We merged two threads on the same subject into 1 and kept the title of the 1st one posted. The 2nd thread title was, “Whether you believe me or not, I’m coming back,” Shelby says. “I’ve served the time.”
I agree that the CAS determined that Ayotte presented false testimony in the Lawson case, but did not evaluate the reasons for the false testimony. It could, of course, been outright lying on Ayotte's part. It could have been a sign of suffering from memory loss. It could be that some "neutral" WADA lab directors (working a 2nd job as a prosecution witness) will do and say whatever they have to win their case as evidenced here:
Of course you of all people would agree with that. CAS however never "determined that Ayotte presented false testimony in the Lawson case". They never said that either. Let's look at what actually happened:
She called - according to CAS - some test values "low" that the CAS panelists - who are not scientists - considered "large". Neither side mentioned the exact values, neither side gave their definition of low/large. Could simply be that they used different definitions or had different opinions about low/large, wouldn't you agree?
Like a letsrun poster would consider a $100,000 salary low, and a high school student might consider a $100,000 salary large, for example.
What exactly did CAS "determine"? Here I help reminding you all:
"Nor was the Panel entirely persuaded by Professor's Ayotte's evidence" - nothing at all about "false testimony".
I agree that the CAS didn't specifically use the phrase "false testimony" or "false statements," but they specifically spelled out each example of false statement that she made in the Lawson case regarding trenbolone:
"Nor was the Panel entirely persuaded by Professor Ayotte’s evidence. Before the Tribunal below, she testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low and therefore intentional cheaters could not be separated from athletes measured at levels of picograms consistent with food contaminated by hormones." "She said that athletes with high levels were rarely seen after the 1990s. But in fact, her lab records showed that some levels measured were large and that the Athlete’s level was below 18 out of 21 reported since 2013. Moreover, the data she produced for this appeal showed that, indeed, many urine samples in 2018/19 for athletes in America (where Tenbolone is legal as a muscle promoter in cattle) were positive for Trenbolone metabolites at low levels (of less than 2ng/mL)."
You seem to be indicating that the CAS lawyers cannot tell the difference between "low" and "high" in the context of Ayotte's testimony as they are not scientists. That would be troubling! If they can't make a simple determination about low and high in regards to someone's testimony, how can we trust their ability to make determinations about much more complex scientific topics?!
Nevertheless, we can simply look at the part of first paragraph quoted from the CAS above: "Before the Tribunal below, she testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low and therefore intentional cheaters could not be separated from athletes measured at levels of picograms consistent with food contaminated by hormones."
The Lawson hearing with the IAAF was held on April 19, 2019 where she presented what I described as false testimony and the CAS specifically spells out the false statements. Two days earlier at a hearing on April 17, 2019 (IAAF v Maria Guadalupe Gonzalez Romero), the following is a quote from their findings:
"The declaration of Professor Ayotte is very helpful as she illustrated that, considering the amount of meat the Athlete had eaten, it was not possible that the trenbolone found in her body came from contaminated meat, due to the fact that its concentration in her Sample was too high."
So, on April 17, 2019, Ayotte testifies that *high* levels of trenbolone in an athlete's Sample allowed her to differentiate between a "cheater" and food contamination. But by April 19, 2019 at the Lawson hearing she testified that the levels were "always low and therefore intentional cheaters could not be separated from athletes measured at levels of picograms consistent with food contaminated by hormones."
On a less serious note: As soon as the discrepancies in testimony was discovered, WADA should have provisionally suspended her and scheduled as CAS-style hearing. Paul Greene helped discover the discrepancies, so he would have made an excellent "neutral" party as far as determining the facts. He could also be a prosecution witness. Unfortunately for Ayotte, no one from WADA can testify in her defense. But that shouldn't be a problem because all she needs is $100k+ and prove to the arbiters that she didn't lie in her testimony to avoid a 4-year ban.
On a more serious note: I proposed earlier that every CAS hearing should have a neutral science advisor with no relationship with WADA or sports science and with expertise in research design. I should have added that not all CAS hearings involve science and therefore such an advisor would not be needed in that case. I also have proposed that full transcripts (or videos) of the hearings as well as cited documentation should be made available to the public -- at least as much as possible without comprising athlete privacy rights.
Sport Resolutions is a global independent, not-for-profit, dispute resolution service for sports, offering arbitration, mediation, tribunal and expert opinion.
Sport Resolutions is a global independent, not-for-profit, dispute resolution service for sports, offering arbitration, mediation, tribunal and expert opinion.
It's not just he said she said. Although they both could be right, if coincidental joining of easy runs doesn't count as "team practices".
More details are for example here, including strava proving GDS to be correct, and Shelby's defense being:
she couldn’t go to any practices or work out with anyone on the team, but if she happened to bump into them and they were running at the same place, then she could run with them.
And no, I do not know what USADA or the AIU told Houlihan or Schumacher or GDS - do you?
