But now that you have conceded this trite and mundane, but quite obvious, fact, the implications are that Houlihan simply failed to collect the evidence necessary to meet the "balance of probability" (50%) burden to prove "not intentional". I'm not convinced such a burden is possible, without a sample to test.
If, for emotional and non-intellectual reasons, you want to use other verbs that the CAS didn't use, like "reject" and "rule out", then the similarity and consistency requires you to realize that USADA, the AAA Panel, the subsequent CAS Panel, and a WADA investigation, all similarly "rejected" and "ruled out" any allegation that NOP athletes ever doped for the same reason -- even moreso as all four anti-doping/adjudication bodies gave an explicit statement to that effect, after, in addition to the normal course of anti-doping testing, having reviewed the evidence from 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.
The reason that Houlihan failed to collect the evidence to show that her doping "wasn't the result of accidental contamination and wasn't intentional" was that there was no such evidence. Next please - as CAS effectively said.
Once again - for beginners - there are no factual parallels between the NOP investigation and the Houlihan case. Except they both involved dopers.
As you have refused despite copious requests to explain what a doper is I can only conclude that you live in your own world.
Also you persist in embarrassing yourself by talking in tautologies ( circular arguments).
Then to compound your school child errors you put quote marks round something that was never said.
She has been out a year already and had she been able to blame a tainted supplement she would have soon been back on the circuit. The importance of the Olympics are the reason they made the burrito defense and they have been lost. Because of that she rolled the dice and it cost her years of extra time. It is ironic that had the Olympics been run on schedule she would have been eligible and her team may have responded differently to an off season positive with no OG's on the 2021 schedule.
How can they be my delirious speculations when they are taken from the up to date published and audited accounts.
Are you saying that the audited accounts are delirious speculations. Are you capable of reading them.
What do you think the current total annual spend of the doping control industry is.
And ….. have you got round to reading the Wada code yet and agreeing that the standard of proof is comfortable satisfaction for convictions or are you content to wallow in your uneducated mire?
The arbitrary point you seem to want to make is that $350 million is too small and puts anti-doping in the cottage industry, while 1 billion crosses that arbitrary cottage industry threshold. I have no opinion on why it is important to call it a cottage industry. It doesn't seem like an important point.
You did not specify annually, before I gave you that value added source. You can take the reported data for what it is worth -- I didn't ask you to do more. But you don't seem to grasp that the IOC is also not a single source. I should also note that since the 2013-2016 Olympic cycle, WADA has increased its budget in investigations, post Russian/IAAF scandal, so the anti-doping industry has grown since then.
Although you made up and wrote words that purport to explain the Al Jazeera estimate of the black market, most importantly Al Jazeera did not. Keep in mind that I watched the Al Jazeera documentary, and there was no attempt to explain or otherwise substantiate that black market estimate. They came up with a large, but unexplained, estimate, probably for shock value, to stir the emotions of the most gullible and ignorant among those who watched it and want to believe everything they hear.
Your alacrity at shifting goalposts is truly spectacular. A claim was made here that anti-doping expenditure was 1 billion dollars. It was not and the claim cannot be substantiated. You then put forward a figure from the IOC of over 300 million. This is a 4 year figure which means that annually it is around 80 million. Can you see how far this is from 1 billion? Or are you going to shift the goal-posts further to measure expenditure over a period of ten or even fifty years? The one thing you are unable to accept is that spending to combat doping is a bare fraction of what the doping black market is estimated to be, an estimate arrived at by organisations and individuals involved in anti-doping. But that is your self-assigned and utterly self-deluded role here, to deny the hold doping now has over elite and professional sport against all evidence.
The IOC figure was for a year.(and out of date and based on the number of tests done and then guesses)
But you just don’t read stuff or lie.
Someone; not me; has posted that Wada and USADA are 66m per year.
As far as the estimated figs for what doping spend ; you have made no attempt to deal with the proportions spent by competing sportspeople and the much much wider gym market.
