I see no need to rewrite a correct claim. It wouldn't be helpful.
I see no need to rewrite a correct claim. It wouldn't be helpful.
Cheat, because she cheated (as determined by the failed drug test with no rational explanation) and liar because she, along with her lawyers, made up a fantastical story (as determined by the CAS).
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
Cheat, because she cheated (as determined by the failed drug test with no rational explanation) and liar because she, along with her lawyers, made up a fantastical story (as determined by the CAS).
Cheating is intent.And no intent tested.
Her explanation was not defined as a fact by her only a possibility.
She doped, she cheated and now she is gone from the sport as she should be. No dopers in athletics thank you!
The Unkle wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
It would have to be done by a third-party approved by the AIU.
Doesn't matter who did it.
They performed no real investigation at all
you seriously think nike / btc didnt do a massive investigation?
of course they did, but they found nothing to significantly help their case, and so they didnt use it.
because of course, there was nothing to find. as they knew there would be.
contrast this with froomie. sky paid for and produced voluminous evidence to suport their claims, and this evidence was accepted.
shelby had nothing, because she was, and is, a liar and a cheat. as are her knowledgeable supporters.
pupil3142 wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
Doesn't matter who did it.
They performed no real investigation at all
you seriously think nike / btc didnt do a massive investigation?
of course they did, but they found nothing to significantly help their case, and so they didnt use it.
because of course, there was nothing to find. as they knew there would be.
contrast this with froomie. sky paid for and produced voluminous evidence to suport their claims, and this evidence was accepted.
shelby had nothing, because she was, and is, a liar and a cheat. as are her knowledgeable supporters.
Froome case was entirely different.
Cheating or not was never ever tested nor does it have to be; indeed the rules preclude such a discussion.
Can you not read nor understand?
The Unkle wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Doesn't matter who did it.
They performed no real investigation at all
How do you know that they didnt do what you suggested or at least considered it and decided it wasn't viable?
I read the report.
Because it is a hearing and not an investigation.
It is down to the patties to provide the evidence.
Gee wizz some people are just ……
sanootage wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
you seriously think nike / btc didnt do a massive investigation?
of course they did, but they found nothing to significantly help their case, and so they didnt use it.
because of course, there was nothing to find. as they knew there would be.
contrast this with froomie. sky paid for and produced voluminous evidence to suport their claims, and this evidence was accepted.
shelby had nothing, because she was, and is, a liar and a cheat. as are her knowledgeable supporters.
Froome case was entirely different.
Cheating or not was never ever tested nor does it have to be; indeed the rules preclude such a discussion.
Can you not read nor understand?
wow. i agree with your first two sentences.
Froome was different - he was shown innocent.
Indeed, cheating was not specifically tested, since it is inherent in an adrv; i agree the discussion was not needed by cas; she is a cheat. the discussion wasnt whether she was a cheat, it was about how she cheated. she cheated by adrv.
she is a liar and a cheat.
ergo i can read and understand.
sanootage wrote:
Because it is a hearing and not an investigation.
It is down to the patties to provide the evidence.
Gee wizz some people are just ……
i agree with the nike shill troll again.
nike / btc undertook an investigation, they found nothing to significantly support their story, and they thus had nothing (significant) to produce to the hearing.
because it was an invented excuse to cover up her cheating
pupil3142 wrote:
The Unkle wrote:
It would have to be done by a third-party approved by the AIU.
Doesn't matter who did it.
They performed no real investigation at all
you seriously think nike / btc didnt do a massive investigation?
NO idea if they did or not.
WE have zero info on that.
WE do know that the official finding was not based on any investigation just the opinion that what she told them was unlikely to be true.
mindgames wrote:
She doped, she cheated and now she is gone from the sport as she should be. No dopers in athletics thank you!
Cheating was not tested and not part of judgement.
We actually do know that Team Shelby hired a PI. Of course he didn't produce much...
pupil3142 wrote:
sanootage wrote:
Froome case was entirely different.
