Yes the decision did mention balance of probabilities but not for being found guilty.
And you have mixed up the burdens of proof in all your posts.
Intellectually you must do better , but then you are already beyond your limits,Mr Bladder in the Digestive System
The balance of probabilities applies to any question of fact. It applied to her defence, which failed according to that test.
Her you have not grasped her defence.
1 . That the test was not what we would refer to as positive, ie presence and this has to be proven to comfortable satisfaction by WA. If proven she is guilty.
2 . We now come to consequences / sanctions and she could and did apply for these to be lessened. You could call this element of her case as her defence but actually it is not.She has to prove her plea for a lesser sanction/ consequence and to do so beyond reasonable doubt and against a standard that the rules say is a very very high bar or narrow corridor.
Now after your 15,000 posts have you grasped this?
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 ;-)
An other definition of a fool is someone who tells lies and hopes to get away with it.
Wada labs do not test gym bunnnies, they are not allowed to.......😅
The balance of probabilities applies to any question of fact. It applied to her defence, which failed according to that test.
Her you have not grasped her defence.
1 . That the test was not what we would refer to as positive, ie presence and this has to be proven to comfortable satisfaction by WA. If proven she is guilty.
2 . We now come to consequences / sanctions and she could and did apply for these to be lessened. You could call this element of her case as her defence but actually it is not.She has to prove her plea for a lesser sanction/ consequence and to do so beyond reasonable doubt and against a standard that the rules say is a very very high bar or narrow corridor.
Now after your 15,000 posts have you grasped this?
Are you having an epileptic fit? She tested positive for nandrolone. Please take your medication.
1 . That the test was not what we would refer to as positive, ie presence and this has to be proven to comfortable satisfaction by WA. If proven she is guilty.
2 . We now come to consequences / sanctions and she could and did apply for these to be lessened. You could call this element of her case as her defence but actually it is not.She has to prove her plea for a lesser sanction/ consequence and to do so beyond reasonable doubt and against a standard that the rules say is a very very high bar or narrow corridor.
Now after your 15,000 posts have you grasped this?
Are you having an epileptic fit? She tested positive for nandrolone. Please take your medication.
Insults when the rules are explained..
Clearly after 15,000 posts you have not grasped even basics.
1 . That the test was not what we would refer to as positive, ie presence and this has to be proven to comfortable satisfaction by WA. If proven she is guilty.
2 . We now come to consequences / sanctions and she could and did apply for these to be lessened. You could call this element of her case as her defence but actually it is not.She has to prove her plea for a lesser sanction/ consequence and to do so beyond reasonable doubt and against a standard that the rules say is a very very high bar or narrow corridor.
Now after your 15,000 posts have you grasped this?
Have you still not read the CAS decision? Of course she tested positive for nandrolone. Even Shelburrito did not challenge that. Have you still not read the rules? Of course the doper didn't have to prove anything "beyond reasonable doubt". And of course the rules don't say anything about a "high bar or narrow corridor", let alone "a very very high bar". Read the rules, and stop trolling.
1 . That the test was not what we would refer to as positive, ie presence and this has to be proven to comfortable satisfaction by WA. If proven she is guilty.
2 . We now come to consequences / sanctions and she could and did apply for these to be lessened. You could call this element of her case as her defence but actually it is not.She has to prove her plea for a lesser sanction/ consequence and to do so beyond reasonable doubt and against a standard that the rules say is a very very high bar or narrow corridor.
Now after your 15,000 posts have you grasped this?
Have you still not read the CAS decision? Of course she tested positive for nandrolone. Even Shelburrito did not challenge that. Have you still not read the rules? Of course the doper didn't have to prove anything "beyond reasonable doubt". And of course the rules don't say anything about a "high bar or narrow corridor", let alone "a very very high bar". Read the rules, and stop trolling.
Have you still not read the CAS decision? Of course she tested positive for nandrolone. Even Shelburrito did not challenge that. Have you still not read the rules? Of course the doper didn't have to prove anything "beyond reasonable doubt". And of course the rules don't say anything about a "high bar or narrow corridor", let alone "a very very high bar". Read the rules, and stop trolling.