Your alacrity at shifting goalposts is truly spectacular. A claim was made here that anti-doping expenditure was 1 billion dollars. It was not and the claim cannot be substantiated. You then put forward a figure from the IOC of over 300 million. This is a 4 year figure which means that annually it is around 80 million. Can you see how far this is from 1 billion? Or are you going to shift the goal-posts further to measure expenditure over a period of ten or even fifty years? The one thing you are unable to accept is that spending to combat doping is a bare fraction of what the doping black market is estimated to be, an estimate arrived at by organisations and individuals involved in anti-doping. But that is your self-assigned and utterly self-deluded role here, to deny the hold doping now has over elite and professional sport against all evidence.
How can I shift a goalpost that wasn't yet constructed? I posted the IOC data before you began construction of the "1-year" goalpost. Feel free to use the real world IOC estimate I provided for you to make or break a point that was never made. You are welcome.
Where did you come up with 80 million? From the article, it becomes plainly obvious that you didn't read with comprehension as far as the headline: "Anti-doping claimed to cost sport $300 million each year".
Furthermore: "$1.2 billion (£997 million/€1.1 billion) is spent over each four-year Olympic cycle"
I could accept "that spending to combat doping is a bare fraction of ... doping ..." Before now, that point wasn't being made either.
Can you elaborate on "an estimate arrived at by ..." with supporting links or quotes explaining how the estimate was arrived at, by whom, and what it represents? It's a rhetorical question -- I already know you can't. Given you history of not reading with comprehension, I will remain skeptical of the world according to Armstronglivs lacking such external support.
NB: Contrary to my previous statements, I see from the article, the IOC estimate attempts to include sportswide spending from national organizations, international federations and non-Olympic and para-Olympic sports.
I have repeatedly said what I understand is a doper - as indeed do most who follow sports - but you haven't understood it. So I shall instead refer to what a doper isn't - but only in your view. It "isn't" someone who has breached the rules on doping by testing positive for a banned drug who has no accepted defence. Like Houlihan. So, if not a doper she must be a clean athlete. But then we have the problem of a 4 year ban.
The reason that Houlihan failed to collect the evidence to show that her doping "wasn't the result of accidental contamination and wasn't intentional" was that there was no such evidence. Next please - as CAS effectively said.
Once again - for beginners - there are no factual parallels between the NOP investigation and the Houlihan case. Except they both involved dopers.
Oh, I agree.
I think I've said all along that Houlihan did not and could not provide enough evidence to prove the source, primarily because the best evidence that existed was long ago eaten or discarded, and too much time had passed to obtain a burrito from the same "batch", and it would require her to test as many as 10,000 burritos.
Similarly, USADA did not provide enough evidence of any NOP athlete doping, because there was no such evidence from the 30 witnesses, or among the wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, and more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts. Tygart confirmed that they found no such evidence, after turning all stones.
Your alacrity at shifting goalposts is truly spectacular. A claim was made here that anti-doping expenditure was 1 billion dollars. It was not and the claim cannot be substantiated. You then put forward a figure from the IOC of over 300 million. This is a 4 year figure which means that annually it is around 80 million. Can you see how far this is from 1 billion? Or are you going to shift the goal-posts further to measure expenditure over a period of ten or even fifty years? The one thing you are unable to accept is that spending to combat doping is a bare fraction of what the doping black market is estimated to be, an estimate arrived at by organisations and individuals involved in anti-doping. But that is your self-assigned and utterly self-deluded role here, to deny the hold doping now has over elite and professional sport against all evidence.
How can I shift a goalpost that wasn't yet constructed? I posted the IOC data before you began construction of the "1-year" goalpost. Feel free to use the real world IOC estimate I provided for you to make or break a point that was never made. You are welcome.
Where did you come up with 80 million? From the article, it becomes plainly obvious that you didn't read with comprehension as far as the headline: "Anti-doping claimed to cost sport $300 million each year".
