Yes, they - so it is reassuring that WADA and CAS claims aren't rejected or ignored.
Then you should also be reassured that I don't reject or ignore WADA and CAS claims either, but the non-logical extrapolated claims of anonymous nobodies that cannot be found in the CAS report.
I point out that the CAS doesn't call Houlihan a doper, nor did they find she knowingly doped with an exogenous nandrolone product.
CAS doesn't need to call her a doper; they convicted her of a doping offence that included using a banned drug. By definition - that is a doper. Not a jaywalker, shoplifter or anything other than a doper - one doping offence is enough to confirm that. They didn't need to say she knowingly doped but they found she "intentionally" doped, which is the same thing. They were enabled to that finding because she was unable to show accidental contamination. The banned drug was in her system; she was unable to furnish an accepted defence for how it got there so she was deemed responsible for its presence in her body. No one and nothing else was to blame but her. Hard for you to accept, I know.
I see analogies are beyond your reasoning powers. Heroin was merely given as an example of a banned substance, as nandrolone is in sports, that can be detected by tests.
Your waffle about an ADRV shows you are unable to distinguish between evidence that is conforms to the highest standard of proof, as a confirmed failed test does, and a verdict arrived at on the totality of the evidence, which will be based on the balance of probabilities.
Your arguments - or inability to grapple with them - explains how CAS is able to arrive at a logically and factually sound decision but you are unable to understand it. Life must be very difficult for you.
It's amusing when you think the issue must be that no one understands your dumbed-down ideas lacking nuance and depth.
It is a failed analogy, as 1) their is no burden that applies to confirmed tests, so there is nothing to distinguish, 2) nandrolone was not injected into the veins, but ingested and mostly first-passed into the urine, and 3) nandrolone is naturally available in the food supply, and experts like Prof. Ayotte have known this for decades.
As we just saw, the verdict arrived at on the totality of the evidence is based on the comfortable satisfiction of the CAS Panel.
I completely understand the CAS decision. It is only possible within the WADA Code, which allows ADAs/ADOs to take some shortcuts to make the decisions less factual and sound.
The nandrolone that was found in her body was not accepted as having been in her food supply. A small point but rather crucial.
The failed test is part of the evidence but also enables an evidential finding that exceeds the merely probable. It was absolutely certain that she had a banned drug in her system. What was seen at the lowest level of probability was her attempted excuse. Hence it was rejected. A logically and factually sound decision by the Court.
As Richard Pound has said of dopers that "only the dumb and the careless get caught" the least that can be said of NOP athletes is not that they were not doped but that they weren't dumb or careless. But their coach was.
Richard Pound was talking about getting caught from WADA testing, and not a multi-year intensive investigation including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts, reviewed by 4 separate anti-doping organizations.
Yet, strangely, their coach was convicted of doping offences. He wasn't doping himself.
Figures compiled by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) claim the total sporting spending on anti-doping amounts to $300 million (£242 million/€...
Richard Pound was talking about getting caught from WADA testing, and not a multi-year intensive investigation including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts, reviewed by 4 separate anti-doping organizations.
Yet, strangely, their coach was convicted of doping offences. He wasn't doping himself.
"Are you really so dim you cannot tell the difference between doping and anti-doping?"
Salazar was convicted of unrelated anti-doping rule violations that implicated no NOP athletes.
Mhmm wrote: The removed posts above were completely innocuous. I thought we valued free speech? That said, it is shameful from every perspective How you depend and deflect for this cheat? Were you doing that for Regina Jacobs too?
The first 3 replies to this thread were deleted because we asked people to take some time to read the pieces before commentating. They did not do that.
Ross spent A TON of time on this as the case is quite complicated and hard to understand even if you are a scientific expert like Ross. We hired him as we wanted him to go step by step and break down the decision. The original piece he wrote was over 9,000 words. We had him shorten it down but still thought it was too technical so we went with the Q&A as the featured piece. I kind of think we should have just kept the original 9,000 and then down the Q&A.
Only one of the 3 deleted posts deleted had anything of substance to it. I'll address it now.
