Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

All know that going for food contamination is almost impossible and very very expensive and to think that going for a crap meal was a deliberate ploy is an utter fool.

Food truck food is good here.

I want an authentic pork burrito now.

jewbacca wrote:

sanootage wrote:

All the ruling indicated was that the food excuse failed.

Given the burden she had to be found guilty.

It actually does not explain how it got there , does it?

Again, this is really simple. If I get caught with a dead body in my basement, it's on me to explain how it got there. Shelby's prosecutors don't have to explain how it got there. Shelby does.

No

With the dead body in the basement, the burden of proof still falls on the prosecution to prove you did anything nefarious or criminal.

SHs case, and all doping cases are "guilty" upon the presence of a positive test (A sample) and the subsequent retest with the B sample confirming. All athletes sign on to this agreement WADA & their respective country anti-doping agency. ....All recourse is via appeals process. SH waved the typical appeal process because the looming Tokyo Olys and chose to go straight to the "Supreme Court" of athletics, the CAS. By doing this she pretty much gambling her future away by leaving no more recourse and a guaranteed 4 year ban

All know that going for food contamination is almost impossible and very very expensive and to think that going for a crap meal was a deliberate ploy is an utter fool.

What? Is this even a sentence?

Where does this expert witness provide scientific literature backing up her conjecture? CAS considers consensus amongst the scientific community based on the literature, not the conjecture of somebody opining on the subject.

There is, however, ample literature backing up the conclusions reached by the lab, and thereby, CAS.

shirtboy2021 wrote:

All know that going for food contamination is almost impossible and very very expensive and to think that going for a crap meal was a deliberate ploy is an utter fool.

What? Is this even a sentence?

No!

But you can work it out .

Sorry

Agree

Bro, you’re incapable of making any good argument and completely impervious to the inconvenience of facts in the report.

keep hope alive though SABOTAGE! Or Aliens. one of those two

Shelby strikes me as the kind of person who if she pulled a SFH and cavorted as a Vegas escort she would say she was a victim of human trafficking.

NWA wrote:

jewbacca wrote:

Again, this is really simple. If I get caught with a dead body in my basement, it's on me to explain how it got there. Shelby's prosecutors don't have to explain how it got there. Shelby does.

No

With the dead body in the basement, the burden of proof still falls on the prosecution to prove you did anything nefarious or criminal.

The same burden does not apply in anti-doping. The presence of a substance in your body shifts the burden entirely to YOU. You're trying to make this complicated. It's not. It's very, very simple.

In any case, a dead body in your basement is usually sufficient for arrest and prosecution.

The apologists here are hilarious. Keep it coming.

Saying something is ‘possible’ and having research and data to back it up are completely different things.

Their expert needs to do a little better than that loose association of ideas there.

Has she seen it happen or no? in a lab setting or naturally? If not, sure, anything is possible

some dude wrote:

contract schmontract wrote:

If you're Frerichs, though, and clean, WHY would she not think the fact that she ate the same thing but did NOT test positive was evidence that her teammate was doing something shady that she wasn't doing??? I get that Frerichs wasn't on the same testing schedule but seriously.

What are everyone's thoughts on Frerichs and the rest of BTC? Was Shelby doping on her own or was it systematic doping?

It’s definitely systematic doping. Frerichs and Cranny are super suspicious, Schweizer a little less so, Infeld was suspicious in the past, and Hall really isn’t suspicious at all. Likely several of the athletes are doping, and are coached on doping, and some still probably have no idea.

jewbacca wrote:

[quote]sanootage wrote:Again, this is really simple. If I get caught with a dead body in my basement, it's on me to explain how it got there. Shelby's prosecutors don't have to explain how it got there. Shelby does.

The part about the dead body is not true, at last in American law. In an American criminal case, you are always presumed innocent of any crime even if there's a dead body in your basement. The prosecution in a criminal case must always prove to a jury that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense charged. As a legal matter, the defendant is not required to explain or do anything. The defendant has a constitutional right to remain silent.

The doping rules are different. If a prohibited substance is found in an athlete's urine, the athlete is presumed guilty. The athlete then has an affirmative burden to overcome this presumption of guilt.

In Shelby's case, she tested positive. She was then presumed guilty of doping. To overcome this presumption, she had the burden either to show that the test shouldn't be believed or accepted or to prove an innocent explanation for the positive test.

Peter pork expert Bromka goes home devastated...again!

unbelief wrote:

Bro, you’re incapable of making any good argument and completely impervious to the inconvenience of facts in the report.

keep hope alive though SABOTAGE! Or Aliens. one of those two

Bro!

The judgement; not a report Bro, only dealt with her pleadings and thus were silent on sabotage.

Or have I missed something having read the 40 odd pages , Bro?

Well Bro, have I ?

Exactly!

Heres a fun game:

Google “shelby houlihan rio 2016” and go to images

then

google “shelby houlihan world champs” and go to images

see anything different? SH body mysteriously transformed, with the dead eyes of a doper and all

jewbacca wrote:

Where does this expert witness provide scientific literature backing up her conjecture? CAS considers consensus amongst the scientific community based on the literature, not the conjecture of somebody opining on the subject.

There is, however, ample literature backing up the conclusions reached by the lab, and thereby, CAS.

Basic scientific principles tell you that a diet with more C3 plants is going to give you a higher IRMS delta. So, the higher the soy:corn ratio, the higher the IRMS delta.

McGlone concedes that more soy was added to feed during the pandemic due to supply chain issues.

It's definitely not unsupported conjecture and considering how ubiquitous soy is as an animal feed in the US, there's substantial doubt in the 'certainty' of non-natural IRMS values.

sanootage wrote:

tell the truth wrote:

How would someone know to avoid Nandrolone if they had never heard of it before, per Shelby and her coach. To me, this is one of the damning things in the whole story.

If she was cheating with N then she would say she never heard of it exactly as she would say she never heard of it if she had not cheated.

I would add that they may well be able to detect grand daughter metabolites and thus a cheat with any brain would stay a million miles away from it.

Most prob would think about the S23 the Uk sprinter got done for.

If she had not cheated why would she - and more specifically, her coach - state they had never heard of N. It would have been more credible to acknowledge they were familiar with it, which is why they would never knowingly go anywhere near it. Her coach claiming to have never heard of the drug made it seem like they were hiding something.