Furthermore: "$1.2 billion (£997 million/€1.1 billion) is spent over each four-year Olympic cycle"
I could accept "that spending to combat doping is a bare fraction of ... doping ..." Before now, that point wasn't being made either.
Can you elaborate on "an estimate arrived at by ..." with supporting links or quotes explaining how the estimate was arrived at, by whom, and what it represents? It's a rhetorical question -- I already know you can't. Given you history of not reading with comprehension, I will remain skeptical of the world according to Armstronglivs lacking such external support.
NB: Contrary to my previous statements, I see from the article, the IOC estimate attempts to include sportswide spending from national organizations, international federations and non-Olympic and para-Olympic sports.
I quoted sources that said anti-doping is around $300 million each year, to refute a specious claim that it is a billion.
So if you don't accept the claim by Al Jazeera that the black market in doping products is around a billion dollars annually how much is it?
The reason that Houlihan failed to collect the evidence to show that her doping "wasn't the result of accidental contamination and wasn't intentional" was that there was no such evidence. Next please - as CAS effectively said.
Once again - for beginners - there are no factual parallels between the NOP investigation and the Houlihan case. Except they both involved dopers.
Oh, I agree.
I think I've said all along that Houlihan did not and could not provide enough evidence to prove the source, primarily because the best evidence that existed was long ago eaten or discarded, and too much time had passed to obtain a burrito from the same "batch", and it would require her to test as many as 10,000 burritos.
Similarly, USADA did not provide enough evidence of any NOP athlete doping, because there was no such evidence from the 30 witnesses, or among the wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, and more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts. Tygart confirmed that they found no such evidence, after turning all stones.
That is very reassuring. So we know that no NOP athlete admitted to doping or accused any other, that no one left an obvious and damning paper trial of the possible use of banned products, and no athlete tested positive. But we don't know that they weren't doping; if they had been it would have easily been concealed in an efficient organisation, as it is with most dopers, who are never caught. Yet there is the inconvenient fact that their coach was found to be exploring ways to dope his athletes. I wonder who he thought he was helping if no athlete was taking his advice?
So if you don't accept the claim by Al Jazeera that the black market in doping products is around a billion dollars annually how much is it?
I did say the question was rhetorical, knowing full well you wouldn't even try. Instead, you would play a game, and flip the burden.
Here is a simpler question for you: you keep bringing up Al Jazeera and their unattributed estimate, but can you answer what was the Al Jazeera's black market doping estimate - exactly? It was not "around a billion dollars annually".
Once again, rhetorical, since I know you will not even try to answer what can be answered in three words or less.
That is very reassuring. So we know that no NOP athlete admitted to doping or accused any other, that no one left an obvious and damning paper trial of the possible use of banned products, and no athlete tested positive. But we don't know that they weren't doping; if they had been it would have easily been concealed in an efficient organisation, as it is with most dopers, who are never caught. Yet there is the inconvenient fact that their coach was found to be exploring ways to dope his athletes. I wonder who he thought he was helping if no athlete was taking his advice?
We know what I have said all along -- that such accusations were either baseless or the evidence was inconclusive.
Of course this doesn't prevent you from using your imagination to wonder.
I have repeatedly said what I understand is a doper - as indeed do most who follow sports - but you haven't understood it. So I shall instead refer to what a doper isn't - but only in your view. It "isn't" someone who has breached the rules on doping by testing positive for a banned drug who has no accepted defence. Like Houlihan. So, if not a doper she must be a clean athlete. But then we have the problem of a 4 year ban.
You have not made it clear at all; all you did was add contradictions.
The problem is that Wada follow sports rather intensely and they have no view as to what a doper is.
As you don’t know what the standard of proof is for a conviction not one person should rely on any comment you make.
Occam's razor would point to the simplest solutions. Purposeful ingestion or contaminated supplements. Athletes world wide (and shady supplement manufacturers) would be wise to avoid nandrolone and go with steroids for which a plausible explanation can be manufactured if the athlete is caught.
