Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The standard imposes obligations of care upon the athlete. If they observe these the chances of accidental doping are slim. The cases that you refer to that have resulted in the wrong outcome appear to be very much in the exception. No system of justice produces fault-free results. That does not mean the system is flawed, only that it is as fair as it can be made to be. The alternatives may not be better but worse. Strict liability is so far the best we have to try to control doping in sport; to try to impose criminal standards of proof and process would fail to do that. The dopers could defeat anti-doping at every turn.

Are these cases rare exceptions, or the "tip of the iceberg"? Again review the facts of the cases I mentioned. In a just system, the accused would have access to all the evidence used to convict them. This wasn't possible for these athletes, who asked for photographic images of the results, and only got interpreted summary reports from the WADA labs. When asking other WADA labs to independently corroborate the results, we learned that WADA labs are forbidden by certification to contradict the conclusions of other WADA labs, severely limiting the chance for the accused to get independent expert interpretations.

You assume, that the system is "as fair as it can be made to be", in order to conclude it.

"Strict liability" is not good for innocent athletes -- it trades off justice for some athletes, unable to defend themselves, either through lack of evidence, or in the case of poor athletes, lack of finance or representation, for ease of prosecution and lengthier sanctions in cases of no evidence of intent. The benefit for ADAs/ADOs is faster, cheaper, and more prosecutions, from using a larger net that catches dolphins with the tunas.

I'm not convinced it is better to treat innocent athletes like intentional cheats, for the sake of catching a few more intentional dopers without evidence of intent.

I remind you that I am not talking about all doping products and all doping cases, but the small subset of cases, like Houlihan's, where small amounts of a banned substance can be unknowingly ingested from USDA approved food -- something that would be very difficult to prove one month after the fact, even if it is allowed by the Code, especially if the likelihood was increased by temporary conditions (disruptions to supplies during a pandemic), that would not be replicated after supplies resumed.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Actually the positive tests for cortisone were confirmed, and eventually the six positive tests for EPO were also confirmed by Lance's confession.

Did Houlihan lie? It's possible but unlikely. Unlike the principle of "strict liability", proving this allegation is a burden on the accuser that has yet to be met.

You highlight the fundamental problem with the WADA Code's inability to consistently deliver justice. As Tygart puts it: "the Code in certain cases, ... where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong ... (treats athletes) like intentional cheats."

The Code has stripped away the need to distinguish between intentional serial doping with express intent to enhance performance, and a one-time unknowing accidental ingestion of a small quantity of a substance from USDA approved meat.

Lance was not busted for those tests. His excuses were accepted at the time. Confirmation came after his later confession. The more relevant point from this is that many known dopers were not caught by tests, because in the early 2000's drugs could be masked. This included Marion Jones and Barry Bonds. The problem remains today, that doping is ahead of testing. We see this when some dopers are only caught years later with restrospective testing. It is reliably estimated that drug use far exceeds the numbers caught.

On the question of whether Houlihan lied, it is more likely than not when her excuse was not accepted, even though whether she lied was not argued and did not require to be proven. However to maintain she likely didn't lie is to attach a degree of probability to her excuse that was not accepted by the Panel. Her excuse was seen as merely "possible", which means that it was less than probable - and significantly so. So she also in all probability lied.

If the Code is "unable to consistently deliver justice", by what measure? What proportion of cases are known - not guessed - to have delivered a clearly erroneous outcome? I would suggest if more dopers got off than not your claim would then be correct. But of the thousands prosecuted, how many were known for a fact to be unfairly penalised? A handful of cases - if they occurred - are not a "consistent failure to deliver justice". It's a pretty high success rate.

Sneddiy wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Lance was not busted for those tests. His excuses were accepted at the time. Confirmation came after his later confession. The more relevant point from this is that many known dopers were not caught by tests, because in the early 2000's drugs could be masked. This included Marion Jones and Barry Bonds. The problem remains today, that doping is ahead of testing. We see this when some dopers are only caught years later with restrospective testing. It is reliably estimated that drug use far exceeds the numbers caught.

On the question of whether Houlihan lied, it is more likely than not when her excuse was not accepted, even though whether she lied was not argued and did not require to be proven. However to maintain she likely didn't lie is to attach a degree of probability to her excuse that was not accepted by the Panel. Her excuse was seen as merely "possible", which means that it was less than probable - and significantly so. So she also in all probability lied.

If the Code is "unable to consistently deliver justice", by what measure? What proportion of cases are known - not guessed - to have delivered a clearly erroneous outcome? I would suggest if more dopers got off than not your claim would then be correct. But of the thousands prosecuted, how many were known for a fact to be unfairly penalised? A handful of cases - if they occurred - are not a "consistent failure to deliver justice". It's a pretty high success rate.

She did not make a statement to be of fact.

It was a supposition and thus she can’t be a liar.

A school child can work that out.