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

Pro News/Info/Results
Reply
Moderation
1 7 8
Next
  • registered

    rekrunner

    Member since 09/27/2015.

    15,539 posts. Last post 3 hours ago.
    2 years ago 11/04/2022 5:39pm EDT
    re: Armstronglivs

    Armstronglivs wrote:

    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.

    In other words, you concede that neither the AIU nor the CAS provided any "evidential basis" for intent. All your talk of "what it takes to establish it on an evidential basis" does not apply. In these cases, intent is a baseless presumption, not because "she was deemed responsible", but because of 2015 changes to the WADA Code shifting the burden to prove the often unprovable onto the athlete.

  • registered

    Armstronglivs

    Member since 10/05/2018.

    41,403 posts. Last post 9 hours ago.
    2 years ago 11/05/2022 12:50am EDT
    re: rekrunner

    rekrunner wrote:

    Armstronglivs wrote:

    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.

    In other words, you concede that neither the AIU nor the CAS provided any "evidential basis" for intent. All your talk of "what it takes to establish it on an evidential basis" does not apply. In these cases, intent is a baseless presumption, not because "she was deemed responsible", but because of 2015 changes to the WADA Code shifting the burden to prove the often unprovable onto the athlete.

    The evidential basis for intent in her case was the presence of a banned drug. Intent was a given - hence the presumption - because it could only have been in her system through her chosen actions unless she could show otherwise. She couldn't. Nor can you.

  • registered

    rekrunner

    Member since 09/27/2015.

    15,539 posts. Last post 3 hours ago.
    2 years ago 11/05/2022 4:49am EDT
    re: Armstronglivs

    Armstronglivs wrote:

    rekrunner wrote:

    In other words, you concede that neither the AIU nor the CAS provided any "evidential basis" for intent. All your talk of "what it takes to establish it on an evidential basis" does not apply. In these cases, intent is a baseless presumption, not because "she was deemed responsible", but because of 2015 changes to the WADA Code shifting the burden to prove the often unprovable onto the athlete.

    The evidential basis for intent in her case was the presence of a banned drug. Intent was a given - hence the presumption - because it could only have been in her system through her chosen actions unless she could show otherwise. She couldn't. Nor can you.

    Not quite. This tortured logic can be found nowhere in the WADA standards or the CAS report.

    The "presence" is evidence for the violations of "presence"/"use", regardless of "intent". WADA explicitly tells us that.

    Intent was a "presumption". The CAS told us that. The CAS did not say it was a "given".

    There is no "evidential basis" required to "deem intent". WADA tells us that.

    You keep coming back to Houlihan's evidence falling short of establishing otherwise on the balance of probability. This only swaps the goalpost, because you failed with the first goal.

  • registered

    Renewed Marathoner

    Member since 01/22/2013.

    1,631 posts. Last post 3 months ago.
    2 years ago 11/05/2022 6:24am EDT
    re: rekrunner

    This forum could use a dm function. And you two really should shut up already. You've both taken over this thread so dramatically and selfishly. Don't you ever think for a second " man maybe I should let this go?" You don't have to be right. Or attempt to force someone else to change their view ad nauseum. Grow up.

  • registered

    rekrunner

    Member since 09/27/2015.

    15,539 posts. Last post 3 hours ago.
    2 years ago 11/05/2022 7:46am EDT
    re: Renewed Marathoner

    I really just wanted a reason why we should take "A comprehensive look at Shelby's "career"".

  • Forever and ever

    Anonymous Poster

    2 years ago 11/05/2022 8:07am EDT
    re: rekrunner

    rekrunner wrote:

    I really just wanted a reason why we should take "A comprehensive look at Shelby's "career"".

    You sure? Looks like you wanted to insist on your understanding of the meaning of deem, presume, presence, evidence and God knows what else.

  • registered

    rekrunner

    Member since 09/27/2015.

