory from the get-go, we wouldn't be having these conversations with the alleged Bozos. Sabo has legs, theory-wise. Who hasn't been sandbagged by jealous co-workers or neighbors? It happens all the time in a competitive society. It's part and parcel of striving for the American dream. The CAS jury would have found it much more palatable if Houlihan had listed some suspects, rather than this whackadoo "burrito 'n' balls" stuff. Burrito dope, for J. Christ's sakes.

Fxtydfetx wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What has bogged this thread down - and so many others on the topic - is the misinterpretation of what is meant by claiming something is "possible". In a legal sense - which is how the word was applied in Houlihan's case - it requires evidence of some sort before it can even be presented as an argument. Without that it would simply be struck out. Houlihan presented sufficient evidence that the Panel conceded her argument was a "possibility" - but to the barest degree. Expert assessment was that the combination of events necessary for it to occur in her case was "close to zero".

However the crucial test is not what is possible but what meets the standard of "the balance of probabilities". She couldn't meet that - or indeed get anywhere near it. She simply didn't have the evidence. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that evidence existed somewhere. That is pure conjecture. Cases aren't decided by conjecture. So we accept conclusions based on what meets the balance of probabilities. Nothing argued here about her innocence will enable her to achieve that.

Wrong,bogged down by Armstronglivs still not knowing what the standard of proof is after 15,000 posts.

But then he has never bothered to read the rules.

Ecclesiastes wrote:

Fxtydfetx wrote:

Wrong,bogged down by Armstronglivs still not knowing what the standard of proof is after 15,000 posts.

But then he has never bothered to read the rules.

The bogging is the inability of some posters to understand that Houlihan should have run the sabotage defense, rather than the ludicrous Mexican burrito and cheese defense. She was misled by her inadequate sports lawyers, who are barely a step above criminal prosecutors as far as low level lawyers go.

If Houlihan had run the sabotage theory from the get-go, we wouldn't be having these conversations with the alleged Bozos. Sabo has legs, theory-wise. Who hasn't been sandbagged by jealous co-workers or neighbors? It happens all the time in a competitive society. It's part and parcel of striving for the American dream. The CAS jury would have found it much more palatable if Houlihan had listed some suspects, rather than this whackadoo "burrito 'n' balls" stuff. Burrito dope, for J. Christ's sakes.

Armstronglivs wrote:

What has bogged this thread down - and so many others on the topic - is the misinterpretation of what is meant by claiming something is "possible". In a legal sense - which is how the word was applied in Houlihan's case - it requires evidence of some sort before it can even be presented as an argument. Without that it would simply be struck out. Houlihan presented sufficient evidence that the Panel conceded her argument was a "possibility" - but to the barest degree. Expert assessment was that the combination of events necessary for it to occur in her case was "close to zero".

However the crucial test is not what is possible but what meets the standard of "the balance of probabilities". She couldn't meet that - or indeed get anywhere near it. She simply didn't have the evidence. There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that evidence existed somewhere. That is pure conjecture. Cases aren't decided by conjecture. So we accept conclusions based on what meets the balance of probabilities. Nothing argued here about her innocence will enable her to achieve that.

okay but ... wrote:

Ecclesiastes wrote:

The bogging is the inability of some posters to understand that Houlihan should have run the sabotage defense, rather than the ludicrous Mexican burrito and cheese defense. She was misled by her inadequate sports lawyers, who are barely a step above criminal prosecutors as far as low level lawyers go.

If Houlihan had run the sabotage theory from the get-go, we wouldn't be having these conversations with the alleged Bozos. Sabo has legs, theory-wise. Who hasn't been sandbagged by jealous co-workers or neighbors? It happens all the time in a competitive society. It's part and parcel of striving for the American dream. The CAS jury would have found it much more palatable if Houlihan had listed some suspects, rather than this whackadoo "burrito 'n' balls" stuff. Burrito dope, for J. Christ's sakes.

A. Do you believe S. Houlihan was sabotaged? She had a receding hairline, performance improvements which were not logical and she was built like a m.m.a. fighter.