"Note, even in cases of sabotage, it is still a rule violation, because no-fault and no-negligence findings are still rule violations."(quote)
That isn't correct. If the athlete can show to the satisfaction of the anti-doping authorities that they were either not in breach of the rules (such as a TUE) or were not negligent then they have a valid defence against a finding of an ADRV. Evidence of sabotage on the balance of probabilities would constitute such a defence.
"Speaking for myself, you fail to understand the topic I raise is whether rulings under the WADA Code accurately reflect reality and can always protect all innocent athletes. The answer is no, because the WADA Code is broken."(quote)
Your claim that the WADA Code is broken is based on a case where the balance of probabilities failed to establish the athlete's innocence. There was no evidence presented that demonstrated Houlihan's innocence. It remains only your speculation. Her defence was assessed by experts before the Panel as being of "near-zero" likelihood. You therefore have no basis in fact to claim the Code is "broken".
S. Houlihan's physical appearance and improvement tend to indicate systematic use of P.E.D.s which makes burrito untrue and random competitor slipping her P.E.D.s also untrue. You say why did she test positive this time and not previously? Possibly instructed to take with X number of caloric intake. Possibly accidentally screwed up the dosage after a couple glasses of wine. Possibly intentionally got greedy with dosage.
I will address point A. First, her receding hairline was not introduced as evidence against her by CAS. There is no hair level evidence on the record. Second, her performance improvements could have just as easily been attributable to sabotage doping as to intentional doping.
Better off taking the Giambi Brothers approach. Should have admitted and cooperated and had her legal team negotiate a short penalty.
I agree that another approach her awful attorneys could have taken was mea culpa admission of guilt. Anything would have been better than this preposterous stuffed burrito defense that has backfired completely and made Houlihan an internet meme. Those lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence.
S. Houlihan's physical appearance and improvement tend to indicate systematic use of P.E.D.s which makes burrito untrue and random competitor slipping her P.E.D.s also untrue. You say why did she test positive this time and not previously? Possibly instructed to take with X number of caloric intake. Possibly accidentally screwed up the dosage after a couple glasses of wine. Possibly intentionally got greedy with dosage.
I will address point A. First, her receding hairline was not introduced as evidence against her by CAS. There is no hair level evidence on the record. Second, her performance improvements could have just as easily been attributable to sabotage doping as to intentional doping.
Better off taking the Giambi Brothers approach. Should have admitted and cooperated and had her legal team negotiate a short penalty.
I agree that another approach her awful attorneys could have taken was mea culpa admission of guilt. Anything would have been better than this preposterous stuffed burrito defense that has backfired completely and made Houlihan an internet meme. Those lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence.
The burrito defence was the best they could come up with, since she clearly didn't want to admit guilt. Ironically, the defence argument depended on not being able to produce the burrito, because if it had been it would have likely blown the contamination argument clean out of the water.
S. Houlihan's physical appearance and improvement tend to indicate systematic use of P.E.D.s which makes burrito untrue and random competitor slipping her P.E.D.s also untrue. You say why did she test positive this time and not previously? Possibly instructed to take with X number of caloric intake. Possibly accidentally screwed up the dosage after a couple glasses of wine. Possibly intentionally got greedy with dosage.
I will address point A. First, her receding hairline was not introduced as evidence against her by CAS. There is no hair level evidence on the record. Second, her performance improvements could have just as easily been attributable to sabotage doping as to intentional doping.
Better off taking the Giambi Brothers approach. Should have admitted and cooperated and had her legal team negotiate a short penalty.
I agree that another approach her awful attorneys could have taken was mea culpa admission of guilt. Anything would have been better than this preposterous stuffed burrito defense that has backfired completely and made Houlihan an internet meme. Those lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence.
* We will agree to disagree that someone or group of individuals can dope an athlete enough for improved performance but not enough for positive tests. In theory, S. Houlihan may have been a well organized systemic doper and it also could be true that someone spiked her food/drink to make her positive beyond threshold. How does one argue that? I have been doping. I know how to be a good micro-doper. Someone spiked me to make me test positive. She cannot make that argument. Someone may have known she was a systemic doper and wanted her to test positive. One never can make that formal argument.