No, I don't know for certain whether any of the anti-doping authorities looked into whether there was a problem with Schumacher's continuing to coach Houlihan.
Nor do I know for certain whether any anti-doping authority told any of the BTC athletes that Schumacher's coaching of Houlihan was putting them at risk of a violation.
That's why I asked those questions.
But I've never read or heard anything that suggests either of those things happened. And that makes me question whether DeBues-Stafford's departure from the team was really justified.
"She insists she never knowingly took a banned substance. But Houlihan, 32, no longer blames tainted meat, saying she isn’t sure what caused her failed test.
“I don’t have answers for what happened,” she said. “I just have a lot of theories.”
Houlihan settled on the burrito argument because she and her legal team had just seven days to formulate a defense, she says. She had eaten at a food truck that served pig organs the day before her test, which can trigger positives."
I mean we are done right? I read this and my mind reverts to my Sunday School upbringing and Proverbs 21:23 - "Watch your tongue and keep your mouth shut, and you will stay out of trouble".
She is a moron. She is an absolute moron. WHY would you ever say this? You "no longer blame tainted meat" - huh?! - that was the entire basis or your defense that you not only you tried once but then tried to appeal again using as your basis. But now you say quote “It sounds kind of ridiculous,” - yeah no kidding Shelby. No kidding.
Now it "could be" tainted vitamins? Oh my god - Shelby we knew this the whole time but of course the key thing here is that you also 100% knew they were tainted - you just didn't have the same control or discipline your boyfriend had with his 7, 3-Andro. Even worse is that you got Jerry and Shalane to die on cross supporting you on this making themselves look stupid as they blasted the "corrupt system" which turns out now wasn't corrupt - it catches people who use "tainted vitamins" - which is exactly what it should do.
Then we had the 15-minutes-of fame keyboard warrior weasels like Twonkle and Rekt-rd with their "next level" higher plateau of intelligence takes, castigating us all for calling her cheat. Well I'm sorry but in this sport, someone that takes a "vitamin" that leads to them testing positive for a performance enhancing substance in egregious excess in their system that then LIES about how it got there, instead volunteering a story so ridiculous it got flamed twice in both actual court and in the court of public opinion but even more poignantly , is so absurd that now they finally are just like "yeah I didn't believe it myself" - you knew what you were doing and you knowingly cheated.
And anyone that doesn't believe this - after this cherry on the sundae out of her mouth - is a delusion fool.
An eye-opening post on so many levels. I hope Jon and Robert on the podcast specifically drill her on these “vitamins.” I’ve never heard a tainted vitamins story ever before, it is tainted supplements as you point out!
Well given that they are now hard-line, "no-slurp" journos out to find the truth (as evidenced by the insinuation that Josh Hoey is suspected as a doper by his peers), I am sure they definitely will.
Because doping explains the positive so, so much better than the ridiculous pork burrito nonsense. This isn’t hard. You are completely misrepresenting the impact of the decision and the court’s findings. Doping is presumed with a positive test (and is likely at the level she tested). It was then up to Shelby to prove a different reason for the positive. She completely failed to do that.
You don’t seem to understand the legal nuances of the decision at all or how these proceedings work. CAS is not responsible for identifying the source of the nandrolone. Their finding that the pork could have possibly been the source but not probable is a half-step removed from them saying that it could have been aliens that put it there. In other words, they found the pork burrito argument to be ridiculous too even though they acknowledge that there was a greater than zero percent chance it could have happened. Their finding that Shelby was credible is only with respect to her defense. Meaning they believed her when she testified that she ate at the taco truck in question, that she ordered a specific kind of burrito, that it tasted funny, etc. They absolutely did not find she was credible in the sense that her defense was valid or that she didn’t intentionally dope.
Your never-ending quest to argue every single case and point completely undermines your overall credibility, especially where the athlete herself has abandoned the very defense you refuse to concede on.
You are mistaken about a few things.
Read the WSJ article again. Houlihan didn't abandon any defense. "I don’t have answers"; "I just have a lot of theories."; "One of her more recent suspicions is that a vitamin ..."
The CAS decision did not exclude any possibility, but subjectively determined her evidence and arguments did not meet a threshold of "balance of probability".
"Doping" explains the "positive test" equally as well as ingestion from pork offal. It is not better and it is not worse. Both could produce Houlihan's low levels and pseudo-endogenous CIR. Both were "suggested" to the CAS. Neither was found by the CAS to be more likely "on the balance of probabilities".
The CAS's findings are not facts. They were based on the incomplete evidence before them, and a number of presumptions, as interpreted by a set of rules heavily weighted against charged athletes.
It is because I understand the legal nuances, and how the proceedings work, that I conclude the CAS findings and decisions are factually weak, if not inaccurate, relying on a number of unproved and/or invalid assumptions and presumptions, in order to make them possible.
