Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

rhetorical question Fboy

on balance of probabilities? lol this guy cant quit nonsensical BS

exactly. she asked for and received the hearing she desired with ample opportunity for evidence, witness statements etc

My prediction: Shelby comes clean before the end of her career.

sanootage wrote:

adlai wrote:

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”.

I don't disagree, but her team had the resources and time to investigate those other possibilities and still went with the burrito as the most likely cause. So either they were incompetent, or there just wasn't anything else there.

SeattleSilver wrote:

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.

I am not sure it is a privilege more a right.

But either way the justice system has to be fair to accused and I would expect it to have to follow the normal principles of justice and not one that satisfies the economic position of the prosecutors.

I would add that a big problem is that an athlete caught by strict liability is automatically deemed a cheat when there often is no evidence of such and even still get banned when the hearing say they actually have not cheated.

I have no proof for any of the following, but given the rate at which records have changed recently, and the age at which people are running near record or record times and winning championships, and in which some of them have obvious muscular changes in their body, would it surprise anyone if any or all of the following are doping?

Elaine Thompson

Shelly Ann Fraser Price

Gabby Thomas

Sifan Hassan

Letesenbet Gidey

Beatrice Kepchoech

Mary Keitany

Courtney Krerichs

Karsten Warholm

Rai Benjamin

Really, about the only ones I would leave off of this list, who have made great performances recently, are:

Sydney Mc Laughlin

Dalilah Muhammad

Athing Mu

And, the only reason I wouldn't suspect them is that the women's 400H is still a new event, and Mu is only 19, and while it's possible that she is doping already, she is only 1 year out of high school, and I would really hope she isn't on the sauce yet.

Otherwise, literally EVERY other great performance recently should be suspicious, simply because those are old records being broken by large amounts.

I've listened to Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton recently, speaking about the omerta in cycling. I am convinced that the same thing exists in Athletics.

No proof, obviously, but the circumstantial evidence is very strong.

Charlatan wrote:

My prediction: Shelby comes clean before the end of her career.

She has the power to break this whole thing up and expose others. It would certainly be a game changer.

If competing in World Athletics-sanctioned competition is a “right,” I look forward to competing in Paris.

Fair is fair!

adlai wrote:

sanootage wrote:

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

I don't disagree, but her team had the resources and time to investigate those other possibilities and still went with the burrito as the most likely cause. So either they were incompetent, or there just wasn't anything else there.

I think they had genuine reason to go for the food defence as the most likely . With sabotage it is even harder to get evidence. And you don’t go to trial with two defences very often.

RunRaider wrote:

If competing in World Athletics-sanctioned competition is a “right,” I look forward to competing in Paris.

Fair is fair!

I never said to compete in Paris is a right rather to be able to compete is.

And nor is competing in Paris a privilege; rather it is earned.

But I think you know this or are very thick.

you don't say wrote:

Charlatan wrote:

My prediction: Shelby comes clean before the end of her career.

She has the power to break this whole thing up and expose others. It would certainly be a game changer.

This is a tautology.

sanootage wrote:

RunRaider wrote:

If competing in World Athletics-sanctioned competition is a “right,” I look forward to competing in Paris.

Fair is fair!

I never said to compete in Paris is a right rather to be able to compete is.

And nor is competing in Paris a privilege; rather it is earned.

But I think you know this or are very thick.

Well your argument begs the question: What competitions do you think everyone has a “right” to compete in? There are lots of athletic competitions that Shelby Houlihan could enter right now. What “right” is she being deprived of?

Not without merit ; but not on Nandrolone , good old Deca. Nor D Bol nor Stromba

sanootage wrote:

adlai wrote:

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

I think there is a possibility.

.

No one is contesting test results, so the only question is how did a banned substance get there.

Standard test for guilt is not "zero doubt" but "lack of reasonable doubt".

CAS' ruling lays out a compelling case that elevated nandrolone cannot be believably attributed to ingestion of pig meat.

If Gault hasn't changed his stance, his objectivity invites question.

you don't say wrote:

She has the power to break this whole thing up and expose others. It would certainly be a game changer.

Indeed. That is why BTC is trying to protect her instead of kicking her to the curb: self-protection. Keep the cheat happy so she doesn't spill the beans.

This. The most incredible part of all of this to me was Schumacher claiming he had never heard of nandrolone. This statement was provided months before that? and directly contradicts that. Why would he say that its so dumb. Was anyone advising them. Maybe he just panicked.

Get the time line correct for when the word “ knew “ was used.

SeattleSilver wrote:

sanootage wrote:

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

This system is even gentler than full strict liability, because despite failing the test she still had the opportunity to evade punishment by making a reasonable case for inadvertent ingestion. Yes, there is burden shifting in the process, but it isn't even strict liability.

Yes ; I accept that point. But there is always some punishment for a comp test, but that latter point is a bit of a nit pick.

All a bit of an evolving mess. I wonder what it may all look like in ten years.