Shelby's side of the story from wapo

Armstronglivs wrote:

"By analogy, a person has a "near-zero" 1 in 15,000 probabity of ever being struck by lightning in their lifetime. Yet each year in the US, 300 people are struck by lightning. It would be ridiculous to conclude they were not struck by lightning on the balance of probability."(quote)

You have just shown you have no idea what "the balance of probability" means. The chance of being struck by lightning is very very low probability - 1 in 15000 chance in a person's lifetime, according to your statistic. This very low probability is demonstrated by the fact that few are. That some are struck by lightning does not show that it occurs "on the balance of probability" but against all probability. It is not a "probable" occurrence. It remains a rarity. The "balance of probability" means the relevant facts point to a particular outcome or conclusion as being more likely than not. That is not being "struck by lightning", which has become a metaphor for that which is pure chance and extremely unlikely. If Houlihan had tested positive from a contaminated burrito that would have been akin to being struck by lightning. The chances were assessed as extremely low and she couldn't produce evidence showing that was what happened. The "balance of probability" led to a conclusion she therefore intentionally doped because of the lack of evidence of accidental contamination. Because you have shown don't understand what that means you still have no idea how the Court came to that conclusion.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"By analogy, a person has a "near-zero" 1 in 15,000 probabity of ever being struck by lightning in their lifetime. Yet each year in the US, 300 people are struck by lightning. It would be ridiculous to conclude they were not struck by lightning on the balance of probability."(quote)

You have just shown you have no idea what "the balance of probability" means. The chance of being struck by lightning is very very low probability - 1 in 15000 chance in a person's lifetime, according to your statistic. This very low probability is demonstrated by the fact that few are. That some are struck by lightning does not show that it occurs "on the balance of probability" but against all probability. It is not a "probable" occurrence. It remains a rarity. The "balance of probability" means the relevant facts point to a particular outcome or conclusion as being more likely than not. That is not being "struck by lightning", which has become a metaphor for that which is pure chance and extremely unlikely. If Houlihan had tested positive from a contaminated burrito that would have been akin to being struck by lightning. The chances were assessed as extremely low and she couldn't produce evidence showing that was what happened. The "balance of probability" led to a conclusion she therefore intentionally doped because of the lack of evidence of accidental contamination. Because you have shown don't understand what that means you still have no idea how the Court came to that conclusion.

"Balance of probability" on incomplete evidence is meaningless when attempting to establishing facts.

You fail to comprehend the analogy. The AIU argued that nandrolone in pork, like lightning strikes, would be infrequent in the USA. But both improbable nandrolone positives from pork, and lightning strikes, can be expected to happen in small numbers each year.

You keep coming back to findings that were only made possible from an artificial process with limited information and a set of presumptions. This is how the CAS came to its findings: codified presumptions rather than established facts.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"By analogy, a person has a "near-zero" 1 in 15,000 probabity of ever being struck by lightning in their lifetime. Yet each year in the US, 300 people are struck by lightning. It would be ridiculous to conclude they were not struck by lightning on the balance of probability."(quote)

You have just shown you have no idea what "the balance of probability" means. The chance of being struck by lightning is very very low probability - 1 in 15000 chance in a person's lifetime, according to your statistic. This very low probability is demonstrated by the fact that few are. That some are struck by lightning does not show that it occurs "on the balance of probability" but against all probability. It is not a "probable" occurrence. It remains a rarity. The "balance of probability" means the relevant facts point to a particular outcome or conclusion as being more likely than not. That is not being "struck by lightning", which has become a metaphor for that which is pure chance and extremely unlikely. If Houlihan had tested positive from a contaminated burrito that would have been akin to being struck by lightning. The chances were assessed as extremely low and she couldn't produce evidence showing that was what happened. The "balance of probability" led to a conclusion she therefore intentionally doped because of the lack of evidence of accidental contamination. Because you have shown don't understand what that means you still have no idea how the Court came to that conclusion.

"Balance of probability" on incomplete evidence is meaningless when attempting to establishing facts.

You fail to comprehend the analogy. The AIU argued that nandrolone in pork, like lightning strikes, would be infrequent in the USA. But both improbable nandrolone positives from pork, and lightning strikes, can be expected to happen in small numbers each year.

You keep coming back to findings that were only made possible from an artificial process with limited information and a set of presumptions. This is how the CAS came to its findings: codified presumptions rather than established facts.

