Travis Tygart/USADA Supports Shelby Houlihan

Armstronglivs wrote:

Jombo3 wrote:

None of that means that the burrito story was bullshi*.

Dear Letsrun message boards, please do not live off assumption and presumption.

This is the first and likely last time I will ever post on Letsrun.

I implore all of you to step out of your narratives where you believe with near certainty that Shelby doped. I actively invite all of you to use your imagination, even for just one second, and consider the possibility that she didn’t dope.

I know it will be difficult to convince anyone on here, but I’m just inviting you all to consider her story (and the support of people like Tygart and Epstein) and imagine that WADA/AIU/CAS may have judged incorrectly.

We are not "living off assumption and presumption". She had a banned drug in her system for which she tested positive, without doubt. That establishes a doping violation. She tried to present an excuse which was assessed as having a "near-zero" likelihood. The overwhelming probability on the evidence is that she therefore doped, and this resulted in the finding by CAS of an "intentional ADRV". What is merely possible is therefore deemed highly improbable. That is why we are not interested in your ever-desperate attempts (like those of rekrunner) to undermine the credibility of the CAS ruling. Your explanation is the least likely. As in any other court case where a decision is based on the balance of probabilities the losing argument is dismissed. She lost both appeals.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Jombo3 wrote:

None of that means that the burrito story was bullshi*.

Dear Letsrun message boards, please do not live off assumption and presumption.

This is the first and likely last time I will ever post on Letsrun.

I implore all of you to step out of your narratives where you believe with near certainty that Shelby doped. I actively invite all of you to use your imagination, even for just one second, and consider the possibility that she didn’t dope.

I know it will be difficult to convince anyone on here, but I’m just inviting you all to consider her story (and the support of people like Tygart and Epstein) and imagine that WADA/AIU/CAS may have judged incorrectly.

We are not "living off assumption and presumption". She had a banned drug in her system for which she tested positive, without doubt. That establishes a doping violation. She tried to present an excuse which was assessed as having a "near-zero" likelihood. The overwhelming probability on the evidence is that she therefore doped, and this resulted in the finding by CAS of an "intentional ADRV". What is merely possible is therefore deemed highly improbable. That is why we are not interested in your ever-desperate attempts (like those of rekrunner) to undermine the credibility of the CAS ruling. Your explanation is the least likely. As in any other court case where a decision is based on the balance of probabilities the losing argument is dismissed. She lost both appeals.

Geyw7wyeysuwywwy wrote:

Jombo3 wrote:

I’m offering the opportunity for you and everyone else to use their imagination that it is possible that these judgements were disproportionately weighed in terms of public opinion on the basis of “probability” against the weight of a potential truth that Shelby Houlihan had a substance in her body that was not ingested by her for the purpose of enhancing her performance.

That imagination is something that it is possible for you and everyone else on the Letsrun message boards to have regardless of the judgements made by people said to be “experts,” of whom none were with her on the night before the drug test and the morning of the test, or at any point in the months and weeks prior to the day of the test.

But the reason for ingestion does not matter. Whether she shot up in the bathroom or eight tainted meat a band substance was in her body and she gets four years. Full stop.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

We are not "living off assumption and presumption". She had a banned drug in her system for which she tested positive, without doubt. That establishes a doping violation. She tried to present an excuse which was assessed as having a "near-zero" likelihood. The overwhelming probability on the evidence is that she therefore doped, and this resulted in the finding by CAS of an "intentional ADRV". What is merely possible is therefore deemed highly improbable. That is why we are not interested in your ever-desperate attempts (like those of rekrunner) to undermine the credibility of the CAS ruling. Your explanation is the least likely. As in any other court case where a decision is based on the balance of probabilities the losing argument is dismissed. She lost both appeals.

The CAS "finding" of an intentional ADRV lives completely on presumption. The CAS ruled so itself -- explicitly basing both of its rulings on two presumptions derived from the WADA Code.

Contrary to your simpleton explanation, a positive test doesn't establish a violation per se, but can be considered an ATF (no violation) or an AAF (violation).

The CAS Panel was not unanimous on that decision.

If there are doubts about CAS' independence, or the fairness of the WADA Code to innocent athletes, doubts that Tygart has repeatedly raised -- this split becomes highly relevant when evaluating if a CAS ruling using a process defined by the WADA Code arrived at the right outcome.

The Code is broken here in several ways:

- The WADA procedures and TDs are clearly ambiguous on this point, as evidenced by the non-unanimous CAS Panel ruling. The TD clearly says that the "isotope" analysis may not be used to determine exogenous origin, while elsewhere saying it must be reported.

- It sets up the dispute between Houlihan, who is obliged to argue with specific and concrete elements regarding a long past scenario with the primary evidence consumed, destroyed or discarded, and the AIU, who can argue with their own non-specific and non-concrete speculation, with no real obligation to tell the truth, or the whole truth.

- Proving her innocence does no such thing -- the guilty verdict doesn't depend on whether presence was intentional or not, and proving not intentional preserves the guilty verdict, but just reduces the sanction.

Jombo6 wrote:

Honestly, if people knew Shelby Houlihan - truly knew the person she is, we would never be having this type of conversation of indictment around her.

One thing that’s baffles me is how the same posters on Letsrun that are opposed to authoritarian, socialistic European governments, seem to be the same people who have blindly put faith in an authoritarian European governing body in WADA/AIU.

Letsrun doesn’t have to be made up of pharisees. We can actually take the plank out of our own eye for a moment and believe that we may all be wrong (myself included). Having a humble disposition to Shelby’s situation would do all of us a lot of good.