Butt out!
This was in simplicity terms for Armstronglies
Why are you asking him to butt out. You sound like a coward when you beg like that. Are you afraid of being challenged? Then you just leave if you are so fearful.
Why are you asking him to butt out. You sound like a coward when you beg like that. Are you afraid of being challenged? Then you just leave if you are so fearful.
No !
He had no grasp of why I had posted and took it in isolation
1 . That the test was not what we would refer to as positive, ie presence and this has to be proven to comfortable satisfaction by WA. If proven she is guilty.
2 . We now come to consequences / sanctions and she could and did apply for these to be lessened. You could call this element of her case as her defence but actually it is not.She has to prove her plea for a lesser sanction/ consequence and to do so beyond reasonable doubt and against a standard that the rules say is a very very high bar or narrow corridor.
Now after your 15,000 posts have you grasped this?
Have you still not read the CAS decision? Of course she tested positive for nandrolone. Even Shelburrito did not challenge that. Have you still not read the rules? Of course the doper didn't have to prove anything "beyond reasonable doubt". And of course the rules don't say anything about a "high bar or narrow corridor", let alone "a very very high bar". Read the rules, and stop trolling.
CAS decision never ever ever mentioned testing positive.
Why are you asking him to butt out. You sound like a coward when you beg like that. Are you afraid of being challenged? Then you just leave if you are so fearful.
No !
He had no grasp of why I had posted and took it in isolation
relax. no one actually reads his long posts…or yours.
CAS decision never ever ever mentioned testing positive.
But SH did challenge the lab report.
CAS wrote under II. Factual Background:
On 15 December 2020, the Athlete provided a urine sample (sample 105190V), out-of competition, in Oregon, USA. The analysis of the A-Sample revealed the presence of nandrolone, specifically 19-norandrosterone (“19-NA”).
...
On 15 January 2021, the Athlete exercised her right to the analysis of her B-Sample. On 27 January 2021, the findings of the A-Sample were confirmed.
Shelby challenged a number of things, for example that the lab didn't consult a second lab, and didn't perform additional tests, but not that she tested positive for nandrolone.
He had no grasp of why I had posted and took it in isolation
relax. no one actually reads his long posts…or yours.
Then I'll summarize: Houlihan was found guilty under the rules of intentional doping (a decision affirmed by two appeals) and despite a subsequent claim of possible sabotage there isn't a whiff of evidence to support that. But none of this will deflect the nutjobs here from protesting the "unfairness" of the system (as we will no doubt see again. "But the r-rules!...")
CAS decision never ever ever mentioned testing positive.
But SH did challenge the lab report.
CAS wrote under II. Factual Background:
On 15 December 2020, the Athlete provided a urine sample (sample 105190V), out-of competition, in Oregon, USA. The analysis of the A-Sample revealed the presence of nandrolone, specifically 19-norandrosterone (“19-NA”).
...
On 15 January 2021, the Athlete exercised her right to the analysis of her B-Sample. On 27 January 2021, the findings of the A-Sample were confirmed.
Shelby challenged a number of things, for example that the lab didn't consult a second lab, and didn't perform additional tests, but not that she tested positive for nandrolone.
A finding is not a positive because it could an AAF or an ATF,thus it only became a AAF when the lab examined the finding and against certain criteria defined it as such. At the point the man in the street could call it a positive however wada never uses that word.
SH challenged the AAF saying that it should be an ATF thus challenging the positive.
relax. no one actually reads his long posts…or yours.
Then I'll summarize: Houlihan was found guilty under the rules of intentional doping (a decision affirmed by two appeals) and despite a subsequent claim of possible sabotage there isn't a whiff of evidence to support that. But none of this will deflect the nutjobs here from protesting the "unfairness" of the system (as we will no doubt see again. "But the r-rules!...")
There are no rules of intentional doping.
There was not two appeals.
Just because the decision went against ,and rightly so,it does not mean that the rules are fair and protect clean athletes.
And why do you insult those who have read the r r r rules as nutjobs ... is this allowed.
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.
Thanks...will go back through your posts. So much crap on here that it is extremely confusing for has what point of or another.