    15,539 posts. Last post 3 hours ago.
    2 years ago 11/05/2022 10:40am EDT
    re: Forever and ever

    Forever and ever wrote:

    rekrunner wrote:

    I really just wanted a reason why we should take "A comprehensive look at Shelby's "career"".

    You sure? Looks like you wanted to insist on your understanding of the meaning of deem, presume, presence, evidence and God knows what else.

    I'm pretty sure that's what I wanted, and all I still want.

    The responses I got led us down other paths.

  • registered

    Armstronglivs

    Member since 10/05/2018.

    41,403 posts. Last post 9 hours ago.
    2 years ago 11/05/2022 11:22am EDT
    re: rekrunner

    rekrunner wrote:

    Armstronglivs wrote:

    The evidential basis for intent in her case was the presence of a banned drug. Intent was a given - hence the presumption - because it could only have been in her system through her chosen actions unless she could show otherwise. She couldn't. Nor can you.

    Not quite. This tortured logic can be found nowhere in the WADA standards or the CAS report.

    The "presence" is evidence for the violations of "presence"/"use", regardless of "intent". WADA explicitly tells us that.

    Intent was a "presumption". The CAS told us that. The CAS did not say it was a "given".

    There is no "evidential basis" required to "deem intent". WADA tells us that.

    You keep coming back to Houlihan's evidence falling short of establishing otherwise on the balance of probability. This only swaps the goalpost, because you failed with the first goal.

    It completely escapes you why her violation carried a presumption of intent.

  • registered

    rekrunner

    Member since 09/27/2015.

    15,539 posts. Last post 3 hours ago.
    2 years ago 11/05/2022 4:53pm EDT
    re: Armstronglivs

    Armstronglivs wrote:

    It completely escapes you why her violation carried a presumption of intent.

    Not at all. I like how Andy Brown explains it:

    1. Proving intentional doping

    Proving intentional doping is notoriously difficult. The natural reaction of any athlete when confronted with an adverse analytical finding (AAF) is to deny doping.
    ...

    This difficulty in proving intent was why the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) abandoned the ‘aggravating circumstances’ provision within the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code that allowed the standard two-year ban to be scaled up to four years. The burden of proof in establishing ‘aggravating circumstances’ was so high that it was almost never used.

    Instead, the 2015 Code opted for a standard sanction of four years that could be reduced down if – for example – an athlete could prove that use of a substance was non-intentional.

    In effect, the 2015 Code reversed the burden of proof from innocent until proven guilty. An athlete is now considered guilty unless they can prove that they are innocent.

    Here is how a presumption of intent can end up convicting up to an estimated 40-60% of innocent athletes:

    2. Inadvertent doping

    This leads us into the second issue. Not every athlete that is sanctioned for doping intends to cheat. (...)

    For the same reasons that it is difficult to prove intentional doping, it is difficult to put an exact figure on the number of athletes sanctioned for doping who did not intend to cheat.

    However, that doesn’t stop NADOs from guessing. At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional. (...)

    There can be a number of reasons for inadvertent doping. The most common are contaminated supplements or food. As has been previously discussed on The Sports Integrity Initiative, many elite athletes take supplements. They also take medicines to recover from injury.

    sportsintegrityinitiative.com
    Why life bans for doping will not work - Sports Integrity Initiative
    Andy Brown
    On Sunday, Justin Gatlin was booed as he received his gold medal following his victory in the 100m final at the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) London 2017 World Championships on Saturday. The reason...
    Link:www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/life...
1 7 8

Jump To A Page

Next Last
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.
New Forum Moderation Information & Rules Search Troubleshooting

This thread has already been deleted.

Note: We review 100% of reports submitted. Visit our moderation dashboard to view statistics on our moderating activity. If you have a question or concern, email us at letsrun@letsrun.com or call us at our toll-free phone number:

1-844-LETSRUN (1-844-538-7786).

Author
Body
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?
What forum rule may this post have broken?

View our Terms Of Service for a complete description of our forum policies.

Provide context for this post report if relevant.

Reply Replying to

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview
By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Message Board