800 meter man wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

"Balance of probability" on incomplete evidence is meaningless when attempting to establishing facts.

You fail to comprehend the analogy. The AIU argued that nandrolone in pork, like lightning strikes, would be infrequent in the USA. But both improbable nandrolone positives from pork, and lightning strikes, can be expected to happen in small numbers each year.

You keep coming back to findings that were only made possible from an artificial process with limited information and a set of presumptions. This is how the CAS came to its findings: codified presumptions rather than established facts.

Isn’t the whole notion of a burrito/pork meat causing a false positive just a red herring though? I was under the impression that the CAS report explicitly stated that the level of nandrolone SH tested for was more than 3x the level appearing in any scientific literature re: nandrolone due to boar offal meat consumption. If true, doesn’t that basically render the entire argument moot?

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you could argue you were struck by lightning - because it is a possibility, however remote - but without evidence showing that it occurred it remains an unsubstantiated claim of extremely low probability. Like the burrito defence. Being struck by lightning - if it were a defence - wouldn't succeed, either, without evidence showing it occurred beyond a mere claim that it did.

That some are struck by lightning doesn't prove you were - and nor does your claim alone. Some athletes might experience accidental contamination but that isn't a defence for Houlihan unless she could show it occurred to her on the balance of probability. It isn't probable and she could provide no evidence for it in her case.

That you cannot see this suggests you either lack the necessary intellectual capacity or you are so in the thrall of your doping-denial obsession you embrace every kind of nonsense.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you could argue you were struck by lightning - because it is a possibility, however remote - but without evidence showing that it occurred it remains an unsubstantiated claim of extremely low probability. Like the burrito defence. Being struck by lightning - if it were a defence - wouldn't succeed, either, without evidence showing it occurred beyond a mere claim that it did.

That some are struck by lightning doesn't prove you were - and nor does your claim alone. Some athletes might experience accidental contamination but that isn't a defence for Houlihan unless she could show it occurred to her on the balance of probability. It isn't probable and she could provide no evidence for it in her case.

That you cannot see this suggests you either lack the necessary intellectual capacity or you are so in the thrall of your doping-denial obsession you embrace every kind of nonsense.

Can't you see the absurdity? You would argue that everyone struck by lightning in fact wasn't, because each one fails the test of the balance of probability. By your illogic, people just would never get struck by lightning, despite the rare appearance of hundreds of persons per year (thousands worldwide) with singed smoking hair standing on its end.

Again, whatever Houlihan failed to show, the AIU and their experts did not establish any facts or produce any evidence regarding the source on the balance of probability either. Your arguing false dichotomies is not a valid method of establishing facts to the contrary. The conclusion can only be that the source was not identified, either way, due to a lack of facts and evidence and showing. To "resolve the dispute", the WADA Code's presumptions are substituted for the missing facts, effectively removing all benefits of doubt for the accused athletes, regardless of guilt.

rekrunner wrote:

800 meter man wrote:

Isn’t the whole notion of a burrito/pork meat causing a false positive just a red herring though? I was under the impression that the CAS report explicitly stated that the level of nandrolone SH tested for was more than 3x the level appearing in any scientific literature re: nandrolone due to boar offal meat consumption. If true, doesn’t that basically render the entire argument moot?

Not at all. Of course you were under that impression, as was the CAS.

That was one of the slight of hand deceptions from the scientific experts whom the CAS relied on and sided with. For some reason, these experts made a statement about pork meat, rather than nandrolone-rich pork offal. Prof. Ayotte herself co-authored a study where ingested pork offal ingestion produced up to 25x Houlihan's values -- with the literature describing as much as 130 ng/ml and 160 ng/ml. The small sample sizes involved didn't necessarily find a maximum limit. It would be sufficient for pork parts in chorizo, or possibly even just meat cooked in pork fat, to produce low amounts exceeding WADA's reporting thresholds. The experts looked selectively at pork meat and stomach, without attempting to address all the ingredients that can be found in a pork stomach burrito. But even for pork meat, the experts were not correct: there is literature showing 7.5-8 ng/ml -- more than Houlihan's. The WADA's own TD on nandrolone says that pork ingestion can produce values in the low, less than 10 ng/ml, range, and in some cases, exceptionally higher. Borrowing Ayotte's terminology, Houlihan's low values are "consistent with" the consumption of soy-fed intact boar offal -- a scenario made more likely during the pandemic.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are unbelievably dense. That a person is struck by lightning - or wins the lottery - is the opposite of what you claim; it is against all probability. That something extremely unlikely may occur - such as the examples above - doesn't make it probable. The person in the street knows this but in your unbelievable stupidity and doping denial you simply can't get it.

