An absolute annihilation of CAS' Shelby Houlihan decision

So you are saying you lied?

Looks like what was unanimous was a determination that she failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source.

Here is what the CAS told us:

“the majority of the Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an ADRV, by virtue of Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the WA ADR.”

rekrunner wrote:

So you are saying you lied?

Looks like what was unanimous was a determination that she failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source.

Here is what the CAS told us:

“the majority of the Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an ADRV, by virtue of Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the WA ADR.”

Quite clear the decision that went against her was not unanimous.

One element was but the overall not unanimous.

And not one comment about cheating nor intent as the rules are designed and stated not to rule on such.

casual obsever wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Was not unanimous!

No evidence of intent so not a cheat.

No? LOL. Newsflash, CAS wrote in June 2021:

Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.

....

Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.

And for those who still don't know, here are Rule 2.1 and 2.2:

2.1 Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample

...

2.2 Use or Attempted Use by an Athlete of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method

You mix up words and statements and badly attempt to quote what clearly was not said.

That was not by accident, that is lying and cheating.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Only on a site populated largely by white Americans do we find 4000 posts defending a white American runner convicted of a doping violation.

Oh

!

The man that won’t read and lies gets the race card out.

Armstronglivs wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Was not unanimous!

No evidence of intent so not a cheat.

Once accidental contamination is ruled out intent is presumed. Moron.

Perhaps by those who lie and cheat and won’t read and exist at the simplest level of original thought.

sanootage wrote:You mix up words and statements and badly attempt to quote what clearly was not said.

That was not by accident, that is lying and cheating.

This is the second time you falsely accuse me of citing something wrong. The above too was simply copied and pasted, no mixing, no quoting "what clearly was not said". Stop lying, and troll somebody else.

rekrunner wrote:

So you are saying you lied?

Looks like what was unanimous was a determination that she failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source.

Here is what the CAS told us:

“the majority of the Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an ADRV, by virtue of Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the WA ADR.”

Article 10.2.3 defines the term “intentional” as: “…meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.”

If the Athlete succeeds in showing that the violation was not intentional then by the application of Article 10.3.1, the period of eligibility shall be two not four years.

Was Houlihan banned two years or four? If it wasn't two, it was four. If it was four, she CHEATED by definition.

casual obsever wrote:

sanootage wrote:You mix up words and statements and badly attempt to quote what clearly was not said.

That was not by accident, that is lying and cheating.

This is the second time you falsely accuse me of citing something wrong. The above too was simply copied and pasted, no mixing, no quoting "what clearly was not said". Stop lying, and troll somebody else.

Said the troll.

Read comment 59 within the code and you will note the limited context of your ref to 10.2.3

But I think you know this that why you neglected to raise such.

Why; you knew it was neglectful and aimed as distortion.

Not guilty by reason of velocity.

Kimbui wrote:

Article 10.2.3 defines the term “intentional” as: “…meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.”

If the Athlete succeeds in showing that the violation was not intentional then by the application of Article 10.3.1, the period of eligibility shall be two not four years.

Was Houlihan banned two years or four? If it wasn't two, it was four. If it was four, she CHEATED by definition.

Good find, but that “definition” is now outdated, and has been revised in the latest version of the Code, by removing “cheat” as well as “the term … requires”:

“the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct …”

Apparently WADA found the word “cheat” inappropriate too, and therefore redefined “intention” so it no longer means “CHEATED by definition”.

Either definition raises the question I’ve asked many times: did the AIU or the CAS identify which conduct was “intentional”? If not, is the “requirement” in the outdated wording met?

Not just outdated but subject to comment 59.

You are 1 or 5 or more than ... wrote:

O,P,, you are either: 1) a blood relative of S. Houlihan or 2) a high school XC and/or T&F teammate of S. Houlihan or 3) a college XC and/or T&F teammate of S. Houlihan or 4) a Nike employee or 5) a let'srun employee.

What is your goal O.P? Do you want someone to give 1500m & 5000m 2020 Olympic gold medals to S. Houlihan?

Move on!

none of the above

rekrunner wrote:

So you are saying you lied?

Looks like what was unanimous was a determination that she failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source.

Here is what the CAS told us:

“the majority of the Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an ADRV, by virtue of Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the WA ADR.”

You are only ever able to get half the argument. What she failed to do in the unanimous view of the Court was to show the source was other than that she had doped. Once the proffered excuse of accidental contamination is ruled out she has committed a doping violation for which she is responsible. That is deemed an intentional act. But cause and effect aren't part of your limited reasoning tool-kit.

sanootage wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Only on a site populated largely by white Americans do we find 4000 posts defending a white American runner convicted of a doping violation.

Oh

!

The man that won’t read and lies gets the race card out.

So Houlihan isn't white and this isn't a largely white site?

sanootage wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Once accidental contamination is ruled out intent is presumed. Moron.

Perhaps by those who lie and cheat and won’t read and exist at the simplest level of original thought.

Are you talking about Houlihan? Or yourself, as well?

So, Einstein - if the nandrolone wasn't accidentally ingested how did it find its way into her body? CAS apparently decided she put it there. The only remaining alternative, since she couldn't show otherwise. So, 4 years.

Armstronglivs wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Perhaps by those who lie and cheat and won’t read and exist at the simplest level of original thought.

Are you talking about Houlihan? Or yourself, as well?

So, Einstein - if the nandrolone wasn't accidentally ingested how did it find its way into her body? CAS apparently decided she put it there. The only remaining alternative, since she couldn't show otherwise. So, 4 years.

Panel never said it was not accidentally ingested..

Do read the rules and the judgement.Oh you won’t !

But will pull the race card.

Armstronglivs wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Oh

!

The man that won’t read and lies gets the race card out.

So Houlihan isn't white and this isn't a largely white site?

Race card !

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So you are saying you lied?

Looks like what was unanimous was a determination that she failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source.

Here is what the CAS told us:

“the majority of the Panel concludes that the Athlete has committed an ADRV, by virtue of Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the WA ADR.”

You are only ever able to get half the argument. What she failed to do in the unanimous view of the Court was to show the source was other than that she had doped. Once the proffered excuse of accidental contamination is ruled out she has committed a doping violation for which she is responsible. That is deemed an intentional act. But cause and effect aren't part of your limited reasoning tool-kit.

Read comment 59