Occam's razor disfavors explanations with more assumptions.
Assuming accidental ingestion by pork versus purposeful ingestion of nandrolone versus accidental ingestion from supplements doesn't reduce the number of assumptions, so doesn't provide a more favorable alternative to be cut with Occam's razor.
If they wanted to nandrolone dope, female athletes should take birth control that allows their levels to rise to 15 ng/ml, nearly 3x the amount found in Houlihan's samples.
Occam's razor would point to the simplest solutions. Purposeful ingestion or contaminated supplements. Athletes world wide (and shady supplement manufacturers) would be wise to avoid nandrolone and go with steroids for which a plausible explanation can be manufactured if the athlete is caught.
Occam's razor disfavors explanations with more assumptions.
Assuming accidental ingestion by pork versus purposeful ingestion of nandrolone versus accidental ingestion from supplements doesn't reduce the number of assumptions, so doesn't provide a more favorable alternative to be cut with Occam's razor.
If they wanted to nandrolone dope, female athletes should take birth control that allows their levels to rise to 15 ng/ml, nearly 3x the amount found in Houlihan's samples.
Your last para. I had forgotten that point from the past.I wonder why it has only just re surfaced.
Point 99 clearly states that the food truck owner said there were two items on the menu with pig stomach, buche and chorizo. Chorizo can contain other pig organs and glands as well. It was only the prosecution witness (McGlone) that speculated that these dishes only contained the outer stomach muscle. I will agree that neither Houlihan nor McGlone could prove which organs and glands were in the Chorizo.
LOL.
Tucker noticed: "Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pig stomach"
The Claimant stated in point 40, unopposed by the Respondent: "Fifth, the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach."
CAS wrote in 99: "The Respondent has submitted a statement from the food truck owner, Ms Teresa Ramirez, that the food truck pig stomach burritos on its menu on the evening of 14 December 2020 were: i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito".
Clearly both the buche and chorizo burritos were called pig stomach burritos by the food truck owner, not "just" by Prof. McGlone. Give it up.
Oh, and Team Shelby never even tried to argue that these stomach burritos might have contained glands or testes or kidneys, for that would have been pointless. Those words were only mentioned by Team World Athletics and their experts in a different context.
Team Shelby only tried to obfuscate by calling the food truck pig stomach burritos "offal" at several occasions, but CAS didn't fall for it.
Point 99 clearly states that the food truck owner said there were two items on the menu with pig stomach, buche and chorizo. Chorizo can contain other pig organs and glands as well. It was only the prosecution witness (McGlone) that speculated that these dishes only contained the outer stomach muscle. I will agree that neither Houlihan nor McGlone could prove which organs and glands were in the Chorizo.
LOL.
Tucker noticed: "Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pig stomach"
The Claimant stated in point 40, unopposed by the Respondent: "Fifth, the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach."
CAS wrote in 99: "The Respondent has submitted a statement from the food truck owner, Ms Teresa Ramirez, that the food truck pig stomach burritos on its menu on the evening of 14 December 2020 were: i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito".
Clearly both the buche and chorizo burritos were called pig stomach burritos by the food truck owner, not "just" by Prof. McGlone. Give it up.
Oh, and Team Shelby never even tried to argue that these stomach burritos might have contained glands or testes or kidneys, for that would have been pointless. Those words were only mentioned by Team World Athletics and their experts in a different context.
Team Shelby only tried to obfuscate by calling the food truck pig stomach burritos "offal" at several occasions, but CAS didn't fall for it.
Point 99 clearly states that the food truck owner said there were two items on the menu with pig stomach, buche and chorizo. Chorizo can contain other pig organs and glands as well. It was only the prosecution witness (McGlone) that speculated that these dishes only contained the outer stomach muscle. I will agree that neither Houlihan nor McGlone could prove which organs and glands were in the Chorizo.
LOL.