Also, rojo: maybe you should stop with your wild claim that Ayotte is a "known perjurer". As Tucker wrote: the best case one can make is that Ayotte was caught making an inaccurate generalization with significant implications for the initial sanction. Apparently the consequences of this error affected her minimally, and so she remains influential in the anti-doping world
Ross isn't saying that Ayotte didn't perjure herself. I think you misread what he wrote. He is saying the best case (for Ayotte) is that she made an inaccurate generalization. It's still possible she did perjure herself. I honestly have no idea. And it's still up for debate as to whether there should have been more consequences for her mistake or not. I don't read that quote from Ross and view it as a ringing endorsement.
Look, I have a Canadian friend who told me Ayotte had a fantastic reputation. And we all make mistakes but try telling that to Jarrion Lawson or Paul Doyle (his agent) and see what they have to say. I believe in holding people in authority - cops, expert witnesses - to very high standards.
I've said repeatedly that I thought under the rules Shelby should be banned and Ross agrees. But what bothers me about these cases is sometimes the athletes get off and sometimes they don't. I actually sent Ross a few follow up questions and one was long the lines of "Is it true that Ajee Wilson and Jarrion both showed a greater than 50% chance that they ate contaminated beef?" To me, they showed that it's possible the levels they tested positive for were the result of beef but it doesn't seem to me that they or anyone would be able to prove there is a greater than 50% chance the beef they ate caused it.
Does 50% of the beef ate a Jamaican restaurant have levels high enough to cause one to test positive? I doubt it. Now don't misunderstand me. Look, if there is a 3% chance it's simply that they went to a restaurant and got screwed over by chance, I'm happy they are off but I think Travis Tygart is right - the rules need to be changed.
The individual facts of whether Shelby, Ajee or Jarrion intentionally doped or not aren't my big concern. While life altering for them, long term the system is what needs to be as ironclad as possible.
We can't have a system where people who can afford hundreds of thousands of dollars for lawyers, expert witness, private investigators, etc. get off and everyone else quietly gets canned.
"I believe in holding people in authority - cops, expert witnesses - to very high standards."
I spit coffee all over my keyboard laughing when I read that. You know we've read your pro-Turmp posts right? You know some of us have been here since Day One and remember the support for Bush in Iraq right?
That said, its really grotesque even for LetsRun to be continuing this "pretty American white girl couldn't have been cheating" stuff. Paying for a 9000 word document? Claiming the "case is quite complicated"?
It's not. Anyone looking at her performances could look at clock and facial features and know something was up. The only uncomfortable and complicated questions left are:
- Why are rest of BTC being left off hook? What did they know and when did they know it?
- Why is Shalane allowed to slide by after her marathon tour? She was clearly lying.
- Why is Let's Run treating this differently than all the other African cases? Actually, I've been here long enough to know that answer.
IOC is just Olympic sports, so excludes, for example, American sports like football, basketball, and baseball.
Read inside the games and it would seem that ioc has only included the costs of the testing plus a few items.
I have noted above that there must be 30 NADO’s that have 10m$ spend; that alone is $300m. And under that NADO heading each nation in the world has to have a NADO of some nature.
It's amusing when you think the issue must be that no one understands your dumbed-down ideas lacking nuance and depth.
It is a failed analogy, as 1) their is no burden that applies to confirmed tests, so there is nothing to distinguish, 2) nandrolone was not injected into the veins, but ingested and mostly first-passed into the urine, and 3) nandrolone is naturally available in the food supply, and experts like Prof. Ayotte have known this for decades.
As we just saw, the verdict arrived at on the totality of the evidence is based on the comfortable satisfiction of the CAS Panel.
I completely understand the CAS decision. It is only possible within the WADA Code, which allows ADAs/ADOs to take some shortcuts to make the decisions less factual and sound.
The nandrolone that was found in her body was not accepted as having been in her food supply. A small point but rather crucial.
The failed test is part of the evidence but also enables an evidential finding that exceeds the merely probable. It was absolutely certain that she had a banned drug in her system. What was seen at the lowest level of probability was her attempted excuse. Hence it was rejected. A logically and factually sound decision by the Court.
You don't dispute that your analogy failed.
Your retelling of the CAS decision in your own words is unnecessary. It doesn't support further claims made from anonymous nobodies that go beyond the CAS findings.
The nandrolone that was found in her body was not accepted as having been in her food supply. A small point but rather crucial.
