Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Very interesting that they are requiring that she prove herself innocent, rather than that they prove her guilty.

Yes, this is how the WADA rules are written. They say that you fail a doping test, you are presumed guilty. In every doping case, the burden is on the athlete to prove her innocence.

Can the presumption of guilt really be surprising or interesting at this point?

Back to the lazy and unfair and highly unusual interpretation of strict liability.

he’s Shelbys lawyer, gets paid to make bad arguments in broken english

adlai wrote:

sanootage wrote:

There can be no evidence; that is my point.

I look at all the possibilities and come to the conclusion that sabotage looks likely.

So you don't think there is a possibility that Shelby is lying?

Following up - there are at least 3 possibilities:

Sabotage

High levels of Nandrolone actually did end up in the meat inadvertently

Shelby is lying

How would you the place the odds on each of those possibilities?

adlai wrote:

sanootage wrote:

There can be no evidence; that is my point.

I look at all the possibilities and come to the conclusion that sabotage looks likely.

So you don't think there is a possibility that Shelby is lying?

I think there is a possibility.

And I have thought about such; but Nandrolone use; come on.

Dingler wrote:

most likely explanation is Shelby took contaminated supplement, but obviously couldn’t go with that excuse.

Just catching up on this thread, so this might have been addressed, but in retrospect maybe this would have been a better approach that could have led to a shorter ban? Assuming it was a legal, but tainted, supplement, they'd have to assess some kind of ban but perhaps only a 1-2 year ban if she was up front and said "this is everything I take, and I can't explain where the nandrolilone came from". But maybe not.

did she not ask for the arbitration hearing?

Webbster wrote:

Grape soda fanatic wrote:

Her diet that day, per the report:

Lunch: Cheesecake. Nothing else, just cheesecake.

(very late) Dinner: Mystery meat burrito, marinated in its own pool of grease. Chased down with a mandarin Jarritos (44 grams of pure sugar per bottle).

The food of champions!

It's funny reading that and then reading the recent diet thread on this site.

She definitely dated Centro because that is his type of junk food diet.

did she not ask for the arbitration hearing?

In a court of law in which one could be deprived of liberty by way of imprisonment, it would be appropriate to prove the specific offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a court of arbitration that exists only to resolve procedural disputes between individuals and organizations with whom they have a mutual contract to abide by the WADA Code, this is not a necessary or even reasonable standard.

This has been explained multiple times in every thread where you’ve opined endlessly about “strict liability.”

unbelief wrote:

did she not ask for the arbitration hearing?

never heard of internet search, boy?

you know nothing about PEDs or high level sports, obviously

it was either intentional or incidental. in either case, 100% her responsibility

adlai wrote:

adlai wrote:

So you don't think there is a possibility that Shelby is lying?

Following up - there are at least 3 possibilities:

Sabotage

High levels of Nandrolone actually did end up in the meat inadvertently

Shelby is lying

How would you the place the odds on each of those possibilities?

I would answer as below.; hope you find such acceptable method.

Sabotage40

Lying 10

Food as claimed 10

Other contamination 30

Some other possibility we have not yet thought of10

sanootage wrote:

[quote]jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Harambe wrote:

[quote]jewbacca wrote:

Agree ; it is strict liability that is crap.

It isn't strict liability. The athlete has the opportunity to prove that it wasn't intentional. Yes, the burden in on the athlete, but he athlete is the person that has the substance in their system. And no drug enforcement regime is going to be worthwhile if WADA has to prove intentional ingestion. Suppliers of banned drugs aren't going to come forward and rat on their clients, and WADA cannot personally monitor athletes 24/7.

Competing is a privilege, and it comes with a cost.

sanootage wrote:

unbelief wrote:

oh that’s right your ‘argument’ aka The agreat Sabotage Conspiracy without a “Why?” “Who?”

zero evidence, but, of course, no evide only proves your point somehow?

Good luck guy

There can be no evidence; that is my point.

I look at all the possibilities and come to the conclusion that sabotage looks likely.

Unless you come up with a plausible "who", "how", and "why", you haven't made a case for it being likely.

sanootage wrote:

adlai wrote:

Following up - there are at least 3 possibilities:

Sabotage

High levels of Nandrolone actually did end up in the meat inadvertently

Shelby is lying

How would you the place the odds on each of those possibilities?

I would answer as below.; hope you find such acceptable method.

Sabotage40

Lying 10

Food as claimed 10

Other contamination 30

Some other possibility we have not yet thought of10

Fair enough. I have a different perspective. Since just about every doper that has ever been caught has initially claimed innocence I would put lying as the most likely explanation, by far. But I hope I am eventually proven wrong.

SeattleSilver wrote:

sanootage wrote:

There can be no evidence; that is my point.

I look at all the possibilities and come to the conclusion that sabotage looks likely.

Unless you come up with a plausible "who", "how", and "why", you haven't made a case for it being likely.

On balance of probabilities.

adlai wrote:

sanootage wrote:

I would answer as below.; hope you find such acceptable method.

Sabotage40

Lying 10

Food as claimed 10

Other contamination 30

Some other possibility we have not yet thought of10

Fair enough. I have a different perspective. Since just about every doper that has ever been caught has initially claimed innocence I would put lying as the most likely explanation, by far. But I hope I am eventually proven wrong.

I can see why you take that view but I just look at the drug and say “ something fails the common sense test”.

+1 this!

or any case. literally talking abject BS