Tucker noticed: "Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pig stomach"
The Claimant stated in point 40, unopposed by the Respondent: "Fifth, the pork product that the Athlete allegedly ate is pork stomach."
CAS wrote in 99: "The Respondent has submitted a statement from the food truck owner, Ms Teresa Ramirez, that the food truck pig stomach burritos on its menu on the evening of 14 December 2020 were: i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito".
Clearly both the buche and chorizo burritos were called pig stomach burritos by the food truck owner, not "just" by Prof. McGlone. Give it up.
Oh, and Team Shelby never even tried to argue that these stomach burritos might have contained glands or testes or kidneys, for that would have been pointless. Those words were only mentioned by Team World Athletics and their experts in a different context.
Team Shelby only tried to obfuscate by calling the food truck pig stomach burritos "offal" at several occasions, but CAS didn't fall for it.
I don’t know why quoting Tucker is relevant to what Houlihan said at the hearing. Tucker is just confusing the submission of the food truck owner with Houlihan. Houlihan’s team didn’t claim that they ingested the outer muscle of the pig stomach, that was only the prosecution witness. Houlihan’s team didn’t claim that the chorizo gad other organs and glands (as it often does) because they couldn’t prove the exact makeup of this pork organ sausage from months prior to the hearing.
You mix in prosecution witness statements, irrelevent statements from Tucker and bolding of text … It’s kind of like chorizo which is often a mixture of organs and glands. I’m more than happy to admit that the exact makeup of the chorizo is unknown and that the prosecution witness statement as it being only outer stomach muscle is just speculation.
So if you don't accept the claim by Al Jazeera that the black market in doping products is around a billion dollars annually how much is it?
I did say the question was rhetorical, knowing full well you wouldn't even try. Instead, you would play a game, and flip the burden.
Here is a simpler question for you: you keep bringing up Al Jazeera and their unattributed estimate, but can you answer what was the Al Jazeera's black market doping estimate - exactly? It was not "around a billion dollars annually".
Once again, rhetorical, since I know you will not even try to answer what can be answered in three words or less.
Al Jazeera said a billion Euros. Virtually the same as a billion dollars. But, come on - don't be coy. If you don't accept that figure, what is the correct amount and why?
That is very reassuring. So we know that no NOP athlete admitted to doping or accused any other, that no one left an obvious and damning paper trial of the possible use of banned products, and no athlete tested positive. But we don't know that they weren't doping; if they had been it would have easily been concealed in an efficient organisation, as it is with most dopers, who are never caught. Yet there is the inconvenient fact that their coach was found to be exploring ways to dope his athletes. I wonder who he thought he was helping if no athlete was taking his advice?
We know what I have said all along -- that such accusations were either baseless or the evidence was inconclusive.
Of course this doesn't prevent you from using your imagination to wonder.
So with only 1% of tests returning a positive, what percentage of dopers are being caught (given that confidential athlete surveys have suggested anywhere from 30% to over 50% of international athletes dope)? Athletes are very rarely caught except through a failed test (except whereabouts breaches) so can you confidently maintain that because no NOP athlete was caught through the investigation that none were doping? Indeed, if that were so it would be unique in the history of sports doping, as it appears a bare fraction of dopers get caught - "only the dumb and the careless", according to a former WADA head (and he wasn't just talking about tests).
That is very reassuring. So we know that no NOP athlete admitted to doping or accused any other, that no one left an obvious and damning paper trial of the possible use of banned products, and no athlete tested positive. But we don't know that they weren't doping; if they had been it would have easily been concealed in an efficient organisation, as it is with most dopers, who are never caught. Yet there is the inconvenient fact that their coach was found to be exploring ways to dope his athletes. I wonder who he thought he was helping if no athlete was taking his advice?
We know what I have said all along -- that such accusations were either baseless or the evidence was inconclusive.
Of course this doesn't prevent you from using your imagination to wonder.
You conspicuously avoid the point in bold. Who was Salazar trying to help with his doping experiments?