The process that "convicted" her was not designed to find the truth, but to make convictions easier, by defining rule violations as possible without knowing use, and by permitting the anti-doping bodies to benefit from a set of presumptions. In Houlihan's case, the source was never established with enough certainty, and there was never any evidence or proof of intent.
Presumptions that cannot be rebutted are a poor substitute for the truth. But they are good enough under the WADA Code to railroad athletes to 4-year bans without having to determine the truth.
So you're saying she shot the sherif but she did not shoot the deputy?
What are the odds that an athlete eats something that has a one in a million chance of that particular food item having enough of an exact banned substance.....and she just happens to get tested? Laughable.
Here's the truth that DID come out - She's banned.
Yes she was banned for rule violations that don't require the athlete knowing she ingested it.
Given 121,000,000 pigs slaughtered per year in the US, even a 1 in a million chance is just a question of time. When that time comes, the probability then becomes 100% for that unlucky athlete.
Given all the truths that have come out, and the concessions from the anti-doping experts, the odds increased signficantly during the pandemic due to supply chain issues and delays, e.g. shortages in corn leading to increased soy diets, shortages of butchers leading to older pigs, shortages in USDA inspectors during high demand, likely to avoid sniff testing during an airborne pandemic, leading to more intact pigs passing inspection. One truth that hasn't come out, potentially significant in Oregon, is the number of "medically castrated" pigs passing USDA inspection weeks after the validity of their last injection, due to vaccine supply issues.
I haven't yet seen the odds that an athlete knowingly ingests a particular drug item having enough of an exact banned substance.....and just happens to get tested. Laughable.
There is some common belief that the population odds would need to rise above 50% likelihood for a single athlete to probably be innocent. This incorporates several fallacies that few can see.
I'm sure she knew how she ingested it but it wasn't necessary for the antidoping authorities to show how she did it - or to prove her innocence for her. If she couldn't demonstrate accidental cause she was guilty. As it should be.
What are the odds that an athlete eats something that has a one in a million chance of that particular food item having enough of an exact banned substance.....and she just happens to get tested? Laughable.
Here's the truth that DID come out - She's banned.
Yes she was banned for rule violations that don't require the athlete knowing she ingested it.
Given 121,000,000 pigs slaughtered per year in the US, even a 1 in a million chance is just a question of time. When that time comes, the probability then becomes 100% for that unlucky athlete.
Given all the truths that have come out, and the concessions from the anti-doping experts, the odds increased signficantly during the pandemic due to supply chain issues and delays, e.g. shortages in corn leading to increased soy diets, shortages of butchers leading to older pigs, shortages in USDA inspectors during high demand, likely to avoid sniff testing during an airborne pandemic, leading to more intact pigs passing inspection. One truth that hasn't come out, potentially significant in Oregon, is the number of "medically castrated" pigs passing USDA inspection weeks after the validity of their last injection, due to vaccine supply issues.
I haven't yet seen the odds that an athlete knowingly ingests a particular drug item having enough of an exact banned substance.....and just happens to get tested. Laughable.
There is some common belief that the population odds would need to rise above 50% likelihood for a single athlete to probably be innocent. This incorporates several fallacies that few can see.
BS. The odds of her accidentally doping were expertly assessed as being "near-zero".
Can we all just please stop engaging with rekrunner? This horse has been beaten to death and back. The doping apologists clearly get pleasure out of repeating the same tired old lies and misleading statements. Please just ignore their posts. Better yet, block them and you won’t ever see their posts again
Can we all just please stop engaging with rekrunner? This horse has been beaten to death and back. The doping apologists clearly get pleasure out of repeating the same tired old lies and misleading statements. Please just ignore their posts. Better yet, block them and you won’t ever see their posts again
How about we pull the weed out by the roots? Why even say things like "the truth has finally come out", when the first reponse to my challenge is that the rules "don't care" about many relevant truths, like knowing use? The process in the Code isn't designed to remove the ambiguities in truth that exist, but rather designed to ignore them for the purpose of determining rule violations, and then presume the worst, for the purpose of determining the sanction, for the convenience of convictions.
I can't presume to speak for these fictitious "doping apologists", but most everything I have said is backed up solidly by the facts that I have often referenced in the Code, in the rulings, and in a multitide of official online sources, and in opinions of one of the long-time chiefs of anti-doping. As Armstronglivs continuously reminds all of us, according to the Code, it isn't necessary to determine many of these truths when we have a set of default presumptions and can ignore factors like intent, fault, negligence, and knowing use.
Can we all just please stop engaging with rekrunner? This horse has been beaten to death and back. The doping apologists clearly get pleasure out of repeating the same tired old lies and misleading statements. Please just ignore their posts. Better yet, block them and you won’t ever see their posts again
How about we pull the weed out by the roots? Why even say things like "the truth has finally come out", when the first reponse to my challenge is that the rules "don't care" about many relevant truths, like knowing use? The process in the Code isn't designed to remove the ambiguities in truth that exist, but rather designed to ignore them for the purpose of determining rule violations, and then presume the worst, for the purpose of determining the sanction, for the convenience of convictions.
I can't presume to speak for these fictitious "doping apologists", but most everything I have said is backed up solidly by the facts that I have often referenced in the Code, in the rulings, and in a multitide of official online sources, and in opinions of one of the long-time chiefs of anti-doping. As Armstronglivs continuously reminds all of us, according to the Code, it isn't necessary to determine many of these truths when we have a set of default presumptions and can ignore factors like intent, fault, negligence, and knowing use.
This emotional analogy fails because here there is no smoking gun -- the weapon wasn't identified -- and in murder cases, accidental death is not presumed to be pre-meditated murder, unless you can prove it probably wasn't, without the benefit of anyone establishing the murder weapon.
John Jerome White was 19 years old when a Georgia judge sentenced him to life plus 40 years in prison for breaking into a 74-year-old woman's home and raping her. Exonerated after DNA testing years later, he walked free in a...
Insights into her training. Some solid Harry Potter discussion. Thoughts about the AR in the 5k. And yet another pro who tries to stay off of LRC. Why is that??? She responded directly to the doping thread after she dropped her 3:57. Pretty great talking about pounding two beers when doping control paid a visit to her place.
Yeah there is no way a runner like Shelby would dope.
What really pisses me off more about his statement, if untrue is that he’s using the Kenyan doctors as scapegoat, a lot like the Mexican food BS. Own your sh**, you went looking for it, better yet, tell us truthfully who gave you PEDs so they’re held accountable n you safe others https://t.co/wjUKKYBT1v
Well, even Tygart didn't fall for that burrito story. In fact all my running buddies including some hard core BTC fans scoff at that, but think she is the only rotten apple of BTC.
Why does it seem like Aliphine is the only current pro with the cajones to call dopers out? Why is it left up to her? Where are the other clean athletes?
Honestly, it just makes it seem like they are all doping too.
