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

yay marxism wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Evidently you dont understand how CAS and doping cases work. It is not the AIU/WADA´s job to find where the steroids came from. The athletes have to explain where they came from. Prof. Ayotte was not ¨loose with the truth¨.
The fact that you are willing to claim the YOU, Rekrunner, a random poster on a right wing, running forum know more than WADA, the AIU and the CAS is pure arrogance.

None of us(besides Armstrong and maybe Coevett) claim to know how doping works better than you. You have also claimed that doping does not enhance performance in defiance of all logic and science on the subject. Statements like that tend to undermine your credibility especially when you are questioning the credibility and integrity of people who have spent their entire careers learning about this.

yay marxism wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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.

Calling the CAS subjective well implying you are objective is insanely arrogant. Yes it is the job of the athlete to establish their innocence since WADA and the AIU are able to check if the test is faulty.

Also the rest of your post is irrelevant gibberish because she dropped the burrito excuse noting that it was highly unlikely. If you could read and do anything besides trying to confuse posters into agreeing with you then you would understand that.

OED wrote:

Do you have proof that Rachel’s statement doesn’t accurately reflect Shelby’s position based on the interview she conducted with Shelby? I didn’t think so.

Shelby argued that the offal (“tainted meat”) caused her high levels. The Panel unanimously found that wasn’t the case.

That’s how every legal system works. If you don’t prevail, then the facts are established against you. Shelby wasn’t innocent.

The presumption of guilt with a positive test is the same in criminal proceedings in the US. If I’m arrested for drunk driving and the state conducts a blood test showing my blood alcohol level is above the legal limit, the presumption is that I am guilty. If I want to argue, however, that a bunch of Nazis actually forced a bottle of gin down my throat and then threw me in the car hoping I would drive off a cliff (a la Cary Grant in North by Northwest), I would have to prove this to rebut the presumption. This is not an unfair system.

yay marxism wrote:

The levels were not low. If I recall correctly it was 5.0 PPM which is rather high especially since the legal limit is 2.0.

She can cite whatever conspiracies she wants now but the reality is if she had reason to think it was vitamins she should have made it when the case first happened. Now I know the amount of time she had has been pointed out before so I will note she wanted the case to be rushed.

If she is an innocent athlete and knows about the burden of proof surely she would want to figure out where the PED came from especially since by an odd coincidence many athletes who test positive will test positive again.

Are you aware of how much Nanoldrone would be needed in the original animal right when it is killed for it all to be sufficient to test positive in high amounts in an athlete that had a very suspicious progression.

Nike PR wrote:

So much wrong here again. Are you really that poorly informed, or do you just lie to keep yourself entertained and getting corrected over and over and over again?

"just heard arguments that nandrolone positives from pork would be the rare exception across the whole USA." False, false and false. They didn't just hear those arguments, they agreed to that unanimously. It also wasn't just that - the nandrolone amount was way too much for the shown stomach offal, and last but not least the CIR was inconsistent with the claimed farm-fed pigs.

"no match against a system that tips the scales" Hahaha. Your poor weak lawyer defeated the system 14 times in alleged "contamination" cases in a row before Houlihan. Here he either got too cocky, not realizing the many problems and inconsistencies with the burrito joke, or just wanted to make a quick $200,000 for very little, predictably useless, work.

rekrunner wrote:

yay marxism wrote:

Calling the CAS subjective well implying you are objective is insanely arrogant. Yes it is the job of the athlete to establish their innocence since WADA and the AIU are able to check if the test is faulty.

Also the rest of your post is irrelevant gibberish because she dropped the burrito excuse noting that it was highly unlikely. If you could read and do anything besides trying to confuse posters into agreeing with you then you would understand that.

No arrogance. What is a determination of meeting the standard of "balance of probability" but subjective? Note again that the panel was split on whether the ADRV was properly charged in the first place, with one panelist finding the burden was met.

I don't see anywhere that she "dropped the burrito excuse" or said that it was "highly unlikely". I see she repeated what she already acknowledged in interviews long ago -- they were not entirely sure where the nandrolone came from, but believed that nandrolone in a greasy burrito was the most likely. She acknowledged then and now that it could have been supplements/vitamins. They tested what they had and what they could get from the ones they didn't have, and these tests were negative. But she didn't have all of the samples from the same batch.

Because I understand how the CAS works, and anti-doping works, the game that innocent athletes are forced to play, when they don't know the source, is to try and make the best case they can for the most likely source. Both WADA and the CAS know this is a difficult proof to provide.

The alternative for innocent athletes is to bend over and just take the punishment, and shout "thank you sir, may I have another".

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're so confused, as always. CAS ruled she committed an ADRV because she tested positive for a banned drug. This was FACT, not a presumption and not contested by Houlihan. CAS further ruled the violation was intentional because she was unable to provide a legitimate explanation for the presence of the drug in her body. As the ingestion of the drug - and she argued it was ingested - was not accepted as accidental it was therefore intentional. If there was no legitimate reason for why the drug was in her body then it was only her. Nothing else was argued.

There was nothing in the processes followed that they either weren't in compliance with the rules or with principles of natural justice so she had no grounds for contesting the decision. You endlessly whine about the process because you think dopers should not be penalized but fortunately your rubbish is utterly irrelevant to how these cases are dealt with.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You're so confused, as always. CAS ruled she committed an ADRV because she tested positive for a banned drug. This was FACT, not a presumption and not contested by Houlihan. CAS further ruled the violation was intentional because she was unable to provide a legitimate explanation for the presence of the drug in her body. As the ingestion of the drug - and she argued it was ingested - was not accepted as accidental it was therefore intentional. If there was no legitimate reason for why the drug was in her body then it was only her. Nothing else was argued.

There was nothing in the processes followed that they either weren't in compliance with the rules or with principles of natural justice so she had no grounds for contesting the decision. You endlessly whine about the process because you think dopers should not be penalized but fortunately your rubbish is utterly irrelevant to how these cases are dealt with.

I am only confused by your fantastic retellings of history that is plainly recorded.

I am not confused about what the CAS clearly explained supported their findings, and I am not confused by what standards the WADA Lab are expected to comply with, what standards the AIU should meet, what burdens are placed on the athlete, and how difficult these are, and what the CAS ultimately found on the combined basis of implied assumptions, and explicit presumptions, and insufficient facts before them.

There was a minor something in the process suggesting non-compliance with the rules -- a minority of the Panel did not agree with the presumption that the WADA Lab and/or the AIU deviated from WADA standards, finding Houlihan successfully rebutted that presumption. There is also an explicit comment that the exogenous origin may not be established by GC/C/IRMS after consumption of edible parts of intact boar.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If there had been any defect or significant irregularities in the official processes Houlihan could have and would have appealed the CAS verdict in those grounds. She didn't. She couldn't. So you are just jerking off again.

I have yet to see you raise a valid "if it were so, then ..." type of argument.

The merits of CAS decisions are considered final and not appealable. She did make appeals to the Swiss courts on other procedural grounds (e.g. they wanted another expert witness to be heard, but the court says they should have asked harder, or raised an objection then to preserve it), but the Swiss courts will not retry cases on the merits, and will not second guess the arbitors' interpretations of applicable rules and guidelines. The point of arbitration is not to tie up the courts with petty civil disputes. The courts are not there for athletes to get a second or third bite at the apple.