An absolute annihilation of CAS' Shelby Houlihan decision

griles17 wrote:

https://keithmoulton.com/the-cas-report-on-shelby-houlihan-a-case-of-misleading-analysis-false-statements-bogus-evidence/

The report by twoggle was, too. If you think Shelby actually doped, you lack the capacity to reason and are probably, well, not very bright.

In case you haven't heard yet, it's no longer appropriate to beat a dead horse anymore.

moultonk wrote:

If you treat athletes like criminals, then WADA needs to make their cases airtight, or fans and athletes will not respect the decision. It's actually not that difficult, but I would prefer to see a wholesale overhaul of the regulatory philosophy; one that puts that health and wellbeing of its athletes as the top priority.

The case was airtight. What you seem to be complaining about isn't the strength of the case but rather the strict liability standard for having banned substances in your system. But if we abandon that approach, and force anti-doping authorities to prove bad intent (rather than allowing athletes to prove lack of bad intent as an affirmative defense), then we are effectively giving up on anti-doping because proving intent will almost never be feasible.

again, they are all doping, except the kenyan distance runners and the jamaican sprinters.

+1

And nobody did "treat athletes like criminals".

I just want to throw out the fact that Keith has two likes on his Twitter post announcing this, and one is from Shelby's mom.

What proof has Houlihan actually offered that it was the burrito? When did a hunch become exculpatory evidence?

"I don't know why I tested positive, but it might have been the pork." or "I definitely didn't use PEDs because I'm too smart to fail a test for nandrolone." aren't excuses.

FartKing69 wrote:

I just want to throw out the fact that Keith has two likes on his Twitter post announcing this, and one is from Shelby's mom.

LOL. Also it's enlightening to browse through his Covid/vaccine posts (just like with twoggle).

I don't think we substantially disagree here. Yeah Shelby's burrito story has no fact based evidence so it shouldn't change things. I think the system has more than enough holes in it to question if there aren't better ways to do things and from what you wrote you agree. Just because WADA won't change, doesn't mean they shouldn't. Any meaningful change will have to be athlete led to truly gain acceptance within the sports.

As for the criminalization, it shouldn't be targeting the athletes, but rather the people behind systemic doping (this could be athletes but isn't limited or even focused on them). It is the money laundering, large scale misuse of controlled substances, and trafficking that are the crimes we should be concerned about and those laws already exist in most areas.

Yes, there is always room for improvement. One way around these annoying “more likely than not” and “possible but improbable” debates would be a (really strict) rule with staggered bans, no investigation required, no matter what the athlete says (unless hardcore proof beyond any doubt is provided, e.g. proven sabotage). This would include all banned substances that might come as contaminations, e.g. nandro, clen, tren, …

Suggestion for the nandro example:

Under 2 ng/ml: no ban

2 – 5 ng/ml: 6 months ban

5 – 10 ng/ml: 12 months ban

10 – 20 ng/ml: 24 months ban

20 – 50 ng/ml: 36 months ban

> 50 ng/ml: 48 months ban

I would suggest a similar approach to the ABP.

(And if such a change came fast enough, Shelby would be able to compete in the 2024 Olympics.)

And yes, I agree with your thoughts about criminalization.

Just taking it at face value, her story was unbelievable. That she ordered a carne asada burrito, but received a pork one instead that was tainted, was not nearly enough to get her ban overturned.

He does have a point. If you assume everything Shelby says is true and assume everything CAS, WADA, etc say is false or they are lying then you would have to declare her innocent.

My favorite line was at the end where he decided all previous studies of Nandrolone in pork products must be discarded because of Shelby's urine pattern, which he has no way of knowing.

How much is her family paying you?

griles17 wrote:

https://keithmoulton.com/the-cas-report-on-shelby-houlihan-a-case-of-misleading-analysis-false-statements-bogus-evidence/

The report by twoggle was, too. If you think Shelby actually doped, you lack the capacity to reason and are probably, well, not very bright.

I've received complaints for being overly wordy, so here's the bottom line up front:

- So once and for all, all this article is asking me to do - much like Twoggle's post and the subtext of the Brojo's consensus on the matter - is to buy in on the premise the evidence presents without truly addressing the excessive amount of nandrolone(sp?) in her system.

