If she's not using the money raised for intended purposes. Can gofundme retrieve the money she raised for her legal fees, she claimed were for pursuit of intended lawsuit?
Anyone with common sense neither knows whether she doped intentionally nor lied about it. This is not common-sense knowledge, but popular fantasy.
What happened is that the WADA Code allowed a presumption without facts or knowledge, the AIU presumed it without facts or knowledge, and the CAS upheld the presumption as it was permitted by WADA, and some self-proclaimed "common-sense" folk now believe it is something that they "know".
Anyone with common sense neither knows whether she doped intentionally nor lied about it. This is not common-sense knowledge, but popular fantasy.
What happened is that the WADA Code allowed a presumption without facts or knowledge, the AIU presumed it without facts or knowledge, and the CAS upheld the presumption as it was permitted by WADA, and some self-proclaimed "common-sense" folk now believe it is something that they "know".
100% - well explained, thanks.
The positive test is a fact. The positive a and b sample is a fact. That she couldn't provide an explanation for the nandrolone beyond the most far fetched burrito tale ever is a fact.
The positive test is a fact. The positive a and b sample is a fact. That she couldn't provide an explanation for the nandrolone beyond the most far fetched burrito tale ever is a fact.
+1
Also facts: there was too much nandrolone to have come from a stomach offal pork burrito (while she ordered a beef burrito), and the carbon isotope ratio matched synthetic nandrolone and not farm-fed pork (which the food truck used).
As the independent expert consulted by letsrun stated:
Tucker wrote: Rather, her finding is deemed to be quite clear — the isotope ratio of the 19-NA is different enough from that of her other steroids and steroids of boars that the lab must issue the Adverse Finding without even needing the pharmacokinetic test. … For instance, in Point 107, the agriculture expert for World Athletics explains that pig stomach has one of the lowest androgen levels of any organ. Importantly, Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pig stomach (see points 40 and 99). … Then there is a second study, out of Germany, also cited at CAS, that used 12 subjects who ate between 187g and 491g of boar meat, and the highest concentration of 19-NA measured was 2.1 ng/ml (Houlihan’s values were 5.2 and 5.8 ng/ml). Based on the Decision, CAS found these two studies IN CONJUNCTION with the isotope signature (this is an important point — the level and type both argued against Houlihan’s claim) to be convincing.
Open and shut case. But some people keep wanting to re-open it. Fortunately that doper has lost in all instances - nothing more to be done.
The positive test is a fact. The positive a and b sample is a fact. That she couldn't provide an explanation for the nandrolone beyond the most far fetched burrito tale ever is a fact.
None of these facts help anyone know whether she doped intentionally, or lied about it.
These are extrapolations by "common-sense folk" from insufficiently rebutted presumptions, rather than facts.
Also facts: there was too much nandrolone to have come from a stomach offal pork burrito (while she ordered a beef burrito), and the carbon isotope ratio matched synthetic nandrolone and not farm-fed pork (which the food truck used).
As the independent expert consulted by letsrun stated:
Open and shut case. But some people keep wanting to re-open it. Fortunately that doper has lost in all instances - nothing more to be done.
You guys keep trotting out this closed case, but there's a lot of stuff being said that never went into the case in the first place.
The only case before the CAS was 1) did the WADA lab do the right thing, and 2) can Houlihan collect enough evidence to argue and rebut the presumption of intent.
The CAS wasn't unanimous on the first question, and the second one is simply too high a burden to place on athletes, one month after the fact -- that is what Tygart argues needs to be reformed in the WADA Code. Again, see what Lawson and Getzmann had to do to "prove" their innocence, and they were still suspended for more than one year. Not all clean athletes will be as lucky.
Talking about the levels of nandrolone from pork stomach or pork meat are red-herrings if not disingenuous, as the claim was that it came from pork offal, and not limited to just the stomach or meat.
From the CAS report, soy-fed boar would produce similar isotope ratios, and both parties agreed that the pigs were fed soy during the pandemic. That is why the WADA TD says the isotope test cannot establish exogenous origin, when the athlete invokes boar consumption.
Some of the CAS statements, contradicting the testimony they heard, make a lot more sense now that you have argued the CAS arbitrators can be corrupt, and simply side with the party that picked them.
