You overlook that she never would have earned $250,000 p.a. as a clean runner.
So she didn't really lose $1,000,000 in these 4 years. On the contrary, she illegitimately made that kind of money before her bust.
And that she went for this lawyer for $250,000 and the absurd 🌯 🌯 story, instead of admitting guilt and taking the 3 year ban, was also her decision/gamble.
In conclusion, I don't see a "devastating punishment". On the contrary, she gets to keep all that cash and her records. Sad!
Does anyone know her plan? I assume she's in Portland so will Nike resign her? Did they ever stop paying her? Who else is in Portland that she can train with?
Is it crazy that as a banned runner she's allowed to use Nike's facilities all this time?
For those who legitimately think she’s clean: in your mind, what are the odds that her story is true? 10%? 50%? 75% Why do you think she’s clean based on the odds of her story being factual?
At the time of her ban, there was a lot of discussion about the factuality of her story. I heard many estimate the odds of all the components of her story occurring to be less than 1% odds. More like 1 in a million. It’s basically like the most impossible parlay ever conceived—and somehow it hit?
Can you see why people are so skeptical? And the problem now is, an incredible amount of doubt has now been sown into the anti-doping system. With all the “botched” cases we hear about, can we ever trust anti-doping? This is the problem with Shelby. We need to be realistic about her case. I have nothing against her personally, but the whole thing seems very strange.
Since she was deemed an intentional doper, the more direct question is, given the undisputed facts and findings, what is the probability that she intentionally doped? 1%? 33%? 99.999%? This question was neither asked nor answered by the CAS Panel, nor by the WA/AIU and its experts.
It is not simply 1 minus the probability of "what did she prove". The relevant question was never how rare nandrolone is in pork across the US, but, given she consumed a greasy burrito and 10 hours later, tested positive for nandrolone, what is the probability that these facts are connected, versus the probabilities of all other possible sources? Answering this requires some reasonable assessment of the likelihood of all of the other alternatives.
The real tragedy is that athetes worldwide can potentially serve a 4-year ban without ever establishing the likelihood of their intentional doping.
Since she was deemed an intentional doper, the more direct question is, given the undisputed facts and findings, what is the probability that she intentionally doped? 1%? 33%? 99.999%? This question was neither asked nor answered by the CAS Panel, nor by the WA/AIU and its experts.
A math question! LOL
Easy answer: 99.999999%
It is simply = 1 - the burrito joke probability - the ruled out supplements - the fruitcake - the orange juice - sabotage.
Since she was deemed an intentional doper, the more direct question is, given the undisputed facts and findings, what is the probability that she intentionally doped? 1%? 33%? 99.999%? This question was neither asked nor answered by the CAS Panel, nor by the WA/AIU and its experts.
A math question! LOL
Easy answer: 99.999999%
It is simply = 1 - the burrito joke probability - the ruled out supplements - the fruitcake - the orange juice - sabotage.
It may be an easy answer, when using an easy model, but is it the right answer, given the uncertainties? No one has answered that question yet within any degree of certainty.
For those who legitimately think she’s clean: in your mind, what are the odds that her story is true? 10%? 50%? 75% Why do you think she’s clean based on the odds of her story being factual?
At the time of her ban, there was a lot of discussion about the factuality of her story. I heard many estimate the odds of all the components of her story occurring to be less than 1% odds. More like 1 in a million. It’s basically like the most impossible parlay ever conceived—and somehow it hit?
Can you see why people are so skeptical? And the problem now is, an incredible amount of doubt has now been sown into the anti-doping system. With all the “botched” cases we hear about, can we ever trust anti-doping? This is the problem with Shelby. We need to be realistic about her case. I have nothing against her personally, but the whole thing seems very strange.
Since she was deemed an intentional doper, the more direct question is, given the undisputed facts and findings, what is the probability that she intentionally doped? 1%? 33%? 99.999%? This question was neither asked nor answered by the CAS Panel, nor by the WA/AIU and its experts.
It is not simply 1 minus the probability of "what did she prove". The relevant question was never how rare nandrolone is in pork across the US, but, given she consumed a greasy burrito and 10 hours later, tested positive for nandrolone, what is the probability that these facts are connected, versus the probabilities of all other possible sources? Answering this requires some reasonable assessment of the likelihood of all of the other alternatives.
The real tragedy is that athetes worldwide can potentially serve a 4-year ban without ever establishing the likelihood of their intentional doping.
Strict liability means intentionality is irrelevant but logic states it is almost impossible to accidentally invest what she has in her system so I personally think it is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% likely she intentionally does which is pretty close to 100% to me
Since she was deemed an intentional doper, the more direct question is, given the undisputed facts and findings, what is the probability that she intentionally doped? 1%? 33%? 99.999%? This question was neither asked nor answered by the CAS Panel, nor by the WA/AIU and its experts.
It is not simply 1 minus the probability of "what did she prove". The relevant question was never how rare nandrolone is in pork across the US, but, given she consumed a greasy burrito and 10 hours later, tested positive for nandrolone, what is the probability that these facts are connected, versus the probabilities of all other possible sources? Answering this requires some reasonable assessment of the likelihood of all of the other alternatives.
The real tragedy is that athetes worldwide can potentially serve a 4-year ban without ever establishing the likelihood of their intentional doping.