- The argument laid out within this article is insufficient to outweigh the violation of strict scrutiny laid out in CAS' ruling against houlihan. The drugs got into her system and she tested positive for them. The amount, as the vast majority of research would lend us to believe, could not have been endogenous.

- The court is an arbitration court because sport isn't a public utility. It's not supposed to be a real court. It's supposed to be a private court-like entity that governs a private enterprise. The stated intent in this article regarding the court's founding is a falsity and aggrandizement. Arbitration Courts (specifically CAS) are designed to handle private, non-criminal legal matters in a way that is faster than proceeding through normal courts. This does not mean that they're beholden to events or schedules outside of their legal practice, as would be a violation of their charter per S2 regarding the independence of the charter. I can read more into it, but I'm beyond certain that their interactions with the schedule of a sporting event are not a reason for them to be incorporated or founded.

- The author's continued assertions following this continue to fixate on the type of pork meat ingested, the way that that pork could have been in the truck (through time, sourcing, etc), and the continued reliance on the Houlihan Camp's witness testimony that the burritos were switched.

This author tries, repeatedly, to lean on the word hearsay. I would suggest that the author apply the same legal principle to both distinct perspectives and the total amount of evidence as opposed to a single camp and relying on something besides discrediting previous concentration-based samples. The burritos being switched is a tall order. The pork order being the same from September of the previous year, that same pork still being in the freezer, etc. etc. etc. The preponderance of evidence in my opinion still sides against shelby houlihan. She still took the drugs, and she should still be barred from competition.

Also as a side note - I love (very sarcastically) how all the sources he uses are either clearly biased, harangued as though he's never seen statistical outliers or incorrect measurement (in one case misquoting a study that clearly states a result is mismeasurement), or narratively warped so significantly from the source material through his specific tone and dialogue that there's almost no counter-argumentative material left.

I could give it an x/10 rating because it feels like bait, but he might just be plain wrong. I dunno.

HobbyJogger34 wrote:

What proof has Houlihan actually offered that it was the burrito? When did a hunch become exculpatory evidence?

"I don't know why I tested positive, but it might have been the pork." or "I definitely didn't use PEDs because I'm too smart to fail a test for nandrolone." aren't excuses.

+1 for legitimacy. The Houlihan Camp's entire disproof of the case relies on the recency of burrito ingestion, the type of burrito being in offense, and the supposition that nandrolone would have been most-concentrated exactly at the time when she urinated.

The guy who wrote this article is asking us to believe that shelby is the singular proof that all the other studies have been wrong, and that this one time she was measured incorrectly.

I'm not malcom gladwell. Shelby isn't an outlier, she's a doper with the whole of nike's infrastructure behind her. Plain and simple.

800 dude wrote:

But if we abandon that approach, and force anti-doping authorities to prove bad intent (rather than allowing athletes to prove lack of bad intent as an affirmative defense), then we are effectively giving up on anti-doping because proving intent will almost never be feasible.

EXACTLY. Anyone that's ever been caught doping will make up with some excuse that might sound reasonable. They deserve ZERO benefit of the doubt. Gatlin's excuse of sabotage by a massage therapist is 100x more likely to happen than Houlihan's excuse but nobody claims he was wrongly banned. And nobody should say he was wrongly banned.

She doped, but she should be allowed to dope.

These are grown adults. Let them decide what to do with their bodies. The sport is better when it's a level playing field. Doping allows for that level playing field.

Shelby will be seen as a trailblazer in the future.

She. Ordered. A. Steak. Burrito. Not. Offal.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

She doped, but she should be allowed to dope.

These are grown adults. Let them decide what to do with their bodies. The sport is better when it's a level playing field. Doping allows for that level playing field.

Shelby will be seen as a trailblazer in the future.

She's allowed to dope, but she would have to compete in WWE or UFC instead. Nobody is forcing her to run track.

bye bye bye wrote:

She. Ordered. A. Steak. Burrito. Not. Offal.

It’s personal testimony from a woman. A woman that’s been accused of taking drugs and whose whole life hangs on any possible explanation that she could present to dissuade that opinion. The fact that she’s leaning on something as shaky as this should indicate it’s voracity.