You suppose wrong. I know that Houlihan doped because she tested positive.
No idea about Hassan. Never thought about it.
Well, based on that logic, Lance and Galen never doped.
Also, based on that logic every person who ever had a positive test is immediately guilty.
Zero critical thinking involved in coming to the conclusion that you “know Houlihan doped because she had a positive test.”
your logic is flawed, actually. saying we know Houlihan doped because she tested positive does NOT = anyone who didn't test positive did not dope. It just means a positive test = doping.
You suppose wrong. I know that Houlihan doped because she tested positive.
No idea about Hassan. Never thought about it.
Well, based on that logic, Lance and Galen never doped.
Also, based on that logic every person who ever had a positive test is immediately guilty.
Zero critical thinking involved in coming to the conclusion that you “know Houlihan doped because she had a positive test.”
Not sure what you are talking about here at all. I never said anything about doping in my initial comment. Not what I was talking about at all. I said that Houlihan was 32.5 yrs old and I would not expect her to be running PRs at this late stage in her career. Very simple.
(I don't debate drug use. If they test positive, I believe they doped. If you feel otherwise, go for it.)
1) The first response to the OP was already about her doping ("It's tough without that burrito sauce."), to which you didn't respond. Thank you for that. That's what I meant with you waiting so long before starting to troll about the CAS proceedings from the year 2021.
2) People talking about the drug cheat's doping does not mean that you should start trolling about the CAS proceedings from the year 2021.
3) Whether CAS is more familiar with Nike's lawyers and experts, or whether Nike can spend more money on each case than World Athletics, or whether you like or understand the rules, remains off-topic in this thread about this drug cheat's current "DISASTER outdoor season".
4) Whether she is now clean or not is on-topic. Read 2) again before starting to derail this thread again when the next person mentions her doping.
Well, based on that logic, Lance and Galen never doped.
Also, based on that logic every person who ever had a positive test is immediately guilty.
Zero critical thinking involved in coming to the conclusion that you “know Houlihan doped because she had a positive test.”
your logic is flawed, actually. saying we know Houlihan doped because she tested positive does NOT = anyone who didn't test positive did not dope. It just means a positive test = doping.
You don't seem to understand. I never said anything about Houlihan doping in my initial post. I said she was 32.5 yrs old and beyond her prime. Would not expect her to be running PRs at this stage. Simple as that.
If you feel the positive test was inaccurate, go for it. Matters not to me. I'm not debating the issue.
Well, based on that logic, Lance and Galen never doped.
Also, based on that logic every person who ever had a positive test is immediately guilty.
Zero critical thinking involved in coming to the conclusion that you “know Houlihan doped because she had a positive test.”
your logic is flawed, actually. saying we know Houlihan doped because she tested positive does NOT = anyone who didn't test positive did not dope. It just means a positive test = doping.
+1
Also, Lance did test positive. So by that logic, he doped. Which he did. Like Shelburrito.
She's lucky US women's running is relatively weak without St Pierre and Valby, but I still don't see her making the US team.
I see that this thread denigrated quickly into the doping topic with the usual morons coming to the defense, but here is another POV - she's old (sorry if it's been taken already)
She's 32 years old. I actually thought despite all the other stuff, her 8.31 "comeback" race and the 4.20 mile were pretty incredible all things considered.
So it's not really surprising - it's expected. And honestly if she could come back and make the US team at age 32 after 4 years away from competitive running then it would point to the US womens scene being incredibly weak. Which it isn't. So none of this is shocking tbh.
This post was edited 25 seconds after it was posted.
1) The first response to the OP was already about her doping ("It's tough without that burrito sauce."), to which you didn't respond. Thank you for that. That's what I meant with you waiting so long before starting to troll about the CAS proceedings from the year 2021.
2) People talking about the drug cheat's doping does not mean that you should start trolling about the CAS proceedings from the year 2021.
3) Whether CAS is more familiar with Nike's lawyers and experts, or whether Nike can spend more money on each case than World Athletics, or whether you like or understand the rules, remains off-topic in this thread about this drug cheat's current "DISASTER outdoor season".
4) Whether she is now clean or not is on-topic. Read 2) again before starting to derail this thread again when the next person mentions her doping.
Au contraire.