Also facts: there was too much nandrolone to have come from a stomach offal pork burrito (while she ordered a beef burrito), and the carbon isotope ratio matched synthetic nandrolone and not farm-fed pork (which the food truck used).
As the independent expert consulted by letsrun stated:
Open and shut case. But some people keep wanting to re-open it. Fortunately that doper has lost in all instances - nothing more to be done.
You guys keep trotting out this closed case, but there's a lot of stuff being said that never went into the case in the first place.
The only case before the CAS was 1) did the WADA lab do the right thing, and 2) can Houlihan collect enough evidence to argue and rebut the presumption of intent.
The CAS wasn't unanimous on the first question, and the second one is simply too high a burden to place on athletes, one month after the fact -- that is what Tygart argues needs to be reformed in the WADA Code. Again, see what Lawson and Getzmann had to do to "prove" their innocence, and they were still suspended for more than one year. Not all clean athletes will be as lucky.
Talking about the levels of nandrolone from pork stomach or pork meat are red-herrings if not disingenuous, as the claim was that it came from pork offal, and not limited to just the stomach or meat.
From the CAS report, soy-fed boar would produce similar isotope ratios, and both parties agreed that the pigs were fed soy during the pandemic. That is why the WADA TD says the isotope test cannot establish exogenous origin, when the athlete invokes boar consumption.
Some of the CAS statements, contradicting the testimony they heard, make a lot more sense now that you have argued the CAS arbitrators can be corrupt, and simply side with the party that picked them.
Your insistence on thread after thread about what you think we don't know about Houlihan is pathological. It is also absurd, as you maintain an absolute certainty about what you say we aren't certain of. How can you be sure beyond doubt of what you say we can't be sure of? By definition, uncertainty cannot be certainty. Only a mind like yours, that lacks sufficient self awareness, will brazenly wade into such comical self-contradiction. Meanwhile, the rest of the world, outside Houlihan defenders and doping apologists like yourself, can see what you absolutely refuse to see.
Your insistence on thread after thread about what you think we don't know about Houlihan is pathological. It is also absurd, as you maintain an absolute certainty about what you say we aren't certain of. How can you be sure beyond doubt of what you say we can't be sure of? By definition, uncertainty cannot be certainty. Only a mind like yours, that lacks sufficient self awareness, will brazenly wade into such comical self-contradiction. Meanwhile, the rest of the world, outside Houlihan defenders and doping apologists like yourself, can see what you absolutely refuse to see.
If you had more specific knowledge, you've had plenty of opportunities to share it by now. I think "svonrin" exhaused the complete set of specific knowledge above in two sentences. The rest requires presumption, extrapolation, and other forms of fantasy.
The WADA Code explicitly permits conviction without athlete intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge, and the WADA Code permits a 4-year sanction based purely on presumption.
Each time I have asked you to share specific knowledge, about any topic really, I quickly ran into a brick wall, as you instead respond with emotional, irrational posts like this, completely void of any facts, information, and knowledge, but replete with personal insults and attacks.
I can see what you can see, and evidently a great deal more. But what you see cannot be considered knowledge with certainty. That is why I call it belief, mythology, religion, fantasy, etc.
Your insistence on thread after thread about what you think we don't know about Houlihan is pathological. It is also absurd, as you maintain an absolute certainty about what you say we aren't certain of. How can you be sure beyond doubt of what you say we can't be sure of? By definition, uncertainty cannot be certainty. Only a mind like yours, that lacks sufficient self awareness, will brazenly wade into such comical self-contradiction. Meanwhile, the rest of the world, outside Houlihan defenders and doping apologists like yourself, can see what you absolutely refuse to see.
If you had more specific knowledge, you've had plenty of opportunities to share it by now. I think "svonrin" exhaused the complete set of specific knowledge above in two sentences. The rest requires presumption, extrapolation, and other forms of fantasy.
The WADA Code explicitly permits conviction without athlete intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge, and the WADA Code permits a 4-year sanction based purely on presumption.
Each time I have asked you to share specific knowledge, about any topic really, I quickly ran into a brick wall, as you instead respond with emotional, irrational posts like this, completely void of any facts, information, and knowledge, but replete with personal insults and attacks.
