rekrunner wrote:
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.
One other obvious source is that someone spiked her food, in particular someone who felt threatened by Houlihan's faster times and wanted to get rid of her. Then right after Houlihan was banned, that person left the team because no one else on the team liked her being there.
[/quote]The real tragedy is that athletes worldwide can potentially serve a 4-year ban without ever establishing the likelihood of their intentional doping.[/quote]
Yes, that is the tragedy. The system is set up, apparently intentionally, to allow a great amount abuse and baseless accusations.

