Shelby Houlihan Takes The Money And Runs: Disable Donationas On Her GoFundMe

That's the whole point isn't it: what we can imagine.

One of the things that came out was that ingested nandrolone peaks around 10 hours after ingestion.

I don't think for a second that the first time an athlete takes an illegal substance they are tested immediately after. Therefore I don't believe the amount of substance left in their system when they fail their test is the peak of what was in it when they doped. I also don't believe they haven't been taking that substance for a substantial amount of time so every race they have ever raced going back to birth is no longer a valid result.

This presumes she doped intentionally.

I have no doubt that these are things you "don't think" and "don't believe".

She couldn't show otherwise. So it wasn't accidental.

The CAS didn't rule on "accidental", so I wouldn't like to comment on ignorant speculation.

She did.

This is the same argument as saying an accused criminal wasn't innocent even if they were found not guilty.

"Accidental" isn't something CAS rules on. The word doesn't appear in the WADA code or the CAS ruling.

CAS ruled on whether Houlihan proved her ingestion to be "not intentional." It ruled that she didn't.

It also ruled that because she couldn't prove it was unintetional, it must be deemed to be intentional.

In other words - by the rule of the CAS analysis, it wan't accidental.

This is why I despise dopers so much. It is not just that they are cheating, but that they are directly cheating other competitors. And the sad thing is no one really questioned the hype train around Houlihan. The threads on here were laudatory. If people raised a concern they were fed the usual boilerplate nonsense about hard work and how nice she seemed. Appears she still has her apologists.

It explicitly ruled "intentional". To be intentional is the opposite of "accidental" - they are mutually exclusive terms to anyone with a grasp of basic English. That appears to exclude you.

Fortunately it's only 1 - 2 people, but they post so much one could get a different impression once a thread gets older.

However, the large numbers of upvotes of certain posts on page 1 demonstrate what letsrun really thinks: drug cheats out, and yes, that includes the intentional doper Houlihan. All the PR didn't help much.

I find that presumptuous.

I'm not all that interested in your "in other words", as then it becomes your own biased interpretation based on all of your understandings and misunderstandings.

It's you who hasn't yet grasped that the WADA Code redefines several terms from their basic English definitions. Seems like you should already know this by now, but, for example, WADA redefines both "intentional" and "doping" to be much broader than basic English definitions. For example, a coach can be convicted of "intentional doping" by simply sending an email to his athletes.

WADA explicitly provides a "special definition" of "intentional", solely for the purpose of deciding the length of sanctions. Furthermore, in 2015, the Code relieved the AIU and the CAS of any burden of actually establishing or proving "intent" with evidence or argument, or specifying which conduct the athlete engaged in that was meant to be "intentional". WADA permits the AIU and the CAS to simply "deem" intention based on presumption.

There is actually a legal issue here if she has taken the money to use it for purposes other than her legal defense. When you make a Go Fund Me you agree to certain terms and conditions (you know, the ones no one reads). In there there's a clause about how you have to use the money in a way that is consistent with what you've advertised publicly. As far as I can tell both her description and title suggest that the fund is for her legal defense, not to support her lifestyle during her ban.

This is the reason why the Canadian convoy organizers got their Go Fund Me locked. GFM determined that they weren't using the donations in line with their description.

Not clear in this case what happened with the money, though. The GFM being locked doesn't tell us much. Maybe they did this because they suspected Houlihan was doing a similar thing (using for personal expenses, not legal expenses).

You fail to understand what a word means and what it takes to establish it on an evidential basis. Of course you do. For all your intellectual pretensions you are an illiterate. The word "intentional" as used by WADA means that she alone is responsible for her actions, no one else is.

You also clearly fail to understand the meaning of CAS's repeated use of the word "presumption", which means no "evidential basis" is required. When "intent" is "presumed", the evidential basis it takes to establish "intent" is nonexistent.

Not coincidentally, neither the CAS, nor the AIU, provided any "evidential basis" of "intent".

You are partly right that "intent" does mean she is responsible for her actions, but when combined with the word "presumption", neither the CAS, nor the AIU provided any "evidential basis" of any such intentional conduct meeting the explicit criteria in WADA's "special definition", beyond the evidence of intentionally ordering and intentionally eating a burrito.

If you believe I am wrong on either of these points, now is the time to provide the "evidential basis" of the conduct that Houlihan engaged in that either 1) she knew was a violation, or 2) she knew carried significant risk of constituting or leading to a violation and she manifestly disregarded that risk.

The evidential basis for her violation is that she had a banned drug in her system, for which she tested positive. The onus then fell on her to show she wasn't the cause. That required she produce evidence to show that. Because she couldn't do that she failed to rebut the presumption of intent. Why was there a presumption? It is because she was deemed responsible for what was found in her body, and a failure to prove accidental contamination or lack of fault necessarily leaves intent as the cause of her violation. It is either one or the other - accidental contamination or doping. Using the test of the balance of probabilities the Court decided the latter.