Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
If we are sticking with the decision, they did rule out the food truck as the source or else she would have won her appeal. Your silliness is amusing.
They did not rule out the food truck but ruled that the burrito, and all the evidence before them, did not meet the burden of balance of probabilities.
sanootage wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
Huh?
First item is the cliff notes.
Basically, we don't know where it came from so she's guilty
Yes ; strict liability.
The burden of proof is on her. She had it in her system. Unless she can prove that it got in there by accident, she goes down. Which is reasonable.
I hope they investigated the food truck claim and found it not to be true. From the language, it seems they did not reach a conclusion on the claim. Which would be a bit troubling
rekrunner wrote:
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
If we are sticking with the decision, they did rule out the food truck as the source or else she would have won her appeal. Your silliness is amusing.
They did not rule out the food truck but ruled that the burrito, and all the evidence before them, did not meet the burden of balance of probabilities.
Wouldn't you surreptitiously but some burritos from that truck a couple of times and test them? That would be pretty definitive. I take it that they did not do this
The Unkle wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Yes ; strict liability.
The burden of proof is on her. She had it in her system. Unless she can prove that it got in there by accident, she goes down. Which is reasonable.
I hope they investigated the food truck claim and found it not to be true. From the language, it seems they did not reach a conclusion on the claim. Which would be a bit troubling
Intolerable burden one month after the test; but such are the rules.
What does not follow is that she is a cheat or liar.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
My response was to the poster's recommendation that athletes should throw a leftover portion of whatever they eat in the freezer. CAS determined that it was highly implausible that the burrito contained nandrolone. Evidence provided by the athlete that was entirely under her control would not change that.
As I've posted before, every other other athlete that was going to the OT, besides Houlihan, managed not to be banned. If the other places you listed were legitimate possibilities, it just seems likely that multiple athletes would have tested over the nandrolone limits.
I don't know how the nandrolone got in her system but once the results came back from the lab, it was over for her.
The CAS arrived at that decision, considering national statistics, as they lacked more direct evidence. If they had a portion of the burrito tested, there would be no need for experts to give these national statistics. This should sway a CAS panel, and tip the balance of probability in her favor, despite the evidence being entirely under her control. Other cases have been won the same way for contaminated supplements and medicines.
It’s not clear that the other athletes were tested, as OOC tests are strategic and random.
The Unkle wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
They did not rule out the food truck but ruled that the burrito, and all the evidence before them, did not meet the burden of balance of probabilities.
Wouldn't you surreptitiously but some burritos from that truck a couple of times and test them? That would be pretty definitive. I take it that they did not do this
Seems they did not do this. They made their call based on probabilities.
That's not how you do an investigation
The Unkle wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
They did not rule out the food truck but ruled that the burrito, and all the evidence before them, did not meet the burden of balance of probabilities.
Wouldn't you surreptitiously but some burritos from that truck a couple of times and test them? That would be pretty definitive. I take it that they did not do this
It would have to be done by a third-party approved by the AIU.
The Unkle wrote:
Wouldn't you surreptitiously but some burritos from that truck a couple of times and test them? That would be pretty definitive. I take it that they did not do this
You could, and it would, if it tested positive too.
But it would be one month or more later, with the pork potentially coming from somewhere else.
Boar meat in the market is still a low probability event, so if it appeared in December, by bad luck (some combination of unique factors due to COVID temporarily perturbing supplies), the chance is high that it doesn’t appear again, for a while.
rekrunner wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
My response was to the poster's recommendation that athletes should throw a leftover portion of whatever they eat in the freezer. CAS determined that it was highly implausible that the burrito contained nandrolone. Evidence provided by the athlete that was entirely under her control would not change that.
As I've posted before, every other other athlete that was going to the OT, besides Houlihan, managed not to be banned. If the other places you listed were legitimate possibilities, it just seems likely that multiple athletes would have tested over the nandrolone limits.
I don't know how the nandrolone got in her system but once the results came back from the lab, it was over for her.
The CAS arrived at that decision, considering national statistics, as they lacked more direct evidence. If they had a portion of the burrito tested, there would be no need for experts to give these national statistics. This should sway a CAS panel, and tip the balance of probability in her favor, despite the evidence being entirely under her control. Other cases have been won the same way for contaminated supplements and medicines.