Both innocent and guilty athletes can fail to prove their innocence. I cannot conclude she is guilty from the failure to provide something that is known by both WADA and the CAS to be "difficult to provide".
What I also understand is the statistical nuance that the "near-zero" cascade of improbabilities attempts to calculate the wrong probability and answers the wrong question -- a question that was not before the CAS. To assess the most likely source, we should not compare the likelihood of a nandrolone burrito by counting all pork burritos nationwide, but rather compare the likelihood of a nandrolone burrito to the likelihoods of all other possible alternatives, ideally after these likelihoods have been corrected for Houlihan's specific case, i.e. from doping, or tainted supplements, or nandrolone-injected beef, or sabotage, etc. For example, the likelihood of intentional doping from a product purchased off the internet (or anywhere else) is ZERO (i.e. even LESS THAN possible not not probable), if she never purchased any such product. No amount of counting pigs across the USA can change that likelihood.
Messageboard I apologize. I don't even myself know what I am trying to say any more. Right now I try and just trick you all with big words and confusing logic so you might think I have a secret understanding of this all that you don't and you will just believe what I say is correct. But this is not reality.
Because doping explains the positive so, so much better than the ridiculous pork burrito nonsense. This isn’t hard. You are completely misrepresenting the impact of the decision and the court’s findings. Doping is presumed with a positive test (and is likely at the level she tested). It was then up to Shelby to prove a different reason for the positive. She completely failed to do that.
You don’t seem to understand the legal nuances of the decision at all or how these proceedings work. CAS is not responsible for identifying the source of the nandrolone. Their finding that the pork could have possibly been the source but not probable is a half-step removed from them saying that it could have been aliens that put it there. In other words, they found the pork burrito argument to be ridiculous too even though they acknowledge that there was a greater than zero percent chance it could have happened. Their finding that Shelby was credible is only with respect to her defense. Meaning they believed her when she testified that she ate at the taco truck in question, that she ordered a specific kind of burrito, that it tasted funny, etc. They absolutely did not find she was credible in the sense that her defense was valid or that she didn’t intentionally dope.
Your never-ending quest to argue every single case and point completely undermines your overall credibility, especially where the athlete herself has abandoned the very defense you refuse to concede on.
You are mistaken about a few things.
Read the WSJ article again. Houlihan didn't abandon any defense. "I don’t have answers"; "I just have a lot of theories."; "One of her more recent suspicions is that a vitamin ..."
The CAS decision did not exclude any possibility, but subjectively determined her evidence and arguments did not meet a threshold of "balance of probability".
"Doping" explains the "positive test" equally as well as ingestion from pork offal. It is not better and it is not worse. Both could produce Houlihan's low levels and pseudo-endogenous CIR. Both were "suggested" to the CAS. Neither was found by the CAS to be more likely "on the balance of probabilities".
The CAS's findings are not facts. They were based on the incomplete evidence before them, and a number of presumptions, as interpreted by a set of rules heavily weighted against charged athletes.
It is because I understand the legal nuances, and how the proceedings work, that I conclude the CAS findings and decisions are factually weak, if not inaccurate, relying on a number of unproved and/or invalid assumptions and presumptions, in order to make them possible.
Both innocent and guilty athletes can fail to prove their innocence. I cannot conclude she is guilty from the failure to provide something that is known by both WADA and the CAS to be "difficult to provide".
What I also understand is the statistical nuance that the "near-zero" cascade of improbabilities attempts to calculate the wrong probability and answers the wrong question -- a question that was not before the CAS. To assess the most likely source, we should not compare the likelihood of a nandrolone burrito by counting all pork burritos nationwide, but rather compare the likelihood of a nandrolone burrito to the likelihoods of all other possible alternatives, ideally after these likelihoods have been corrected for Houlihan's specific case, i.e. from doping, or tainted supplements, or nandrolone-injected beef, or sabotage, etc. For example, the likelihood of intentional doping from a product purchased off the internet (or anywhere else) is ZERO (i.e. even LESS THAN possible not not probable), if she never purchased any such product. No amount of counting pigs across the USA can change that likelihood.
No, you read the WSJ article again because she has absolutely abandoned the burrito defense: “She insists she never knowingly took a banned substance. But Houlihan, 32, no longer blames tainted meat, saying she isn’t sure what caused her failed test” (oh wait, this is literally the quote right before your quote- why did you intentionally omit it?).
The CAS findings are factual findings in the legal sense. It is a final decision that Shelby did not successfully challenge. She is, therefore, a convicted cheater who was required to serve a suspension. Your argument that the rules are weighted against the athletes is simply your opinion and changes nothing in this regard. Your argument that the CAS made its decision based on faulty evidence is simply your opinion and changes nothing in this regard. Again, you clearly have no legal training and do not understand such proceedings or the meaning of their outcomes. The CAS decision is a final decision meaning, for all intents and purposes, it is the definitive word on the matter. Shelby had the chance to challenge the decision based on every argument you have made to date. She failed to do this successfully.
