Shelby Houlihan Sets Up a Gofundme and Website

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The lying never stops with you doping apologists. The hearing before CAS was an appeal.

…

The 28-year-old received her four-year sanction from the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU), and this was upheld after an appeal to the CAS in June.

But the part of the decision that you doping deniers choke on is this:

"The (burrito) explanation presupposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is [very] close to zero," the full decision says.

Close to zero! That is an elegant way of saying her excuse is complete bullsh*t.

I didn’t say it wasn’t an appeal — that doesn’t seem important — I was just trying to help “liar soorer” understand the “appeals” that “casual obsever” was referring to.

I see you found and quoted the AIU’s argument they submitted to the CAS. I don’t have any problem with the low probability burrito still being unprovably the most likely source of the nandrolone. I don’t find these two probabilities contradictory. I can see how most people would be fooled into thinking these probabilities are strongly connected.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I didn’t say it wasn’t an appeal — that doesn’t seem important — I was just trying to help “liar soorer” understand the “appeals” that “casual obsever” was referring to.

I see you found and quoted the AIU’s argument they submitted to the CAS. I don’t have any problem with the low probability burrito still being unprovably the most likely source of the nandrolone. I don’t find these two probabilities contradictory. I can see how most people would be fooled into thinking these probabilities are strongly connected.

"Low probability"? How low is "zero" probability of burrito contamination? Zero likelihood is about as close as "the most likely source of the nandrolone" as Earth is to Alpha Centauri. Only in a mind like yours can zero likelihood be compatible with "most likely".

liar soorer wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Your claim that they all "were intended to speed the process" was incorrect.

Intended to allow her to compete cat trials and not propaganda.

liar soorer wrote:

Why have you no responded to para12. Oh , cos is proves you wrong.

casual obsever wrote:

And in any case, my claim that they "haven't exactly helped speeding up the process" is correct, regardless of the intention behind all those appeals.

12. On 7 May 2021, the Athlete filed an application for Provisional Measures within the context of the First CAS Appeal (“the Application for Provisional Measures”) seeking the lifting of the imposed Provisional Suspension by 12 May 2021 to allow her to compete in Olympic Trials for the 10,000m race.

liar soorer wrote:

You attempt to mislead cans then called out you hide from it.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Shelby’s “choice” was to expedite the process so that she could compete in the Olympic trials.

That's what she said. But since she had virtually no chance of winning, I see that as a propaganda move.

rekrunner wrote:

Any unfairness in this scenario would be whether the delay between the initial suspension and the charge was “timely”.

"delay" is judgmental. The four months between suspension (that she somehow managed to keep secret, see the propaganda remark above) and charge is - however unfortunate - not unusual. I recall even longer time periods for other athletes. As we have seen, there is a lot of back and forth between AIU + the lab + the athlete + the lawyers during that time, and of course that process has to be thorough.

I see her complaints about those four months as a propaganda move too, as I don't recall the other banned anti-doping rule violators complaining that bitterly about those months. Ultimately of course, aside from the fight to salvage some of BTC's reputation, none of that was of consequence: the ban runs from January 2021 to 2025.

…

P.S. Her constant appeals at every step of the way haven't exactly helped speeding up the process either.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If it were kept a secret, how would we know?

Seriously? We know because Shelby herself told us that in her little PR exercise/press conference, four months after the fact.

I see you again ignored three questions, and instead responded with one that you knew the answer to.

rekrunner wrote:

Is propaganda a valid reason? I don’t see how that even makes any sense.

One reason for keeping it secret is that any publication made public cannot be undone, and will cause permanent reputational damage. Look at how athletes on the Fancy Bears list are treated in these forums.

A trick to avoid (actually here: postpone) "permanent reputational damage" = successful PR.

Note also that the vast majority of the other dopers did not get that special treatment. And then this doper has the nerves to complain about unfairness, after getting one bonus after the other, and launching one appeal after the after.

rekrunner wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Seriously? We know because Shelby herself told us that in her little PR exercise/press conference, four months after the fact.

I see you again ignored three questions, and instead responded with one that you knew the answer to.

A trick to avoid (actually here: postpone) "permanent reputational damage" = successful PR.

Note also that the vast majority of the other dopers did not get that special treatment. And then this doper has the nerves to complain about unfairness, after getting one bonus after the other, and launching one appeal after the after.

I wasn’t talking about Shelby. You asked “Which other athletes”. Shelby did not talk about other athletes as far as I know.

I ignored three questions? You were talking to “liar soorer”, not me. I ignored much more than three questions.

I also don’t know how many athletes get that special treatment and whether it forms a majority or a minority, because a secret would be a secret kept from me. Didn’t we see earlier that the AIU’s policy has no specified deadline, and one that they can set aside at their discretion? I wonder if most NADOs have any policy about announcing provisional suspensions. DIdn’t we also just see one athlete where the charges were made 7 years after the fact? Maybe it happens more often than you want to believe.

What bonuses did she get? All the responses to all the appeals came on the same day as the AIU charge, and they were all denied. It doesn’t look like she got any bonus, outside a delay in announcement until the CAS verdict.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If it were kept a secret, how would we know?

Seriously? We know because Shelby herself told us that in her little PR exercise/press conference, four months after the fact.

I see you again ignored three questions, and instead responded with one that you knew the answer to.

rekrunner wrote:

Is propaganda a valid reason? I don’t see how that even makes any sense.

One reason for keeping it secret is that any publication made public cannot be undone, and will cause permanent reputational damage. Look at how athletes on the Fancy Bears list are treated in these forums.

A trick to avoid (actually here: postpone) "permanent reputational damage" = successful PR.

Note also that the vast majority of the other dopers did not get that special treatment. And then this doper has the nerves to complain about unfairness, after getting one bonus after the other, and launching one appeal after the after.

casual obsever wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

Intended to allow her to compete cat trials and not propaganda.

Ah, so not "intended to speed the process". Finally you are admitting that you lied again.

liar soorer wrote:

Why have you no responded to para12. Oh , cos is proves you wrong.

LOL. Why do you lie so much? It does not prove me wrong. Again:

casual obsever wrote:

And in any case, my claim that they "haven't exactly helped speeding up the process" is correct, regardless of the intention behind all those appeals.

Did you finally read 12?

12. On 7 May 2021, the Athlete filed an application for Provisional Measures within the context of the First CAS Appeal (“the Application for Provisional Measures”) seeking the lifting of the imposed Provisional Suspension by 12 May 2021 to allow her to compete in Olympic Trials for the 10,000m race.

Asking for "lifting of the imposed Provisional Suspension" is not asking to speed up the process, as you falsely claimed.

liar soorer wrote:

You attempt to mislead cans then called out you hide from it.

LOL. And you are back to lying again. This time twice in one sentence.

I pointed out, with facts, that you were lying again as per usual, and then you call that misleading? Misleading "cans"? And hiding?? Hahahahaha.

Troll somebody else next time.