It only took 8 minutes for the thread to go off-topic with the very first response in post #2, and less than 1 hour for me to be explicitly trolled by post #6.
I did choose initially not to respond to the off-topic post about burritos (see your point 2), but then eventually "Lloyd Flandiss" responded to me, saying there are no doubts for me to give Houlihan the benefit of, to which I replied directly with a half-dozen+ sources of my doubt -- most of which are independent of the CAS proceedings.
If you say that "burrito sauce" is actually on-topic, then the CAS proceedings must be on topic too, as the burrito argument is a significant part of the CAS proceedings. If talking about her "doping" in a thread about her outdoor 2025 season is on-topic, then replying with doubts about her doping, is equally on-topic.
You say things like "drug cheat's doping", but that is presumptuous on your part, especially if you are not relying on the CAS proceedings.
1) The first response to the OP was already about her doping ("It's tough without that burrito sauce."), to which you didn't respond. Thank you for that. That's what I meant with you waiting so long before starting to troll about the CAS proceedings from the year 2021.
2) People talking about the drug cheat's doping does not mean that you should start trolling about the CAS proceedings from the year 2021.
3) Whether CAS is more familiar with Nike's lawyers and experts, or whether Nike can spend more money on each case than World Athletics, or whether you like or understand the rules, remains off-topic in this thread about this drug cheat's current "DISASTER outdoor season".
4) Whether she is now clean or not is on-topic. Read 2) again before starting to derail this thread again when the next person mentions her doping.
Au contraire.
It only took 8 minutes for the thread to go off-topic with the very first response in post #2, and less than 1 hour for me to be explicitly trolled by post #6.
I did choose initially not to respond to the off-topic post about burritos (see your point 2), but then eventually "Lloyd Flandiss" responded to me, saying there are no doubts for me to give Houlihan the benefit of, to which I replied directly with a half-dozen+ sources of my doubt -- most of which are independent of the CAS proceedings.
If you say that "burrito sauce" is actually on-topic, then the CAS proceedings must be on topic too, as the burrito argument is a significant part of the CAS proceedings. If talking about her "doping" in a thread about her outdoor 2025 season is on-topic, then replying with doubts about her doping, is equally on-topic.
You say things like "drug cheat's doping", but that is presumptuous on your part, especially if you are not relying on the CAS proceedings.
You are one sad pathetic dude. How much time you spend thinking about this and coming on here to repeat your nonsense endlessly… it’s hard to imagine someone life can be this empty. I won’t tell you to let it go, because whatever illness you have won’t let you do that, but you have my sympathy. What a truly terrible terrible life you have.
You are one sad pathetic dude. How much time you spend thinking about this and coming on here to repeat your nonsense endlessly… it’s hard to imagine someone life can be this empty. I won’t tell you to let it go, because whatever illness you have won’t let you do that, but you have my sympathy. What a truly terrible terrible life you have.
How much thought have you given it?
I think it hurts the sport to wrongly accuse and ban innocent athletes whose only fault is that they are unable to prove their innocence.
It's like an organization promising to deport just the criminals and gang members, but through a combination of overzealousness, xenophobia, and incompetence, they end up unconstitutionally deporting legal immigrants, US citizens, and arresting mayors and manhandling Congressmen/women.
I suppose it does make me sad to care for the athletes and the sport, when I can see an unjust process that hurts them that others are too blind to see.
You are one sad pathetic dude. How much time you spend thinking about this and coming on here to repeat your nonsense endlessly… it’s hard to imagine someone life can be this empty. I won’t tell you to let it go, because whatever illness you have won’t let you do that, but you have my sympathy. What a truly terrible terrible life you have.
How much thought have you given it?
I think it hurts the sport to wrongly accuse and ban innocent athletes whose only fault is that they are unable to prove their innocence.
It's like an organization promising to deport just the criminals and gang members, but through a combination of overzealousness, xenophobia, and incompetence, they end up unconstitutionally deporting legal immigrants, US citizens, and arresting mayors and manhandling Congressmen/women.
I suppose it does make me sad to care for the athletes and the sport, when I can see an unjust process that hurts them that others are too blind to see.
Not being able to prove innocence is the very definition of guilt. By your logic, all one needs to do is fail to credibly explain how the PED got into their system. The only solution would be to discontinue testing for PEDs.