*Everyday in U.S. and western nations hundreds are arrested for d.u.i. Ninety-nine plus percent have attorneys telling their client to admit guilt and attorneys attempt to negotiate the punishment to a minimum. Every now and then a client will refuse to admit guilt, even a client who blows. Attorneys have two choices: 1) tell client to get another attorney; 2) argue it is impossible to properly calculate blood alcohol content from lung vapors &/or standard deviation of Breathalyzer is outside of manufacture stated S.D.; 3) legally allowable prescription drugs give false positive Breathalyzer intoxication numbers ... .
I know this was a civil procedure but if client will not admit guilt, attorney has to either drop the client or make a risky argument. Not necessarily attorneys fault.
"Note, even in cases of sabotage, it is still a rule violation, because no-fault and no-negligence findings are still rule violations."(quote)
That isn't correct. If the athlete can show to the satisfaction of the anti-doping authorities that they were either not in breach of the rules (such as a TUE) or were not negligent then they have a valid defence against a finding of an ADRV. Evidence of sabotage on the balance of probabilities would constitute such a defence.
Wrong again.
Not negligent is only for the consequences. You are still guilty and such guilt is not assessed against balance of probabilities.
Thus sabotage is no defence against the charge.
The TUE would have been sorted out prior to the charge.
Do read the rules and study them before contaminating this thread with mis truths.
I will address point A. First, her receding hairline was not introduced as evidence against her by CAS. There is no hair level evidence on the record. Second, her performance improvements could have just as easily been attributable to sabotage doping as to intentional doping.
I agree that another approach her awful attorneys could have taken was mea culpa admission of guilt. Anything would have been better than this preposterous stuffed burrito defense that has backfired completely and made Houlihan an internet meme. Those lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence.
The burrito defence was the best they could come up with, since she clearly didn't want to admit guilt. Ironically, the defence argument depended on not being able to produce the burrito, because if it had been it would have likely blown the contamination argument clean out of the water.
Since she clearly had no idea where the drug came from.
Why would the existence of the burrito blown the argument out of the water.
"Speaking for myself, you fail to understand the topic I raise is whether rulings under the WADA Code accurately reflect reality and can always protect all innocent athletes. The answer is no, because the WADA Code is broken."(quote)
Your claim that the WADA Code is broken is based on a case where the balance of probabilities failed to establish the athlete's innocence. There was no evidence presented that demonstrated Houlihan's innocence. It remains only your speculation. Her defence was assessed by experts before the Panel as being of "near-zero" likelihood. You therefore have no basis in fact to claim the Code is "broken".
Wrong again..
The balance of probabilities had nothing to do with her guilt or not.
I will address point A. First, her receding hairline was not introduced as evidence against her by CAS. There is no hair level evidence on the record. Second, her performance improvements could have just as easily been attributable to sabotage doping as to intentional doping.
I agree that another approach her awful attorneys could have taken was mea culpa admission of guilt. Anything would have been better than this preposterous stuffed burrito defense that has backfired completely and made Houlihan an internet meme. Those lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence.
The burrito defence was the best they could come up with, since she clearly didn't want to admit guilt. Ironically, the defence argument depended on not being able to produce the burrito, because if it had been it would have likely blown the contamination argument clean out of the water.
The point is that the burrito banging should not have been the best defense they could come up with. It's a joke on its face. What the hell was wrong with these lawyers? They could have much more easily developed a sabotage defense - much more believable and relatable to life in America to argue that a jealous competitor sabotaged someone. Everyone in America has been jacked over by an adversary at one time or another.
It appears from Houlihan's statement that she is just beginning to realize this at a time that is too late for her. She won't get another shot at running the common sense sabotage defense, as ineffective assistance of counsel does not appear to be an issue on appeal.
I will address point A. First, her receding hairline was not introduced as evidence against her by CAS. There is no hair level evidence on the record. Second, her performance improvements could have just as easily been attributable to sabotage doping as to intentional doping.
I agree that another approach her awful attorneys could have taken was mea culpa admission of guilt. Anything would have been better than this preposterous stuffed burrito defense that has backfired completely and made Houlihan an internet meme. Those lawyers should be disbarred for incompetence.