Your statistical “analysis” is irrelevant. Shelby’s burrito argument was stunning in its desperation. No lawyer of any worth would walk in to such a hearing trumpeting a theory as bizarre as this without any direct evidence whatsoever (e.g., proof that the burrito she ate contained nandrolene) or even good circumstantial evidence (e.g., proof that the burrito cart sold other burritos containing nandrolene) without fully expecting to be laughed out of court. That is exactly what happened. There is a saying in US law that if the facts are on your side then you pound the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound the law. But if neither are on your side, you pound the table (meaning you make a big spectacle hoping somewhere along the way a decision maker will overlook the lack of facts or laws favoring you). Shelby’s lawyers pounded the table. The CAS panel, who have extensive experience in the law, saw right through their antics. Shelby now acknowledges it wasn’t the meat. You need to do the same.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
No, you read the WSJ article again because she has absolutely abandoned the burrito defense: “She insists she never knowingly took a banned substance. But Houlihan, 32, no longer blames tainted meat, saying she isn’t sure what caused her failed test” (oh wait, this is literally the quote right before your quote- why did you intentionally omit it?).
The CAS findings are factual findings in the legal sense. It is a final decision that Shelby did not successfully challenge. She is, therefore, a convicted cheater who was required to serve a suspension. Your argument that the rules are weighted against the athletes is simply your opinion and changes nothing in this regard. Your argument that the CAS made its decision based on faulty evidence is simply your opinion and changes nothing in this regard. Again, you clearly have no legal training and do not understand such proceedings or the meaning of their outcomes. The CAS decision is a final decision meaning, for all intents and purposes, it is the definitive word on the matter. Shelby had the chance to challenge the decision based on every argument you have made to date. She failed to do this successfully.
Your statistical “analysis” is irrelevant. Shelby’s burrito argument was stunning in its desperation. No lawyer of any worth would walk in to such a hearing trumpeting a theory as bizarre as this without any direct evidence whatsoever (e.g., proof that the burrito she ate contained nandrolene) or even good circumstantial evidence (e.g., proof that the burrito cart sold other burritos containing nandrolene) without fully expecting to be laughed out of court. That is exactly what happened. There is a saying in US law that if the facts are on your side then you pound the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound the law. But if neither are on your side, you pound the table (meaning you make a big spectacle hoping somewhere along the way a decision maker will overlook the lack of facts or laws favoring you). Shelby’s lawyers pounded the table. The CAS panel, who have extensive experience in the law, saw right through their antics. Shelby now acknowledges it wasn’t the meat. You need to do the same.
It still seems that it is you who fail to understand the WSJ article, as well as the "legal" standards and consequences. The CAS simply ruled that, in their subjective opinions, based on the limited evidence before them, Houlihan failed to establish her innocence with specific and concrete evidence to the standard required. This does not factually establish that she is guilty of intentional doping, even if the Code requires punishing her as if she were an intentional cheat.
Looks like you are quoting Rachel Bachman, and attributing that quote to Houlihan. There is no absolute abandonment of the claim of nandrolone from a greasy burrito, but just a reconfirmation (this is not the first time she said it) that she didn't really 100% know then, and still doesn't know, as she also suspects maybe it could have been vitamins. When I say the source has not been identified, that is equivalent to saying no one really knows for certain where the nandrolone came from, including Houlihan based on her statements. It's just that the rules give the benefit of the doubt to the accusers, rather than the accused -- that is one of the ways the Code is weighted against the athlete, as opposed to what happens in real courts that enforce civil and criminal laws.
The CAS findings are not even factual in a legal sense. It is a final binding decision, but not necessarily fact, nor based on facts. The CAS found the evidence for pork was insufficient to overcome presumptions in the Code, and based all of their relevant findings about "doping" and "intent" solely on presumptions in the Code. The evidence for an Amazon purchased nandrolone product is completely non-existent. The CAS rightly called this proposed alternative a "suggestion", rather than a finding or a fact. It was suggested without any supporting evidence, and not established to any legal standard.
In a real court, based on the law, the AIU would have to prove with evidence that a violation occurred, and a court would have to rule that the AIU met that burden, rather than turning the tables on the accused, to establish that a violation didn't occur.
Messageboard I apologize. I don't even myself know what I am trying to say any more. Right now I try and just trick you all with big words and confusing logic so you might think I have a secret understanding of this all that you don't and you will just believe what I say is correct. But this is not reality.
rekronner.
If you think my words are too big, the CAS made their report publicly available. It is sufficient to read what the CAS wrote about what it found and what it based its findings on. While you are reading it, you can ask yourself, which of the statements are provided with factual support, which of the statements are based on (unproven and/or invalid) assumptions, and which of the findings did the CAS say were based on presumptions.
No, you read the WSJ article again because she has absolutely abandoned the burrito defense: “She insists she never knowingly took a banned substance. But Houlihan, 32, no longer blames tainted meat, saying she isn’t sure what caused her failed test” (oh wait, this is literally the quote right before your quote- why did you intentionally omit it?).