Not being able to prove innocence is the very definition of guilt. By your logic, all one needs to do is fail to credibly explain how the PED got into their system. The only solution would be to discontinue testing for PEDs.
Not sure that is a common definition of guilt.
I would apply this "logic" only in a narrow subset of ambiguous cases that have a potentional non-doping explanation, e.g. where the nandrolone concentration is in what WADA calls "usually in the low ng/mL range (less than 10 ng/mL)" and the carbon isotope ratio is in what WADA calls "a normal endogenous range (i.e. between -16 ‰ and -26 ‰)".
This would require testing and test results to make that determination.
The logic isn't so much mine as WADA's. WADA instructs the WADA Labs that "the identification of 19-NA, including the demonstration, when required, that the 19-NA is not of endogenous origin, is sufficient to report an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF)" and that endogenous includes "consumption of edible parts of non-castrated male pigs".
This first places the burden on the WADA Lab to do what is sufficient to rule out all non-endogenous sources.
Furthermore, since "consumption of edible parts of non-castrated male pigs" is known to confound the carbon isotope ratio test, it is scientifically questionable whether this test result is appropriate to rule out such consumption. Indeed WADA says in a footnote when considering such consumption, that "the origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis".
What a loser move, taking small fragments of four different sentences out of context to desperately try to finally make a point after 4+ years.
I've made the same point many times before over these 4+ years.
That's the core of the ambiguity of the test results, in proper context. The concentration and the dissimilar ratios are fully consistent with intact boar consumption, meaning the results could be endogenous, or exogenous -- i.e. the test results are ambiguous and cannot determine endogenous/exogenous origin. This is not just my opinion, but WADA says so explicitly. They improperly used a test known to be confounded by pork consumption to rule out pork consumption, in addition to external criteria not authorized by the WADA TD.
In any case, the point to "Kickers usually win" was that 1) the "logic" I applied is specific to the facts of this case, and not universal, and 2) it is WADA's "logic", not mine -- the WADA Lab already had the burden to demonstrate that it is not endogenous They need to meet this burden before Houlihan is required to "prove her innocence".
It's not clear from the details in the CAS report if they found that the WADA Lab met its burdens, and consequently if the WA/AIU met their burden to establish an ADRV. Only after they have successfully met these burdens, and properly charged, is Houlihan burdened with rebutting all of the presumptions and prove her innocence. Apparently she partially succeeded to convince a minority of the Panel that the WADA Lab, and/or the WA/AIU, deviated from WADA's standards.
What a loser move, taking small fragments of four different sentences out of context to desperately try to finally make a point after 4+ years.
I've made the same point many times before over these 4+ years.
That's the core of the ambiguity of the test results, in proper context. The concentration and the dissimilar ratios are fully consistent with intact boar consumption, meaning the results could be endogenous, or exogenous -- i.e. the test results are ambiguous and cannot determine endogenous/exogenous origin. This is not just my opinion, but WADA says so explicitly. They improperly used a test known to be confounded by pork consumption to rule out pork consumption, in addition to external criteria not authorized by the WADA TD.
In any case, the point to "Kickers usually win" was that 1) the "logic" I applied is specific to the facts of this case, and not universal, and 2) it is WADA's "logic", not mine -- the WADA Lab already had the burden to demonstrate that it is not endogenous They need to meet this burden before Houlihan is required to "prove her innocence".
It's not clear from the details in the CAS report if they found that the WADA Lab met its burdens, and consequently if the WA/AIU met their burden to establish an ADRV. Only after they have successfully met these burdens, and properly charged, is Houlihan burdened with rebutting all of the presumptions and prove her innocence. Apparently she partially succeeded to convince a minority of the Panel that the WADA Lab, and/or the WA/AIU, deviated from WADA's standards.
aaannnd... No matter how many times, wild boar nuts are not in beef . Aannd... that's why there are more than one on the panel: One can be wrong and the majority can reach the correct conclusion.
aaannnd... No matter how many times, wild boar nuts are not in beef . Aannd... that's why there are more than one on the panel: One can be wrong and the majority can reach the correct conclusion.
Two can also be wrong. Rather than asking three lawyers to decide a scientific question, or choose which scientists to trust, they should have appointed neutral WADA scientists, preferably ones who understood history of the changed language, to interpret the WADA TD.