Shelby Quote " it could've been someone around me " .... Who is the saboteur 🧐?

I'm not disputing her guilt. She is guilty and her claims that it came from eating a burrito are absurd and have no merit.

The act of buying a burrito is evidence. I think she ever corroborated it with further evidence that she bought a burrito from a food truck.

It means she doped unless she could convincingly show otherwise. She couldn't. So doped it is.

The burden of proof was obviously satisfied in this case. That will do me.

But the rules disagree with you.

A banned substance in your system - which was unchallengeable fact - is evidence of doping to the highest degree of probability. You put it there, in your body, unless you can show otherwise. That is basic biology. That presumption can ONLY be dispelled by convincing evidence that its presence was not through any breach of the rules. She couldn't produce that evidence and neither can you. So CAS decided on the facts she had committed a breach - an intentional breach - for which there was no defence. Your "possibilities" amounted to nothing; the highly probable likelihood she had doped - which is the logical inference from a positive test - prevailed.

No - you disagree. You don't understand how the rules work. She was found guilty.

How can you say that it was obviously satisfied when you don’t know what it is?
Why still no ref to rule 10?

You have the question around the wrong way. Point me to the "evidence" that showed the banned drug found in her urine was NOT the result of her own intentional actions. CAS found no such evidence. Nor could she.

Without being pedantic, buying a burrito is only evidence of buying a burrito. It has no relevance to the question of whether she had doped or not unless there was a reasonable inference that the burrito had resulted in accidental contamination. The likelihood of doping in those circumstances were deemed "near zero". So her consumption of a burrito was as relevant as her having a hamburger.

I never thought it was the burrito. If she ordered a beef burrito and got a pig offal burrito, it would taste like foocking sh!t and she would've returned it, especially at the amounts of meat they were saying was in them.

Let's observe you have still failed to provide any facts.

My argument was not 30% versus 43.6% -- that is for another thread. Regardless whether you want to start from 30% or 43.6%:

- they are both well below the balance of probability

- then we can consider a cascade of factors that reduce this less likely than not probability further

Speaking of dishonesty, you neglected to consider the facts you asked me to provide.

Furthermore, speaking of dishonesty, your two figures compares apples to oranges and dishonestly suggest, without factual basis, these scenarios are 17 orders of magnitude different. The probability that any USA burrito can cause a positive result is not comparable to the probability that, when given a positive result, it comes from intentional doping from a "norsteroid product".

Where to find "Small quantity": The WADA guideline TD2021NA says "concentrations of excreted 19-NA in urine are usually in the low ng/mL range (less than 10 ng/mL)"

Where to find "Orally": the CAS decision repeatedly says "ingestion". See 73 where Prof. Ayotte suggests "i.e. the ingestion of a norsteroid product"

"Testosterone" likely helps ladies in the shorter middle distance events and field events, requiring muscular strength, when injected, or when naturally high in intersex athletes. Caster Semenya's best time in 1500m is 3:59.92.

The facts I asked for, and you have failed to provide, should answer "Do they help when ingested in a low quantity, as suggested by Prof. Ayotte?" These facts cannot be found in the CAS report.

I have read the CAS decision, in the context of the WADA Code and its guidelines, especially the parts where the CAS gets to presume in the absence of facts.

You are barking up the wrong goalpost.

The initial point was that the burrito was the only alternative presented with evidence to the CAS, in light of your argument that possibilities without evidence are pure fantasy.

What you are saying is you cannot be specific or point to evidence that the CAS considered other "probable" alternatives.

That is just your inference which you suggest is both logical and highly probable, an inference not supported by the CAS or by any evidence.

How should I tell the difference between "possible" and "probable" when the probable option has yet to be established?

We started by me saying that my goal was to evaluate the evidence.

You said CAS has already done that -- that would be for you to point me to that evidence you suggest the CAS evaluated.

Strict liability does not require intent.

Yet Rule 10 ( limited to consequences) shifts the burden to the athlete to disprove intent.A very very narrow corridor and one set out to be such in Rule 10.

So there is a contradiction within the rules.This is partly resolved by the use of the word “ intentional “ is stated only in the context of rule10 and then to make it clearer the word “deemed “ is added. This is stated in the CAS decision.

In the relation to the case in hand any person asked what they consumed a month ago; in the most minute quantities; and because they can’t account for such is deemed an intentional cheat would say the rules or the interpretations of cheating are just plain draconian.

All this has been the result of strict liability been seen as far too severe legally with all the new information about contamination.So what I would say is bodge up. One that gives athletes the most slimmest of narrow corridors to avoid strict liability.

This years 'best actress' award is a close tie between Amber Heard and Shelby Houlihan.

Deep intellectual response.

Sorry if I offended you Shelby...