The CAS findings are factual findings in the legal sense. It is a final decision that Shelby did not successfully challenge. She is, therefore, a convicted cheater who was required to serve a suspension. Your argument that the rules are weighted against the athletes is simply your opinion and changes nothing in this regard. Your argument that the CAS made its decision based on faulty evidence is simply your opinion and changes nothing in this regard. Again, you clearly have no legal training and do not understand such proceedings or the meaning of their outcomes. The CAS decision is a final decision meaning, for all intents and purposes, it is the definitive word on the matter. Shelby had the chance to challenge the decision based on every argument you have made to date. She failed to do this successfully.
Your statistical “analysis” is irrelevant. Shelby’s burrito argument was stunning in its desperation. No lawyer of any worth would walk in to such a hearing trumpeting a theory as bizarre as this without any direct evidence whatsoever (e.g., proof that the burrito she ate contained nandrolene) or even good circumstantial evidence (e.g., proof that the burrito cart sold other burritos containing nandrolene) without fully expecting to be laughed out of court. That is exactly what happened. There is a saying in US law that if the facts are on your side then you pound the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound the law. But if neither are on your side, you pound the table (meaning you make a big spectacle hoping somewhere along the way a decision maker will overlook the lack of facts or laws favoring you). Shelby’s lawyers pounded the table. The CAS panel, who have extensive experience in the law, saw right through their antics. Shelby now acknowledges it wasn’t the meat. You need to do the same.
It still seems that it is you who fail to understand the WSJ article, as well as the "legal" standards and consequences. The CAS simply ruled that, in their subjective opinions, based on the limited evidence before them, Houlihan failed to establish her innocence with specific and concrete evidence to the standard required. This does not factually establish that she is guilty of intentional doping, even if the Code requires punishing her as if she were an intentional cheat.
Looks like you are quoting Rachel Bachman, and attributing that quote to Houlihan. There is no absolute abandonment of the claim of nandrolone from a greasy burrito, but just a reconfirmation (this is not the first time she said it) that she didn't really 100% know then, and still doesn't know, as she also suspects maybe it could have been vitamins. When I say the source has not been identified, that is equivalent to saying no one really knows for certain where the nandrolone came from, including Houlihan based on her statements. It's just that the rules give the benefit of the doubt to the accusers, rather than the accused -- that is one of the ways the Code is weighted against the athlete, as opposed to what happens in real courts that enforce civil and criminal laws.
The CAS findings are not even factual in a legal sense. It is a final binding decision, but not necessarily fact, nor based on facts. The CAS found the evidence for pork was insufficient to overcome presumptions in the Code, and based all of their relevant findings about "doping" and "intent" solely on presumptions in the Code. The evidence for an Amazon purchased nandrolone product is completely non-existent. The CAS rightly called this proposed alternative a "suggestion", rather than a finding or a fact. It was suggested without any supporting evidence, and not established to any legal standard.
In a real court, based on the law, the AIU would have to prove with evidence that a violation occurred, and a court would have to rule that the AIU met that burden, rather than turning the tables on the accused, to establish that a violation didn't occur.
You’re standing outside, looking up, and claiming the sky isn’t blue. Do you not know how interviews work? Nothing in the article, at all, suggests Shelby is still claiming the meat was tainted. Everything in the article, either directly or by inference, states the opposite. If these statement are not correct, you would have expected to Shelby to have said something by now.
You do not understand legal proceedings. Every statement you made further evidences this. CAS made factual findings. They couldn’t issue a decision without that. That is how legal proceedings work.
In a “real court” AIU would only have to show the result of the positive test in order to meet its burden because a “real court” would simply apply the applicable doping regulations, which create a presumption of guilt when a positive test occurs. This is no different than what happened here. The burden would then shift to Shelby to show why the positive result was excusable under the applicable doping regulations. Again, that is what happened here. Proceedings before a “real court” would not have changed the outcome or determinations. You would simply swap out the CAS panel for a judge who applies the exact same regulations.
I should also note that in a “real court” this would have been brought to the court only if Shelby had sued to stop enforcement of the ban. In that case, she would have born the initial burden of proof as the movant. There is no scenario where the AIU would have been required to prove their case before a judge in order to ban Shelby or any other athlete. Their own internal procedures (and the other applicable doping regulations) permit that without having to seek court approval. You’re literally focused on a scenario that would never occur in real life.
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.
You’re standing outside, looking up, and claiming the sky isn’t blue. Do you not know how interviews work? Nothing in the article, at all, suggests Shelby is still claiming the meat was tainted. Everything in the article, either directly or by inference, states the opposite. If these statement are not correct, you would have expected to Shelby to have said something by now.
You do not understand legal proceedings. Every statement you made further evidences this. CAS made factual findings. They couldn’t issue a decision without that. That is how legal proceedings work.
