New Shelby houlihan article out in WSJ. Big respect again to gds

rekrunner wrote:

OED wrote:

my quote: “There is a reason every international sports league conducts doping protocols the way WADA does.”

Your article: “Although the MLB, NBA, the NHL and the NFL are not signatories to the Code, the MLB, NBA and NHL are affiliated to international federations that are Code signatories.”

Nothing I said is inconsistent. Moreover, citing to leagues like MLB or the NFL as some sort of standard bearers is not helping your cause. MLB only instituted testing in the early 2000s after Congress threatened to get involved and revoke their antitrust exemption, and the NFL testing system is an absolute joke that hardly catches any cheats.

The point was not to say you were inconsistent, but to point out that there are also reasons some leagues don't conduct anti-doping the way WADA does. For example, from my linked article: "Under such CBAs, the professional sports leagues and player unions negotiate anti-doping testing protocol. In contrast, the Code has little athlete input and requires the surrender of many rights – a situation that wouldn’t be acceptable to the US player unions and would lead to a lockout. That situation transpired in 2011."

In the Olympic sports, athletes who want to compete are not given any choice but to surrender many of their rights. Note that the "players" are the ones harmed by both doping and bad anti-doping.

MLB's Chief Legal Officer Dan Halem says: "I think that having the flexibility to design our programme the way that we think it should be designed in our sport means that we have a stronger programme."

USADA Chief Travis Tygart makes it more explicit: "There are three reasons why US professional sports won’t sign the World Anti-Doping Code. Firstly, the professional athletes have bargaining power of up to 50%. Under the World Anti-Doping Code, they would have none. Secondly, the Code in certain cases, railroads innocent athletes into four year sanctions. At our last count, we recorded 27 cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats. Finally, why would a private business agree to the political machinations of WADA governance and a legal system where cases are decided by an IOC-funded court in Europe?"

How is WADA different from MLB and NFL? WADA and USADA were also created in the early 2000s. Many also argue that WADA testing "is an absolute joke that hardly catches any cheats". Again from my linked article, MLB has come a long way since 2005/2006:

"We meet with WADA and USADA on a regular basis to share information and cooperate. A lot of the criticism about why we didn’t adopt the WADA Code was back in the 2005/6 era, and we’ve evolved. Our programme is certainly one of the strongest programmes in the whole world in terms of PEDs. We spend over $10 million per year just on the analytical portion of it. We put a lot of time and money into it."

rekrunner wrote:

OED wrote:

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.

rekrunner wrote:

OED wrote:

Parroting is such a childish response.

The burden was met. You want to know how I know that? Because Shelby served a suspension. Everything you have said is simply your complaint that you think it wasn’t fair. Fortunately, your opinion on this matter is entirely irrelevant.

Did I parrot you? I was being honest. Just the same, the article doesn't say "complete abandonment", or "she no longer believes in the theory". Abandoning pork would be an answer, and she said she had none -- only a bunch of theories.

Why do I still doubt that the WA/AIU met their burden? Because I read the CAS report, where one of the CAS Panelists also disagreed that the WA/AIU's burden was met, at least not according to WADA's standard procedures. And because I also read the TD2021NA document, explaining how these "low" "usual" values, with dissimilar delta-delta 13C values can still be "endogenous", and how the GC/IRMS testing can be invalid.

I'm not the only one who criticizes the fairness of the WADA Code, in these certain cases of potential ingestion from USDA approved meat and other edible parts of animals. And I have little doubt that future innocent athletes treated like intentional cheats and railroaded to 4-year bans would agree that my opinions are relevant.

OED wrote:

Yes, you parroted.

Let’s be clear on what the facts are:

You: “the article doesn’t say… ‘she no longer believes in the theory’”

The WSJ article: “But Houlihan, 32, no longer blames tainted meat….”

You can claim whatever semantics you want, but the article plainly states Shelby isn’t blaming the burrito for her positive test anymore. You have previously stated this isn’t an accurate take on Shelby’s current position. Unless you’ve got evidence to support this, evidence that doesn’t completely ignore the quote above, you’re just blowing smoke.