I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have all of the answers about Shelby and how nandrolone seems to have been in her system for a period of time. I truly believe she doesn’t know how it happened either.

This is a plea for people in our sport to hold the ruling about her with open hands and be willing to admit that WADA/AIU may have judged incorrectly.

Jombo6 wrote:

Honestly, if people knew Shelby Houlihan - truly knew the person she is, we would never be having this type of conversation of indictment around her.

One thing that’s baffles me is how the same posters on Letsrun that are opposed to authoritarian, socialistic European governments, seem to be the same people who have blindly put faith in an authoritarian European governing body in WADA/AIU.

Letsrun doesn’t have to be made up of pharisees. We can actually take the plank out of our own eye for a moment and believe that we may all be wrong (myself included). Having a humble disposition to Shelby’s situation would do all of us a lot of good.

I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have all of the answers about Shelby and how nandrolone seems to have been in her system for a period of time. I truly believe she doesn’t know how it happened either.

This is a plea for people in our sport to hold the ruling about her with open hands and be willing to admit that WADA/AIU may have judged incorrectly.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The CAS "finding" of an intentional ADRV lives completely on presumption. The CAS ruled so itself -- explicitly basing both of its rulings on two presumptions derived from the WADA Code.

Contrary to your simpleton explanation, a positive test doesn't establish a violation per se, but can be considered an ATF (no violation) or an AAF (violation).

The CAS Panel was not unanimous on that decision.

If there are doubts about CAS' independence, or the fairness of the WADA Code to innocent athletes, doubts that Tygart has repeatedly raised -- this split becomes highly relevant when evaluating if a CAS ruling using a process defined by the WADA Code arrived at the right outcome.

The Code is broken here in several ways:

- The WADA procedures and TDs are clearly ambiguous on this point, as evidenced by the non-unanimous CAS Panel ruling. The TD clearly says that the "isotope" analysis may not be used to determine exogenous origin, while elsewhere saying it must be reported.

- It sets up the dispute between Houlihan, who is obliged to argue with specific and concrete elements regarding a long past scenario with the primary evidence consumed, destroyed or discarded, and the AIU, who can argue with their own non-specific and non-concrete speculation, with no real obligation to tell the truth, or the whole truth.

- Proving her innocence does no such thing -- the guilty verdict doesn't depend on whether presence was intentional or not, and proving not intentional preserves the guilty verdict, but just reduces the sanction.

Always wrong. A positive test establishes a violation. A subsequent finding of an ATF requires it to be a violation on the face of it or there would be no need to produce evidence for the positive test to be determined an ATF. The test could be simply ignored on the basis that it is claimed not to be a "violation". It can't. It requires further evidence or it remains a violation.

The finding of an "intentional" ADRV doesn't rest solely on a presumption; it lies in the athlete's failure to produce evidence to rebut the presumption. You manage to sound stupid as well as dishonest.

Jombo6 wrote:

Honestly, if people knew Shelby Houlihan - truly knew the person she is, we would never be having this type of conversation of indictment around her.

One thing that’s baffles me is how the same posters on Letsrun that are opposed to authoritarian, socialistic European governments, seem to be the same people who have blindly put faith in an authoritarian European governing body in WADA/AIU.

Letsrun doesn’t have to be made up of pharisees. We can actually take the plank out of our own eye for a moment and believe that we may all be wrong (myself included). Having a humble disposition to Shelby’s situation would do all of us a lot of good.

I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have all of the answers about Shelby and how nandrolone seems to have been in her system for a period of time. I truly believe she doesn’t know how it happened either.

This is a plea for people in our sport to hold the ruling about her with open hands and be willing to admit that WADA/AIU may have judged incorrectly.

Titjppmz wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Always wrong. A positive test establishes a violation. A subsequent finding of an ATF requires it to be a violation on the face of it or there would be no need to produce evidence for the positive test to be determined an ATF. The test could be simply ignored on the basis that it is claimed not to be a "violation". It can't. It requires further evidence or it remains a violation.

The finding of an "intentional" ADRV doesn't rest solely on a presumption; it lies in the athlete's failure to produce evidence to rebut the presumption. You manage to sound stupid as well as dishonest.

When you get round to reading the rules and discover that there is no such thing in the Wada rules about a positive test.

However if you do not get confused by your own tautological circles you will realise that what the lab says does not mean a violation.

You seek to impose your own biases on a set of rules and technical documents that you refuse to read.

Then you insult.You have been banned several times for this in the past.

I will celebrate your next ban which is likely to be permanent.

Titjppmz wrote:

Jombo6 wrote:

Honestly, if people knew Shelby Houlihan - truly knew the person she is, we would never be having this type of conversation of indictment around her.

One thing that’s baffles me is how the same posters on Letsrun that are opposed to authoritarian, socialistic European governments, seem to be the same people who have blindly put faith in an authoritarian European governing body in WADA/AIU.

Letsrun doesn’t have to be made up of pharisees. We can actually take the plank out of our own eye for a moment and believe that we may all be wrong (myself included). Having a humble disposition to Shelby’s situation would do all of us a lot of good.

I’ll be the first to admit I don’t have all of the answers about Shelby and how nandrolone seems to have been in her system for a period of time. I truly believe she doesn’t know how it happened either.

This is a plea for people in our sport to hold the ruling about her with open hands and be willing to admit that WADA/AIU may have judged incorrectly.

Your point about how easy it is for those in Western Democracies to accept so easily the ripping up of all principles of jurisprudence developed over centuries because they take the view that “ they “ are guilty so it matters not is well made.