In a “real court” AIU would only have to show the result of the positive test in order to meet its burden because a “real court” would simply apply the applicable doping regulations, which create a presumption of guilt when a positive test occurs. This is no different than what happened here. The burden would then shift to Shelby to show why the positive result was excusable under the applicable doping regulations. Again, that is what happened here. Proceedings before a “real court” would not have changed the outcome or determinations. You would simply swap out the CAS panel for a judge who applies the exact same regulations.
Actually the article says "she isn’t sure" and "I don’t have answers" and "I just have a lot of theories". This suggests that Houlihan thinks it could still be anything, including contaminated vitamins/supplements or a greasy burrito containing intact boar offal -- she's claiming she doesn't really know.
Maybe some of the CAS findings were factual, but, I do understand how the CAS explained their main findings. They explained that the basis for their main findings of intentional doping was a set of presumptions.
Showing "the result of the positive test" doesn't even meet the burden defined in the WADA Code, given that WADA regulations expressly foresee that these results could be "endogenous" (i.e. not doping) or "exogenous" (i.e. doping).
I should also note that in a “real court” this would have been brought to the court only if Shelby had sued to stop enforcement of the ban. In that case, she would have born the initial burden of proof as the movant. There is no scenario where the AIU would have been required to prove their case before a judge in order to ban Shelby or any other athlete. Their own internal procedures (and the other applicable doping regulations) permit that without having to seek court approval. You’re literally focused on a scenario that would never occur in real life.
Even in arbitration, the WA/AIU has the burden to establish that a violation took place. The CAS did not rule that the WA/AIU met their burden -- they presumed it.
You’re standing outside, looking up, and claiming the sky isn’t blue. Do you not know how interviews work? Nothing in the article, at all, suggests Shelby is still claiming the meat was tainted. Everything in the article, either directly or by inference, states the opposite. If these statement are not correct, you would have expected to Shelby to have said something by now.
You do not understand legal proceedings. Every statement you made further evidences this. CAS made factual findings. They couldn’t issue a decision without that. That is how legal proceedings work.
In a “real court” AIU would only have to show the result of the positive test in order to meet its burden because a “real court” would simply apply the applicable doping regulations, which create a presumption of guilt when a positive test occurs. This is no different than what happened here. The burden would then shift to Shelby to show why the positive result was excusable under the applicable doping regulations. Again, that is what happened here. Proceedings before a “real court” would not have changed the outcome or determinations. You would simply swap out the CAS panel for a judge who applies the exact same regulations.
Actually the article says "she isn’t sure" and "I don’t have answers" and "I just have a lot of theories". This suggests that Houlihan thinks it could still be anything, including contaminated vitamins/supplements or a greasy burrito containing intact boar offal -- she's claiming she doesn't really know.
Maybe some of the CAS findings were factual, but, I do understand how the CAS explained their main findings. They explained that the basis for their main findings of intentional doping was a set of presumptions.
Showing "the result of the positive test" doesn't even meet the burden defined in the WADA Code, given that WADA regulations expressly foresee that these results could be "endogenous" (i.e. not doping) or "exogenous" (i.e. doping).
Not a single one of those quotes makes any of mention the burrito theory. You are simply implying your own desire that they still mean burritos while discounting the statement that she no longer believes in the theory, for which you have absolutely no evidence that this isn't Shelby's position. This is basic reading comprehension and it is embarrassing you are even making these claims.
Showing the results meets the burden of establishing a violation. It is then incumbent on the athlete to show it was not doping. Placing the burden on WADA (or any other doping agency) to prove it was doping means no athlete would ever be convicted unless on they were caught on film doping immediately before the test occurred. There is a reason every international sports league conducts doping protocols the way WADA does.
For a guy who claims he is only searching for the truth, you sure go out of your way to avoid the obvious. Clearly there is an agenda at play.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
I should also note that in a “real court” this would have been brought to the court only if Shelby had sued to stop enforcement of the ban. In that case, she would have born the initial burden of proof as the movant. There is no scenario where the AIU would have been required to prove their case before a judge in order to ban Shelby or any other athlete. Their own internal procedures (and the other applicable doping regulations) permit that without having to seek court approval. You’re literally focused on a scenario that would never occur in real life.
Even in arbitration, the WA/AIU has the burden to establish that a violation took place. The CAS did not rule that the WA/AIU met their burden -- they presumed it.
The positive test is sufficient to meet the burden. They are based on scientific evidence showing that levels of whatever is being tested do not occur naturally in the human body at a certain level. That's the way it is always done in track and every other Olympic sport. They met their burden. You just don't like it.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
its paywalled but in summary, Shelby accepts the burrito excuse was “ridiculous” and believes it might have been a vitamin. However she STILL takes no accountability for her ban, believing that athlete shouldn’t be strictly liable.
gds was reached out for comment because wsj has journalists who are not fooled and did their research. They found she left the group and reached out to her. She says:
“it is inappropriate to call for the end of strict liability to exploit so called gray areas in the code”
Gabriela. The only one with courage to speak on this.