* We will agree to disagree that someone or group of individuals can dope an athlete enough for improved performance but not enough for positive tests. In theory, S. Houlihan may have been a well organized systemic doper and it also could be true that someone spiked her food/drink to make her positive beyond threshold. How does one argue that? I have been doping. I know how to be a good micro-doper. Someone spiked me to make me test positive. She cannot make that argument. Someone may have known she was a systemic doper and wanted her to test positive. One never can make that formal argument.
There are presumptions and assumptions in you post that I'm not aware of and can't comment on. It is, however, possible to dope another person without their knowledge. The more time a saboteur spends around a victim, the more opportunity they will have to dope them. That is common sense.
*Everyday in U.S. and western nations hundreds are arrested for d.u.i. Ninety-nine plus percent have attorneys telling their client to admit guilt and attorneys attempt to negotiate the punishment to a minimum. Every now and then a client will refuse to admit guilt, even a client who blows. Attorneys have two choices: 1) tell client to get another attorney; 2) argue it is impossible to properly calculate blood alcohol content from lung vapors &/or standard deviation of Breathalyzer is outside of manufacture stated S.D.; 3) legally allowable prescription drugs give false positive Breathalyzer intoxication numbers ... . I know this was a civil procedure but if client will not admit guilt, attorney has to either drop the client or make a risky argument. Not necessarily attorneys fault.
It is absolutely an attorney's fault if they don't try to develop evidence for a common sense defense as opposed to, for example, a defense involving Mexican burrito slop. There is one instance in American jurisprudence where a defendant successfully ran a Hostess Twinkie defense, but that was an aberrational one-off. Houlihan's attorneys may have tried to model her defense on that Hostess Twinkie defense. That was gross malpractice on their part. The burrito was doomed from the start. No one will buy the burrito.
The burrito defence was the best they could come up with, since she clearly didn't want to admit guilt. Ironically, the defence argument depended on not being able to produce the burrito, because if it had been it would have likely blown the contamination argument clean out of the water.
Since she clearly had no idea where the drug came from.
Why would the existence of the burrito blown the argument out of the water.
a) I highly doubt that she doesn't know "where the drug came from".
b) Testing that burrito would have shown that there was no nandro. So she would have had to look for a different excuse.
Houlihan's attorneys may have tried to model her defense on that Hostess Twinkie defense. That was gross malpractice on their part. The burrito was doomed from the start. No one will buy the burrito.
Don't forget that the very same lawyer got Lawson off with a contaminated beef story.
But yes, with the too large amount here and the wrong CIR and the raised androgens and that it would have to have been an uncastrated boar, there was no chance to convince the panel.
Having said that, I still think they gave up on Houlihan as soon as she was caught doping, and did all that burrito nonsense for PR reasons, knowing very well that it wouldn't work, to keep BTC running - especially after NOP was dismantled. This way, BTC and Nike can continue to pretend that there was no doping.
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.
'A' definition of a fool. Someone who is a smart alec because he can comprehend quotes etc, but has zero common sense and logic to join the dots. The CAS quotes say what they say, nothing more, but you should know the rest.
We are not friggin arguing here, for 33 pages, about intent. WADA and drugs in sport simply isn't a legal system of innocent until guilty. It is simply "your levels are too high, can you explain it to our satisfaction"? The answer in this case is no. Were it to be 'balance of probabilities, innocent until guilty, whatever...then you may as well give up and just hand out the drugs in the dressing room of major meets, like gel sachets in a marathon.
The athlete wants to take WADA down the rabbit hole of "random beef burrito contaminated by uncrastrated soy latte drinking boar meat" and WADA is not burrowing down that hole. If they were to do that, they may as well close shop. Next time, before you take your daily dose of PEDS please have your excuse well nutted out before hand and bring that to the table instead. They may shake their heads in disbelief, but will have to give you a pass.
Now I will also tell you this much without giving my and my trusted confidantes game away. I know much much more about IRMS, than you who appears to be able to only spell it. I have been involved in supply and support of it for over 15yrs, but yet I know less than 1% of my confidante...you should show more humility.
What the rabbitt hole will provide is a bunch of PhD's based on its debunking, thanks Shelby. My confidante at this WADA lab and his colleagues are 'all over' this case, and I assume others are too...watch this space.
Lastly, re casual gym junky use. I tell you what the samples coming into the lab report - why would the person lie to me?- , yet you obviously know better. He wasn't talking about levels, just presence. It is all over and available at a dime a dozen.
