How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

Everyone who knows her knows she is clean.

You cannot know somebody is clean just by knowing them. People have secrets. They do bad things, even when they're good people. They tell themselves stories about why it's okay.

There's that. It's also not true they no one knows. Lots of people do know that she doped. Most of them don't say it out loud for obvious reasons

I know she is clean. Everyone close to her does. Yes people have secrets but they also share those secrets. Shelby is clean. She will show you when she returns.

I suspect some are genuinely naive, but I also think at least one other, maybe more were taking the same thing she was doing and just got lucky they weren't caught.

Assuming you are not making that up: at least they don't try to sell that stupid burrito joke anymore.

Tainted supplements: Houlihan has ruled them out.

Sabotage: Hard to do when the tester comes unannounced at 6 am. Do "the people who know her personally" suggest that her "roommate" tricked her into swallowing a pill after the doorbell rang? And would that have brought the nandrolone into her urine within minutes?

Why would they do it on the day of the test? They would do it daily.

Ah yes, they probably spiked the toothpaste, amirite?

Yeah, the reaction of the other BTC athletes basically proves to me that they’re all juicing. They just haven’t been caught yet thanks to USADA and USATF covering for them.

If we knew, everyone would know.

Okay, this is helpful. I was using the terms "proof" and "evidence" as they are understood in the context of both logic and legal systems. You are using the terms to mean whatever you feel like.

We weren't using the term "evidence" at all. The claim was "proof of intent".

Nevertheless, even in the commonly understood contexts of both logic and legal systems, there is simply no "evidence" or "proof" of "intent" to commit a rule violation. "Intent" is a state of mind. The evidentiary support for "intent" in the CAS report is completely non-exsistent, and the legal standard they applied was "presumption".

If I'm wrong, someone would have pointed me to the relevant parts of the CAS report already.

Ok , so let's say I’m doing testosterone with the goal of looking better and to service my wife more often. coincidently i am an elite runner and get popped. It's not my intent to improve my running performance, so i should be just fine, right?

*showing "intent" is made up. The drug is in me, it enhances performance, I’m busted.

Additionally, returning to competition and breaking records does not prove i didn't dope 4 years ago

It’s so clear she’s guilty. The report clearly states that the level found in her system being from the food truck meat to be highly improbable. Contaminated meat also has a different isotope signature that was found in her test. The signature that was found in her test matches those of other samples from athletes that tested positive from supplements that are easily available from places like Amazon. She took a supplement that caused the positive test either knowingly or unknowingly. If she was taking supplements without knowing exactly what was in them then that’s just as dumb as taking it knowingly. She never tried that defense anyway because her team knew it would not stand up to being scrutinized.

In this context, "intent" doesn't mean intended purpose, but intentionally violating rules, regardless of why, and regardless of whether it can or has enhanced performance.

No member of the BTC has done themselves any favors by standing with her. And I agree, they are suspicious as a group, especially miss 14:26...

But I do understand why they would support their friend. A friendship doesn't just go away. And I also do think there have been people who don't support her. They may just not be as public about it.

What you fail to understand is why a presumption applies in such cases. When an athlete tests positive for a banned drug the presence of the drug can only be explained either by an unintended cause, such as accidental contamination or simple carelessness (which is also a finding of fault), or that the athlete chose to take the drug, which means it was an intentional act. The athlete is given the opportunity to rebut the presumption. If they fail to do so - as Houlihan did - then the finding will be of intent because accidental contamination or some such no fault explanation is ruled out. Essentially, it is the responsibility of the athlete to account for how the drug is found in their system, not for antidoping - which has found the drug. It is similar to being found in possession of stolen goods. If the accused in such a case was aware the goods were stolen - which is analogous to an athlete being aware the drug found in their system is a banned drug - then they can be presumed to have intentionally engaged in the act of receiving stolen goods, unless they can furnish a legitimate explanation. That was Houlihan - without the legitimate explanation.

Intent can be inferred from actions, and doesn't require evidence of state of mind. You repeatedly fail to understand this.

Intent in law isn't "state of mind". It isn't a psychological test. It is the inference that actions were deliberate unless they can be shown to be otherwise. In the criminal law, for example, it is presumed that the natural consequence of one's actions were intended. In antidoping it can thus be presumed that a drug which requires ingestion or application was the result of a deliberate - and thus intentional - act unless it is shown otherwise, because the presence of the drug in an athlete's system must have a cause. The onus falls on the athlete - and rightly so - to show legitimate cause if they are to avoid being found in violation of the rules.