I also read the report. The Panel unanimously found that tainted meat did not cause the levels at which Shelby tested.

I get why this is hard for you. You’ve spent the last four years trying to defend Shelby and the burrito theory. To have her suddenly drop the theory like she has must be demeaning for those who defended her. Continuing to argue the point though only makes her defenders look worse.

rekrunner wrote:

OED wrote:

Yes, you parroted.

Let’s be clear on what the facts are:

You: “the article doesn’t say… ‘she no longer believes in the theory’”

The WSJ article: “But Houlihan, 32, no longer blames tainted meat….”

You can claim whatever semantics you want, but the article plainly states Shelby isn’t blaming the burrito for her positive test anymore. You have previously stated this isn’t an accurate take on Shelby’s current position. Unless you’ve got evidence to support this, evidence that doesn’t completely ignore the quote above, you’re just blowing smoke.

I also read the report. The Panel unanimously found that tainted meat did not cause the levels at which Shelby tested.

I get why this is hard for you. You’ve spent the last four years trying to defend Shelby and the burrito theory. To have her suddenly drop the theory like she has must be demeaning for those who defended her. Continuing to argue the point though only makes her defenders look worse.

I claimed that that quote was from Rachel Bachman, and that Houlihan's actual quotes in the WSJ article didn't go that far. It wouldn't be the first time that a reporter got some details wrong, and readers fell for it. Although Rachel Bachman finished her sentence (the part you left out) with this clarification that acknowledge that it could possibly be something else "... saying she isn’t sure what caused her failed test." It is you who drew the indirect inference.

Houlihan didn't claim tainted meat before the CAS, so that was not really in dispute. She claimed "offal" from "a burrito", which, according to the literature, can "usually" cause these "low" values, and sometimes much much higher, as well as the CIR values, depending on the diet of the pig.

You are not getting why this is hard for me. Shelby and the burrito theory are incidental to my criticism of a system that convicts athletes on presumptions and requiring proofs that are known to be hard to provide, not to mention expensive, and a few fans who argue that findings based on selected portions of incomplete evidence, assumptions, and presumptions have somehow been promoted to undisputable facts, because the appeals process has been exhausted.

rekrunner wrote:

facts v rumors wrote:

So you made it all up. And you have no idea how Ayotte could have created a positive tests out of nowhere.

That's what I thought. Major red flag.

Finally, to use rekrunner's argument: CAS never said that she wasn't truthful. That's only coming from the other party in dispute.

The CAS in Houlihan's case went further than simply saying nothing, by calling Houlihan a credible witness.

The Lab did "create" the positive test. If the nandrolone was from pork, Houlihan's results would not be considered a positive test. It is the Lab who interpreted the result as a positive test, or not, depending on WADA's standards.

The CAS in the Lawson case was rather diplomatic, but made it clear that the compelled data from the Montreal Lab contradicted Prof. Ayotte's previous characterization of the labs results.

Similarly in Houlihan's case, Prof. Ayotte's own publications contradict her characterization of "the literature", whether the CAS says it or not.

These suggestions that Prof. Ayotte was loose with the truth are not only coming from the other party (in the Lawson case), but from outside observers.

But even without considering these mischaracterizations of her own lab's work, there is an obvious conflict of interest in having Prof. Ayotte be an expert witness for one party in a case where the first question is whether her lab deviated from WADA standards and guidelines and whether they interpreted and reported the results correctly. The CAS should have independent expert guidance -- possibly outside of WADA's network.

rekrunner wrote:

OED wrote:

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.

rekrunner wrote:

OED wrote:

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.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

They ruled she committed an ADRV based on presumptions. There is really no debate -- that was how the CAS explained their finding.

I think it is you who doesn't know how arbitration works. I have an idea how arbitration works in anti-doping, because I have read the details explicitly spelled out in the WADA Code, and the related standards and technical documents, and in the CAS report.

When parties agree to use arbitration to settle disputes, courts are reluctant to get involved unless it is something like a human rights violation, or discrimination based on race or religion, or some parts are unlawful. Here we are simply talking about participating in sporting competitions -- which is not a human right.