I can see what you can see, and evidently a great deal more. But what you see cannot be considered knowledge with certainty. That is why I call it belief, mythology, religion, fantasy, etc.
The one thing your limited reasoning powers cannot entertain is "probability". It is "the balance of probabilities" that determined she was an intentional doper. CAS did not come to that finding on the basis of "mythology or fantasy". Your arguments are the fantasies of a doping denier. You are the only one persuaded by them.
If you had more specific knowledge, you've had plenty of opportunities to share it by now. I think "svonrin" exhaused the complete set of specific knowledge above in two sentences. The rest requires presumption, extrapolation, and other forms of fantasy.
The WADA Code explicitly permits conviction without athlete intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge, and the WADA Code permits a 4-year sanction based purely on presumption.
Each time I have asked you to share specific knowledge, about any topic really, I quickly ran into a brick wall, as you instead respond with emotional, irrational posts like this, completely void of any facts, information, and knowledge, but replete with personal insults and attacks.
I can see what you can see, and evidently a great deal more. But what you see cannot be considered knowledge with certainty. That is why I call it belief, mythology, religion, fantasy, etc.
The one thing your limited reasoning powers cannot entertain is "probability". It is "the balance of probabilities" that determined she was an intentional doper. CAS did not come to that finding on the basis of "mythology or fantasy". Your arguments are the fantasies of a doping denier. You are the only one persuaded by them.
The whole rekrunner phenomenon is proof that Shelby and her sycophants really thought people were going to believe her and see her as some tragic hero. The running community is much smarter than that and they feel completely lost now.
If you had more specific knowledge, you've had plenty of opportunities to share it by now. I think "svonrin" exhaused the complete set of specific knowledge above in two sentences. The rest requires presumption, extrapolation, and other forms of fantasy.
The WADA Code explicitly permits conviction without athlete intent, negligence, fault, or knowledge, and the WADA Code permits a 4-year sanction based purely on presumption.
Each time I have asked you to share specific knowledge, about any topic really, I quickly ran into a brick wall, as you instead respond with emotional, irrational posts like this, completely void of any facts, information, and knowledge, but replete with personal insults and attacks.
I can see what you can see, and evidently a great deal more. But what you see cannot be considered knowledge with certainty. That is why I call it belief, mythology, religion, fantasy, etc.
The one thing your limited reasoning powers cannot entertain is "probability". It is "the balance of probabilities" that determined she was an intentional doper. CAS did not come to that finding on the basis of "mythology or fantasy". Your arguments are the fantasies of a doping denier. You are the only one persuaded by them.
I can entertain "probability", but that does not apply to "intent".
Intent was not established on the "balance of probability".
To deem intent, the CAS did not rely on mythology or fantasy, nor on any established facts that would support a finding of intent. The only basis for intent is a presumption codified by WADA in 2015.
The one thing your limited reasoning powers cannot entertain is "probability". It is "the balance of probabilities" that determined she was an intentional doper. CAS did not come to that finding on the basis of "mythology or fantasy". Your arguments are the fantasies of a doping denier. You are the only one persuaded by them.
The whole rekrunner phenomenon is proof that Shelby and her sycophants really thought people were going to believe her and see her as some tragic hero. The running community is much smarter than that and they feel completely lost now.
It's curious you feel the need to self-identify with the "smart" running community, by choosing what or who to "believe", while simultaneously demonstrating you don't understand what constitutes a proof.
"Smart" is something linked to rational intelligence, while "believe" requires something irrational.
My comments and opinions in Houlihan threads are not limited to Houlihan, but against a system that can railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans, precisely because the WADA Code allows anti-doping agencies like the AIU to find factors like "intent" with absolutely no facts or evidence specific to Houlihan to support it, and binds the CAS to uphold it, as they enforce what is written in the WADA Code and TDs and other standards, when facts are lacking.
This is not mere speculation from nowhere, as USADA CEO Chief has explained dozens of times, and as I have already explained in other "lucky" examples like Lawson and Getzmann and 27 USADA athletes since 2015, who, with different luck, would be similarly sanctioned for 4-years.
Despite their "luck" at being found innocent, they are still considered guilty, with one strike against them, and athletes like Lawson and Getzmann served a 1-year suspension until they were declared innocent. Other athletes are not so lucky. This would include many Kenyans who are making the news now.