The failed test is part of the evidence but also enables an evidential finding that exceeds the merely probable. It was absolutely certain that she had a banned drug in her system. What was seen at the lowest level of probability was her attempted excuse. Hence it was rejected. A logically and factually sound decision by the Court.
You don't dispute that your analogy failed.
Your retelling of the CAS decision in your own words is unnecessary. It doesn't support further claims made from anonymous nobodies that go beyond the CAS findings.
I don't dispute what isn't worth responding to. It is obvious that I don't accept your view that my analogy fails because I see all your arguments as fallacious drivel.
IOC is just Olympic sports, so excludes, for example, American sports like football, basketball, and baseball.
Amongst that piffle - anti-doping is openly and specifically budgeted for, yet there is no data that shows that a billion dollars or anything like it are spent on it each year. On the other hand, doping has to be estimated because it is a clandestine activity. That you see them as comparable yet again shows you have no grasp of the subject.
ukad $10m ( there must be 30 nations that have this budget and this comes to 300m alone)
Add the central government cost to oversee NADO’s.
WA $5m( or more given they keep saying that they double their spend.)
multiply this for each sport ( obviously weighted )and each nation.
Add the governing bodies in each country, all will have an anti doping dept and legal costs.ie uka,
Add the vast array of legal firms in each country who specialise in doping.
Add the research institutes doing additional stuff.
note the SH case at Swiss court has been suggested at .4 m
Each Soccer club would have an expensive anti doping section.
professional sports unions ie PFA has a anti doping dept and they pay huge salaries and then multiply by each serious soccer nation.
I have not added in the US pro sports.
A billion could well be a significant underestimate.Some cottage industry!
None of it amounts to a billion dollars each year, or anything close.
Not only can’t you read the Wada code you can’t do maths.
I checked the Aussie spend and it is 32 million Aus $.
So it looks like major NADO’s alone would come to $400 million. note USADA is $20m alone How many IF’s have a budget of $5 million, like WA , say 20 ; there is an other $100m.Plus those with lesser budgets.
Uka have office costs alone of $ 120000.Work from this for each NGB in the Uk and then multiply across the world.
The nandrolone that was found in her body was not accepted as having been in her food supply. A small point but rather crucial.
The failed test is part of the evidence but also enables an evidential finding that exceeds the merely probable. It was absolutely certain that she had a banned drug in her system. What was seen at the lowest level of probability was her attempted excuse. Hence it was rejected. A logically and factually sound decision by the Court.
You don't dispute that your analogy failed.
Your retelling of the CAS decision in your own words is unnecessary. It doesn't support further claims made from anonymous nobodies that go beyond the CAS findings.
Another of your deflections I am not interested in what anonymous nobodies (like you?) have to say about the decision or defending them. You may say my "retelling" of the decision is unnecessary but you can't refute it.
None of it amounts to a billion dollars each year, or anything close.
Not only can’t you read the Wada code you can’t do maths.
I checked the Aussie spend and it is 32 million Aus $.
So it looks like major NADO’s alone would come to $400 million. note USADA is $20m alone How many IF’s have a budget of $5 million, like WA , say 20 ; there is an other $100m.Plus those with lesser budgets.
Uka have office costs alone of $ 120000.Work from this for each NGB in the Uk and then multiply across the world.
IOC is just Olympic sports, so excludes, for example, American sports like football, basketball, and baseball.
Amongst that piffle - anti-doping is openly and specifically budgeted for, yet there is no data that shows that a billion dollars or anything like it are spent on it each year. On the other hand, doping has to be estimated because it is a clandestine activity. That you see them as comparable yet again shows you have no grasp of the subject.
Look at my estimates based on hard published accounts and start pulling them apart .
Not a cottage industry!
I have made zero comment on any doping use spend; why do you divert again when exposed.
What would you estimate the total anti doping spend is?
From an article published in the scientific journal Nature in 2015.
"Although the stated goal of anti-doping agencies is to prevent prohibited drug use, they simply do not gather the data to enable evaluation of how effective their policies are. This is despite sporting bodies across the world spending an estimated US$350 million on drug testing each year."
So we see $350m is some distance from a falsely claimed 1 billion dollars.