Cheating or not was never ever tested nor does it have to be; indeed the rules preclude such a discussion.
Can you not read nor understand?
wow. i agree with your first two sentences.
Froome was different - he was shown innocent.
Indeed, cheating was not specifically tested, since it is inherent in an adrv; i agree the discussion was not needed by cas; she is a cheat. the discussion wasnt whether she was a cheat, it was about how she cheated. she cheated by adrv.
she is a liar and a cheat.
ergo i can read and understand.
Not inherent ; read the rules.
Read and understand.
Read and understand.
Not inherent.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Maybe.
I thought we were characterizing what was in the CAS decision, as opposed to arguing something that isn’t for 55 pages.
The CAS did not decide deception or dishonesty for the purpose of gaining an advantage.
On the contrary, the CAS called Houlihan a credible witness.
After 55 pages you still haven't understood the decision. It determined she was "deemed to have intentionally doped". To anyone who understands basic English that means she cheated. They didn't have to say that for it to be a necessary conclusion. Except you don't see doping as cheating. I guess your moral compass is as defective as your reasoning powers.
I have no questions about the CAS decision. I am only challenging a list of things that cannot be found in the decision.
I understood the CAS decision back in June, before page 0.
Since you insist you are adding nothing new, there is simply no need for you to respond with your own interpretation.
rekrunner wrote:
pupil3142 wrote:
can we just confirm; is rekrunner really introducing the 'kenyans eat boar' defence?
please confirm / deny because this is a real new low.
Not all Kenyans, as I did acknowledge that some Kenyans fail to keep doctors records, suggesting they likely received banned substances from a doctor (or pharmacist), either intentionally or oblivious to the risk.
Not sure I can take the full credit for introducing a defense, by just raising obvious questions about a system that makes no difference between genuine intentional ingestion, and presuming intent in cases of accidental ingestion that fail to be argued unintentional on the balance of probabilities.
“moultonk” did some rather thorough investigation and reported 1-month ago:
In Kenya, 49% of 182 small-scale farmers in one study did not practice castration on their male pigs ("Characteristics of the smallholder free-range pig production system in western Kenya", 2009).
In Ethiopia, where one study of 90 pig owners found that only 13% of them employed castration on their male piglets "Assessment of Pig Production and Constraints in Mecha District, Amhara Region, Northwestern Ethiopia", 2014).
This probably means the US figure of 0.33% boar in pork production is not applicable in other countries with different standards.
I think the lesson to be learned, for all athletes, from all nations, worldwide, subject to the burden of having to prove “no intent”, is the importance of keeping samples of everything you ingest.
so i guess thats a yes then.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I haven't looked at the CAS report since it was first posted, but my recollection is that it was determined that it was extremely unlikely the nandrolone came from the burrito. If I'm a CAS judge, Shelby's team providing an uneaten portion of a burrito containing nandrolone would not sway my decision. I would consider it more likely that they messed with the burrito. I don't have a dog in the fight and I don't feel the need to judge Shelby, but that would be my reaction.
Again, they arrived at that likeliness based on national statistics — the evidence of experts before them, and any rebuttals.
If you were a judge, and you had as evidence a test result of a burrito that contained nandrolone consistent with soy-fed boar, it would not be your role to decide on the likelihood of alternatives and motives not presented to you.
It would be the role of the prosecution to present that alternative and any evidence for it, and for you to remove any personal prejudice and judge based on all the evidence and arguments and rebuttals before you.
This is not different in principle than having supplements tested for the presence of banned substances which do not appear on the label, which often leads to a no-fault finding.
pupil3142 wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Not all Kenyans, as I did acknowledge that some Kenyans fail to keep doctors records, suggesting they likely received banned substances from a doctor (or pharmacist), either intentionally or oblivious to the risk.
Not sure I can take the full credit for introducing a defense, by just raising obvious questions about a system that makes no difference between genuine intentional ingestion, and presuming intent in cases of accidental ingestion that fail to be argued unintentional on the balance of probabilities.
