casual obsever wrote:
What's even more hilarious is this statement:
Shelby and I both have received multiple messages over the past few months saying, "I didn't use to believe you, but after listening, I do now."As in, for real? A friendly interview with the banned doper, where no new facts were given, no evidence presented, made people change their mind and all of sudden believe that INRS + AIU + WA + CAS + SFT all were wrong? Well let's hope that here, "multiple" < 4.
Sounds real to me.
Maybe what happened is that some open-minded fans who had previously drawn conclusions from only half the facts realized it wasn't so simple after all, after learning facts that were not new, but were either new to them, or that they had not properly appreciated.
It's not quite that "INRS + AIU + WA + CAS + SFT all were wrong", as each of these organizations had different questions before them, guided by the WADA Code and Standards. None of them were actually asked to investigate and establish the truth regarding the source of the nandrolone, and the nature and intent of the ingestion. So it is misguided to believe that all of these organizations established the answer to a question that was not before them.
The root of what is wrong for Houlihan's sample results is the WADA Code itself which:
- explicitly rules that presence and use are considered violations (before the athlete is asked to provide any "explanation") regardless of intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge, for these small amounts consistent with unknowing ingestion from selected USDA approved meat
- presumes these violations were intentional, placing a high burden on the athlete to find evidence at least one month after the fact, that may no longer exist, to a prosecution and adjudication panel who are guided by rules that disfavor the athlete
- is ambiguous whether the WADA TD requires her result be treated as an AAF or an ATF, and whether the GC/C/IRMS analysis can be used in this case to establish "exogenous"
The CAS Panel was not unanimous that the WADA Lab reported the test results correctly. At least a minority of the CAS Panel ruled that they got that decision wrong.
The most just outcome, given the lack of conclusive data, was to consider the lab results an AAF, and intelligently target test for more corroborative and conclusive data.
casual obsever wrote:
Let's hope they will use the actual facts to tear Houlihan's "arguments" apart.
This is rich, considering the WADA Code does not require "actual facts" to rule "intent" or "exogenous nandrolone", and neither the World Athletics, the AIU, nor their experts provided any facts directly related to Houlihan's samples.