It’s not clear that the other athletes were tested, as OOC tests are strategic and random.
I haven't looked at the CAS report since it was first posted, but my recollection is that it was determined that it was extremely unlikely the nandrolone came from the burrito. If I'm a CAS judge, Shelby's team providing an uneaten portion of a burrito containing nandrolone would not sway my decision. I would consider it more likely that they messed with the burrito. I don't have a dog in the fight and I don't feel the need to judge Shelby, but that would be my reaction.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
Wouldn't you surreptitiously but some burritos from that truck a couple of times and test them? That would be pretty definitive. I take it that they did not do this
It would have to be done by a third-party approved by the AIU.
Doesn't matter who did it.
They performed no real investigation at all
rekrunner wrote:
[quote]The Unkle wrote:
Wouldn't you surreptitiously but some burritos from that truck a couple of times and test them? That would be pretty definitive. I take it that they did not do this
You could, and it would, if it tested positive too.
But it would be one month or more later, with the pork potentially coming from somewhere else.
Maybe. But couldn't that be determined?
You would have some actual evidence (assuming the source had not changed) instead if relying on "probabilities" -- effectively saying we don't know for sure but find it unlikely.
Ms. H' s team could have done this, of course. In fact, were her claim true they should have done this
The Unkle wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
It would have to be done by a third-party approved by the AIU.
Doesn't matter who did it.
They performed no real investigation at all
How do you know that they didnt do what you suggested or at least considered it and decided it wasn't viable? It's likely that Shelby had experienced, intelligent and expensive help on her side. How could LRers be so much smarter than them?
SDSU Aztec wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
It would have to be done by a third-party approved by the AIU.
Doesn't matter who did it.
They performed no real investigation at all
How do you know that they didnt do what you suggested or at least considered it and decided it wasn't viable?
I read the report.
sanootage wrote:
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
If we are sticking with the decision, they did rule out the food truck as the source or else she would have won her appeal. Your silliness is amusing.
Re write please.
No.
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Re write please.
No.
Very helpful… not!
The Unkle wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Doesn't matter who did it.
They performed no real investigation at all
How do you know that they didnt do what you suggested or at least considered it and decided it wasn't viable?
I read the report.
A hearing is not an investigation.
sanootage wrote:
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
When my 4 year old nephew breaks something and spins a fanciful tale of anthropomorphized woodland creatures having startled him and caused him to break the object, I don't accept that as an "unfounded opinion". Quit making up weasel words for a lie.
Panel found her credible and she was not done for tampering.
Liars are often credible. What wasn't credible was her story. So they rejected it. So, yeah - she lied, because she doped.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You don't think doping involves "some element of dishonesty and deception to gain advantage"? It is a banned practice, and so athletes tend not to be open about the fact they are doing it. But you wouldn't call their concealment of their doping "dishonesty and deception". Or even cheating?
If Houlihan had admitted to the world that she was doping she would have been sanctioned - so she didn't. That doesn't involve "some element of dishonesty and deception"? Your capacity for self-deception is endless.
Maybe.
I thought we were characterizing what was in the CAS decision, as opposed to arguing something that isn’t for 55 pages.
The CAS did not decide deception or dishonesty for the purpose of gaining an advantage.
On the contrary, the CAS called Houlihan a credible witness.
After 55 pages you still haven't understood the decision. It determined she was "deemed to have intentionally doped". To anyone who understands basic English that means she cheated. They didn't have to say that for it to be a necessary conclusion. Except you don't see doping as cheating. I guess your moral compass is as defective as your reasoning powers.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Maybe.
I thought we were characterizing what was in the CAS decision, as opposed to arguing something that isn’t for 55 pages.
The CAS did not decide deception or dishonesty for the purpose of gaining an advantage.
On the contrary, the CAS called Houlihan a credible witness.
After 55 pages you still haven't understood the decision. It determined she was "deemed to have intentionally doped". To anyone who understands basic English that means she cheated. They didn't have to say that for it to be a necessary conclusion. Except you don't see doping as cheating. I guess your moral compass is as defective as your reasoning powers.
All been explained to you many many times.
Armstronglivs wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Panel found her credible and she was not done for tampering.
Liars are often credible. What wasn't credible was her story. So they rejected it. So, yeah - she lied, because she doped.
Did not do her for tampering as found credible.