GDS seemed more like a doper than Shelby. Made huge gains in a short time then fell off a cliff when she had to switch coaches.
Not a single one of those quotes makes any of mention the burrito theory. You are simply implying your own desire that they still mean burritos while discounting the statement that she no longer believes in the theory, for which you have absolutely no evidence that this isn't Shelby's position. This is basic reading comprehension and it is embarrassing you are even making these claims.
Showing the results meets the burden of establishing a violation. It is then incumbent on the athlete to show it was not doping. Placing the burden on WADA (or any other doping agency) to prove it was doping means no athlete would ever be convicted unless on they were caught on film doping immediately before the test occurred. There is a reason every international sports league conducts doping protocols the way WADA does.
For a guy who claims he is only searching for the truth, you sure go out of your way to avoid the obvious. Clearly there is an agenda at play.
Nothing in the article suggests "complete abandonment", or "she no longer believes in the theory". That is you implying your own desire, and failing basic reading comprehension.
Regardless of what you believe Shelby believes, nothing ruled out the burrito, notwithstanding arguments that nandrolone positives from pork would be normally rare across the USA (but more probable during pandemic supply-chain issues). She is in the same place today as 4 years ago -- plenty of theories with nothing confirmed or denied.
Simply showing the results do not meet AIU's burden (more on that in the next post). You don't need to repeat the rules placing heavy burdens on both guilty and innocent athletes. There is no certainty that innocent athletes can meet that burden, especially in the few weeks they have to get up to speed in many foreign domains, find and test samples, and build their case -- they are at the mercy of their accusers, and the sympathy of tribunals. American sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) do not conduct anti-doping the way WADA does. Neither the sports leagues, nor the players, want to hand over that control to WADA.
The CAS findings are not facts, but premature judgements based on selected parts of incomplete evidence, supported by unproven assumptions and presumptions -- falling far short of "truths", despite your eagerness to call them "factual findings" in the artificial context of arbitration proceedings.
Even in arbitration, the WA/AIU has the burden to establish that a violation took place. The CAS did not rule that the WA/AIU met their burden -- they presumed it.
The positive test is sufficient to meet the burden. They are based on scientific evidence showing that levels of whatever is being tested do not occur naturally in the human body at a certain level. That's the way it is always done in track and every other Olympic sport. They met their burden. You just don't like it.
You presume far too much about the "science" and the "law". It's not just about what I like, but how much the science and the law support, based on specific and concrete facts, versus unproven assumptions and presumptions. The thing I don't like is palming off assumptions and presumptions as facts.
But it's not just me. The CAS panel were not in complete agreement that the positive test is sufficient for the AIU to meet their burden, with a minority of the panel, after reviewing the "positive" test results, the language of the TD, and the arguments of Houlihan and the WA/AIU, being persuaded that the Athlete had established that it was more likely that "the AAF (wasn't) properly reported pursuant to the ISL" and/or "the ADRV (wasn't) properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM". Their vote was split 2:1 on this point that any rule violation occurred and was properly charged.
I find this split decision rather alarming given the test values themselves are not disputed, and the WADA TD should provide a predictable and unambiguous interpretation of test results. The source of the ambiguity is in the WADA TD. Given the ambiguous interpretations from this very CAS panel, maybe a sympathetic CAS panel, advised by neutral, unconflicted 3rd party experts, would have decided otherwise with a 1:2 split or 0:3 decision in favor of the athlete that the WA/AIU failed to meet their burden. It's hard for me to condemn athletes when their guilt or innocence becomes is dependent on the selection of arbitors. The tiebreaker for me is the extent of the actual specific and concrete facts supporting the findings.
Note that the WA/AIU is burdened with establishing the charge to the higher standard of "comfortable satisfaction", that is "more than balance of probability" but less than "beyond reasonable doubt". It is only after a proper charge of an ADRV, that the athlete is then burdened with establishing the source, and/or non-intent, on the balance of probability. Given the sequential timing, the athlete's failure to meet this burden cannot be used to establish that the AIU met their burden, which is a necessary precondition for the athlete's burden. There is also no express CAS "factual" finding that the WA/AIU met this higher burden (because the Code presumes it).
The science is also on my side. Houlihan's test results are clearly scientifically ambiguous. WADA's own guidance on nandrolone confirms that pork ingestion can cause Houlihan's test results, calling Houlihan's values in the "low range" "usual" and says that the CIR can range from -15 to -25‰, after pork ingestion. Houlihan was convicted on (assumed and unproven) mathematical and statistical and logical arguments that nandrolone from pork would be rare in the USA (which is not directly applicable to specific cases), and not on the scientific evidence that foresees Houlihan's "usual" "low" values in the "normal endogenous range".