Again - because you are an utter moron - you do not understand that Houlihan wasn't "probably" doped - she tested positive for a banned substance. That was the evidence and it was irrefutable. It was for her to show it wasn't the result of her doping, which she was unable to do because contamination through the source she claimed was assessed by experts as being of very low likelihood and she could produce no evidence of the "burrito" that she speculated may have contaminated her. Without that evidence her defence was little more than "what if" - with nothing to prove it was anything more than a bare possibility. A "near-zero" chance of contamination through the source she suggested was ruled to be against the balance of probability. The dog ate her homework.

She was doped; she couldn't show sufficient evidence - and nothing of substance - that she hadn't chosen to dope and so she was banned for her rule violation. The average person can easily understand that and that none of it shows she was an "innocent victim of an unfair process". But you are obviously less than average.

rekrunner wrote:

800 meter man wrote:

Isn’t the whole notion of a burrito/pork meat causing a false positive just a red herring though? I was under the impression that the CAS report explicitly stated that the level of nandrolone SH tested for was more than 3x the level appearing in any scientific literature re: nandrolone due to boar offal meat consumption. If true, doesn’t that basically render the entire argument moot?

Not at all. Of course you were under that impression, as was the CAS.

That was one of the slight of hand deceptions from the scientific experts whom the CAS relied on and sided with. For some reason, these experts made a statement about pork meat, rather than nandrolone-rich pork offal. Prof. Ayotte herself co-authored a study where ingested pork offal ingestion produced up to 25x Houlihan's values -- with the literature describing as much as 130 ng/ml and 160 ng/ml. The small sample sizes involved didn't necessarily find a maximum limit. It would be sufficient for pork parts in chorizo, or possibly even just meat cooked in pork fat, to produce low amounts exceeding WADA's reporting thresholds. The experts looked selectively at pork meat and stomach, without attempting to address all the ingredients that can be found in a pork stomach burrito. But even for pork meat, the experts were not correct: there is literature showing 7.5-8 ng/ml -- more than Houlihan's. The WADA's own TD on nandrolone says that pork ingestion can produce values in the low, less than 10 ng/ml, range, and in some cases, exceptionally higher. Borrowing Ayotte's terminology, Houlihan's low values are "consistent with" the consumption of soy-fed intact boar offal -- a scenario made more likely during the pandemic.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are unbelievably dense. That a person is struck by lightning - or wins the lottery - is the opposite of what you claim; it is against all probability. That something extremely unlikely may occur - such as the examples above - doesn't make it probable. The person in the street knows this but in your unbelievable stupidity and doping denial you simply can't get it.

Again - because you are an utter moron - you do not understand that Houlihan wasn't "probably" doped - she tested positive for a banned substance. That was the evidence and it was irrefutable. It was for her to show it wasn't the result of her doping, which she was unable to do because contamination through the source she claimed was assessed by experts as being of very low likelihood and she could produce no evidence of the "burrito" that she speculated may have contaminated her. Without that evidence her defence was little more than "what if" - with nothing to prove it was anything more than a bare possibility. A "near-zero" chance of contamination through the source she suggested was ruled to be against the balance of probability. The dog ate her homework.

She was doped; she couldn't show sufficient evidence - and nothing of substance - that she hadn't chosen to dope and so she was banned for her rule violation. The average person can easily understand that and that none of it shows she was an "innocent victim of an unfair process". But you are obviously less than average.

And you are quite believably dense. A positive test from pork ingestion is also against all probability -- isn't that what you keep telling us? Yet we should expect it to happen more often than zero, because low probability events, like lighting strikes are also rare "near-zero" events, but still occur frequently each year.

The fact remains that no scenario or source was ever shown to be probable by any party, meeting the standard of the balance of probability. So no one can conclude, and the CAS did not conclude, and the AIU with their experts did not show, that Houlihan intentionally doped with an oral pseudo-endogenous nandrolone product. The CAS finding of "intent" was deemed based on presumption with no supporting facts or evidence.

This is exactly what the CAS told us -- there is no need for you to invent or rewrite history.