"Note, even in cases of sabotage, it is still a rule violation, because no-fault and no-negligence findings are still rule violations."(quote)
That isn't correct. If the athlete can show to the satisfaction of the anti-doping authorities that they were either not in breach of the rules (such as a TUE) or were not negligent then they have a valid defence against a finding of an ADRV. Evidence of sabotage on the balance of probabilities would constitute such a defence.
Wrong again.
Not negligent is only for the consequences. You are still guilty and such guilt is not assessed against balance of probabilities.
Thus sabotage is no defence against the charge.
The TUE would have been sorted out prior to the charge.
Do read the rules and study them before contaminating this thread with mis truths.
Still wrong. Negligence relates to the standard of care (or the lack of it) the athlete showed, not the consequences, because they remain the same - a positive test. But if the athlete showed due care and were not negligent they have a defence.
"Speaking for myself, you fail to understand the topic I raise is whether rulings under the WADA Code accurately reflect reality and can always protect all innocent athletes. The answer is no, because the WADA Code is broken."(quote)
Your claim that the WADA Code is broken is based on a case where the balance of probabilities failed to establish the athlete's innocence. There was no evidence presented that demonstrated Houlihan's innocence. It remains only your speculation. Her defence was assessed by experts before the Panel as being of "near-zero" likelihood. You therefore have no basis in fact to claim the Code is "broken".
Strange argument that a broken Code can't be broken because it led to a verdict.
It is based on the principle that presuming key factors rather than requiring establishing them, and making decisions on incomplete evidence, will sometimes lead to the right answer, and sometime lead to the wrong answer. Innocent athletes will be railroaded to 4-year bans and we will never know which ones -- against the mission of WADA.
It is also based in fact on the cases of Getzmann, and the 27 cases prosecuted by USADA, who remain guilty of rule violations because of a broken Code.
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.
'A' definition of a fool. Someone who is a smart alec because he can comprehend quotes etc, but has zero common sense and logic to join the dots. The CAS quotes say what they say, nothing more, but you should know the rest.
We are not friggin arguing here, for 33 pages, about intent. WADA and drugs in sport simply isn't a legal system of innocent until guilty. It is simply "your levels are too high, can you explain it to our satisfaction"? The answer in this case is no. Were it to be 'balance of probabilities, innocent until guilty, whatever...then you may as well give up and just hand out the drugs in the dressing room of major meets, like gel sachets in a marathon.
The athlete wants to take WADA down the rabbit hole of "random beef burrito contaminated by uncrastrated soy latte drinking boar meat" and WADA is not burrowing down that hole. If they were to do that, they may as well close shop. Next time, before you take your daily dose of PEDS please have your excuse well nutted out before hand and bring that to the table instead. They may shake their heads in disbelief, but will have to give you a pass.
Now I will also tell you this much without giving my and my trusted confidantes game away. I know much much more about IRMS, than you who appears to be able to only spell it. I have been involved in supply and support of it for over 15yrs, but yet I know less than 1% of my confidante...you should show more humility.
What the rabbitt hole will provide is a bunch of PhD's based on its debunking, thanks Shelby. My confidante at this WADA lab and his colleagues are 'all over' this case, and I assume others are too...watch this space.
Lastly, re casual gym junky use. I tell you what the samples coming into the lab report - why would the person lie to me?- , yet you obviously know better. He wasn't talking about levels, just presence. It is all over and available at a dime a dozen.
But I should have just spoken to you instead ;-)
Still not seeing what you think I misread or misunderstood.
I don't doubt the IRMS result, or your IRMS expertise, or your WADA colleague's expertise, or that gym goers use nandrolone. I don't doubt your confidante about nandrolone found in population samples.
Not negligent is only for the consequences. You are still guilty and such guilt is not assessed against balance of probabilities.
Thus sabotage is no defence against the charge.
The TUE would have been sorted out prior to the charge.
Do read the rules and study them before contaminating this thread with mis truths.
Still wrong. Negligence relates to the standard of care (or the lack of it) the athlete showed, not the consequences, because they remain the same - a positive test. But if the athlete showed due care and were not negligent they have a defence.
What do they have a defence against : the charge or to mitigate the consequences/ sanctions.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.