Furthermore the original science behind interpreting nandrolone results included several mandatory criteria for rejecting the "endogenous hypothesis", necessarily requiring a delta-delta difference greater than 3‰, AND a CIR less than -27‰. In 2016, this second mandatory criteria was quietly removed, without any supporting science and without any statistical compensation, introducing the increased possibility of falsely rejecting the "endogenous hypothesis".
American sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL) do not conduct anti-doping the way WADA does. Neither the sports leagues, nor the players, want to hand over that control to WADA.
A two game suspension reportedly issued to Luke Gifford of Dallas Cowboys has once again highlighted differences between the World Anti-Doping Code and the anti-doping programmes of the US professional leagues. The argument t...
I should also note that in a “real court” this would have been brought to the court only if Shelby had sued to stop enforcement of the ban. In that case, she would have born the initial burden of proof as the movant. There is no scenario where the AIU would have been required to prove their case before a judge in order to ban Shelby or any other athlete. Their own internal procedures (and the other applicable doping regulations) permit that without having to seek court approval. You’re literally focused on a scenario that would never occur in real life.
Even in arbitration, the WA/AIU has the burden to establish that a violation took place. The CAS did not rule that the WA/AIU met their burden -- they presumed it.
They didn't presume it. They ruled she had committed an intentional ADRV. That was the finding of the Court, which meant that a violation had taken place, as proved by a confirmed positive test for which she had no acceptable defence. You have no idea how legal processes work. If the court had failed to exercise its processes according to principles of natural justice she could have appealed on those grounds. She didn't. She couldn't. She thereby proves also that nothing you argue has any legal credibility.
The positive test is sufficient to meet the burden. They are based on scientific evidence showing that levels of whatever is being tested do not occur naturally in the human body at a certain level. That's the way it is always done in track and every other Olympic sport. They met their burden. You just don't like it.
You presume far too much about the "science" and the "law". It's not just about what I like, but how much the science and the law support, based on specific and concrete facts, versus unproven assumptions and presumptions. The thing I don't like is palming off assumptions and presumptions as facts.
But it's not just me. The CAS panel were not in complete agreement that the positive test is sufficient for the AIU to meet their burden, with a minority of the panel, after reviewing the "positive" test results, the language of the TD, and the arguments of Houlihan and the WA/AIU, being persuaded that the Athlete had established that it was more likely that "the AAF (wasn't) properly reported pursuant to the ISL" and/or "the ADRV (wasn't) properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM". Their vote was split 2:1 on this point that any rule violation occurred and was properly charged.
I find this split decision rather alarming given the test values themselves are not disputed, and the WADA TD should provide a predictable and unambiguous interpretation of test results. The source of the ambiguity is in the WADA TD. Given the ambiguous interpretations from this very CAS panel, maybe a sympathetic CAS panel, advised by neutral, unconflicted 3rd party experts, would have decided otherwise with a 1:2 split or 0:3 decision in favor of the athlete that the WA/AIU failed to meet their burden. It's hard for me to condemn athletes when their guilt or innocence becomes is dependent on the selection of arbitors. The tiebreaker for me is the extent of the actual specific and concrete facts supporting the findings.
Note that the WA/AIU is burdened with establishing the charge to the higher standard of "comfortable satisfaction", that is "more than balance of probability" but less than "beyond reasonable doubt". It is only after a proper charge of an ADRV, that the athlete is then burdened with establishing the source, and/or non-intent, on the balance of probability. Given the sequential timing, the athlete's failure to meet this burden cannot be used to establish that the AIU met their burden, which is a necessary precondition for the athlete's burden. There is also no express CAS "factual" finding that the WA/AIU met this higher burden (because the Code presumes it).
The science is also on my side. Houlihan's test results are clearly scientifically ambiguous. WADA's own guidance on nandrolone confirms that pork ingestion can cause Houlihan's test results, calling Houlihan's values in the "low range" "usual" and says that the CIR can range from -15 to -25‰, after pork ingestion. Houlihan was convicted on (assumed and unproven) mathematical and statistical and logical arguments that nandrolone from pork would be rare in the USA (which is not directly applicable to specific cases), and not on the scientific evidence that foresees Houlihan's "usual" "low" values in the "normal endogenous range".
Furthermore the original science behind interpreting nandrolone results included several mandatory criteria for rejecting the "endogenous hypothesis", necessarily requiring a delta-delta difference greater than 3‰, AND a CIR less than -27‰. In 2016, this second mandatory criteria was quietly removed, without any supporting science and without any statistical compensation, introducing the increased possibility of falsely rejecting the "endogenous hypothesis".
Your incessant whining about "presumptions" comes down to nothing more than your objection to the fact that an athlete who has been found with a banned substance in their body is required to show they had legitimate cause if they are to escape conviction for a doping violation. It is the athletes' responsibility to produce a defence, not those who are prosecuting them. So that is why the process continues as it does and your blather amounts to nothing and changes nothing.