Strict liability means intentionality is irrelevant but logic states it is almost impossible to accidentally invest what she has in her system so I personally think it is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% likely she intentionally does which is pretty close to 100% to me
Exactly. I’m entirely uninterested in the lies dopers make up to cover up their crimes.
If a test is positive for a banned substance the athlete should be banned. There shouldn’t be any appeals or determinations of intent or anything like that. Just bans.
Strict liability means intentionality is irrelevant but logic states it is almost impossible to accidentally invest what she has in her system so I personally think it is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% likely she intentionally does which is pretty close to 100% to me
Indeed. The posters above (e.g. with the 1 in a million chance) were overly generous. There are actually some undisputed numbers in the CAS report, such as "far less than 1 in 10000" called improbable, plus another improbable scenario, plus a highly improbable, plus a not consistent scenario, all of which had to simultaneously occur.
So, using 0.00005 for improbable, and 1/10th of that for both highly improbable and not consistent:
0.00005 x 0.00005 x 0.000005 x 0.000005 = 0.0000000000000000000625 (chance that it was in the burrito)
That even excludes the fact that she a) ordered beef and b) that even if she got the wrong order, there were several other (non-offal) containing burritos on the menu. So, even that low number is still too generous.
Strict liability means intentionality is irrelevant but logic states it is almost impossible to accidentally invest what she has in her system so I personally think it is 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% likely she intentionally does which is pretty close to 100% to me
Indeed. The posters above (e.g. with the 1 in a million chance) were overly generous. There are actually some undisputed numbers in the CAS report, such as "far less than 1 in 10000" called improbable, plus another improbable scenario, plus a highly improbable, plus a not consistent scenario, all of which had to simultaneously occur.
So, using 0.00005 for improbable, and 1/10th of that for both highly improbable and not consistent:
0.00005 x 0.00005 x 0.000005 x 0.000005 = 0.0000000000000000000625 (chance that it was in the burrito)
That even excludes the fact that she a) ordered beef and b) that even if she got the wrong order, there were several other (non-offal) containing burritos on the menu. So, even that low number is still too generous.
Cheers!
People that took math when they were in school, would refer to the product of your calculation as 6.25e-20.
Indeed. The posters above (e.g. with the 1 in a million chance) were overly generous. There are actually some undisputed numbers in the CAS report, such as "far less than 1 in 10000" called improbable, plus another improbable scenario, plus a highly improbable, plus a not consistent scenario, all of which had to simultaneously occur.
So, using 0.00005 for improbable, and 1/10th of that for both highly improbable and not consistent:
0.00005 x 0.00005 x 0.000005 x 0.000005 = 0.0000000000000000000625 (chance that it was in the burrito)
That even excludes the fact that she a) ordered beef and b) that even if she got the wrong order, there were several other (non-offal) containing burritos on the menu. So, even that low number is still too generous.
Cheers!
"The more direct question is, given the undisputed facts and findings, what is the probability that she intentionally doped?" This question has nothing to do with pig statistics. Please show your math, and any known uncertainties.
Indeed. The posters above (e.g. with the 1 in a million chance) were overly generous. There are actually some undisputed numbers in the CAS report, such as "far less than 1 in 10000" called improbable, plus another improbable scenario, plus a highly improbable, plus a not consistent scenario, all of which had to simultaneously occur.
So, using 0.00005 for improbable, and 1/10th of that for both highly improbable and not consistent:
0.00005 x 0.00005 x 0.000005 x 0.000005 = 0.0000000000000000000625 (chance that it was in the burrito)
That even excludes the fact that she a) ordered beef and b) that even if she got the wrong order, there were several other (non-offal) containing burritos on the menu. So, even that low number is still too generous.
Cheers!
"The more direct question is, given the undisputed facts and findings, what is the probability that she intentionally doped?" This question has nothing to do with pig statistics. Please show your math, and any known uncertainties.
Why do you care so much about intent? Intent doesn’t matter. The banned substance was in her body.
And that she went for this lawyer for $250,000 and the absurd 🌯 🌯 story, instead of admitting guilt and taking the 3 year ban, was also her decision/gamble.
Gosh, I wonder if there are advisors around her who get paid as a percentage of her winnings.
For those not paying her legal bills, there is not much to lose by advising your golden goose to 'fight it.'
Has anyone confirmed whether or not Nike paid her during her ban?
Seems like something a journalist could ask.
It seems like a dumb question. Why would Nike pay an athlete that is ineligible to compete? In the major team sports, banned athletes aren’t paid.
Dumb response, actually.
Companies that want to keep star personnel (or more precisely, to keep them from going to the competition) routinely pay to retain people even during periods they aren't actively working. Ever heard of a sabbatical??
Nike wants Shelby, that's obvious. Did they want her enough to keep some money flowing so she wouldn't explore other sponsor opportunities?
Your post is right about one thing: this would be big news if true.
You can read the full story and supporting information by clicking here . … Shelby Houlihan needs your support for Help Shelby fight to prove her innocence
She only does her time IMO when she admits her guilt. However it's not up to me to decide I guess.
Yeah but how do you know she's guilty? The conviction is a 'more likely than not' conviction - i.e., greater than 50% likelihood she did it according to the panel. Not a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard.
FWIW I think she did it. But the panel thinks there's a 51% or more chance she did it.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