“moultonk” did some rather thorough investigation and reported 1-month ago:
In Kenya, 49% of 182 small-scale farmers in one study did not practice castration on their male pigs ("Characteristics of the smallholder free-range pig production system in western Kenya", 2009).
In Ethiopia, where one study of 90 pig owners found that only 13% of them employed castration on their male piglets "Assessment of Pig Production and Constraints in Mecha District, Amhara Region, Northwestern Ethiopia", 2014).
This probably means the US figure of 0.33% boar in pork production is not applicable in other countries with different standards.
I think the lesson to be learned, for all athletes, from all nations, worldwide, subject to the burden of having to prove “no intent”, is the importance of keeping samples of everything you ingest.
so i guess thats a yes then.
That would be your guess, then. I cannot confirm that. I just follow the data.
rekrunner wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
I haven't looked at the CAS report since it was first posted, but my recollection is that it was determined that it was extremely unlikely the nandrolone came from the burrito. If I'm a CAS judge, Shelby's team providing an uneaten portion of a burrito containing nandrolone would not sway my decision. I would consider it more likely that they messed with the burrito. I don't have a dog in the fight and I don't feel the need to judge Shelby, but that would be my reaction.
Again, they arrived at that likeliness based on national statistics — the evidence of experts before them, and any rebuttals.
If you were a judge, and you had as evidence a test result of a burrito that contained nandrolone consistent with soy-fed boar, it would not be your role to decide on the likelihood of alternatives and motives not presented to you.
It would be the role of the prosecution to present that alternative and any evidence for it, and for you to remove any personal prejudice and judge based on all the evidence and arguments and rebuttals before you.
This is not different in principle than having supplements tested for the presence of banned substances which do not appear on the label, which often leads to a no-fault finding.
The burden of proving the legitimacy of the sample would be on Shelby's side and they can't even prove that the uneaten portion even came the alleged contaminated burrito. It also adds a couple of layers to the trail of assumptions: She ordered a carne asada burrito, she received a pork one instead, it contained offal, she eats 3/4ths of it, decides it might contain nandrolone and stores the uneaten portion.
No matter CAS worded its conclusion, the information in the CAS report indicates there was virtually a zero percent chance of the test results coming from the burrito and just the claim that she mistakenly received a pork burrito casts doubt on her story.
The only thing that might have saved her was evidence that the owner of the food truck purchased the meat from a sketchy source and a 3rd party purchasing a dozen burritos and finding enough nandrolone in some of them to have caused the test results findings.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Again, they arrived at that likeliness based on national statistics — the evidence of experts before them, and any rebuttals.
If you were a judge, and you had as evidence a test result of a burrito that contained nandrolone consistent with soy-fed boar, it would not be your role to decide on the likelihood of alternatives and motives not presented to you.
It would be the role of the prosecution to present that alternative and any evidence for it, and for you to remove any personal prejudice and judge based on all the evidence and arguments and rebuttals before you.
This is not different in principle than having supplements tested for the presence of banned substances which do not appear on the label, which often leads to a no-fault finding.
The burden of proving the legitimacy of the sample would be on Shelby's side and they can't even prove that the uneaten portion even came the alleged contaminated burrito. It also adds a couple of layers to the trail of assumptions: She ordered a carne asada burrito, she received a pork one instead, it contained offal, she eats 3/4ths of it, decides it might contain nandrolone and stores the uneaten portion.
No matter CAS worded its conclusion, the information in the CAS report indicates there was virtually a zero percent chance of the test results coming from the burrito and just the claim that she mistakenly received a pork burrito casts doubt on her story.
The only thing that might have saved her was evidence that the owner of the food truck purchased the meat from a sketchy source and a 3rd party purchasing a dozen burritos and finding enough nandrolone in some of them to have caused the test results findings.
We know all this!
Do catch up..