Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

SeattleSilver wrote:

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.

Perhaps a better term is "strict liability with various defenses, such as inadvertant or accidental ingestion."

From the WADA rules:

"Strict Liability: The rule which provides that under Article 2.1 and Article 2.2, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence, or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated by the Anti-Doping Organization in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation."

Ernest wrote:

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.

Good points. But as much as I'd prefer him to be honest and call out Houlihan as the dirty cheater she is, he can't if he wants to keep his earn.

Will be interesting to see exactly how letsrun will report on this. Certainly not like the Guardian...

you have no idea what a tautology is

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

SeattleSilver wrote:

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.

Perhaps a better term is "strict liability with various defenses, such as inadvertant or accidental ingestion."

From the WADA rules:

"Strict Liability: The rule which provides that under Article 2.1 and Article 2.2, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, Negligence, or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated by the Anti-Doping Organization in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation."

This does not look too gentle to me.

unbelief wrote:

you have no idea what a tautology is

Congratulations on spelling it ok.

Or is that response too circular for you!

casual obsever wrote:

Ernest wrote:

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.

Good points. But as much as I'd prefer him to be honest and call out Houlihan as the dirty cheater she is, he can't if he wants to keep his earn.

Will be interesting to see exactly how letsrun will report on this. Certainly not like the Guardian...

There is no evidence she cheated.

Such was never put to the test.

casual obsever wrote:

Ernest wrote:

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.

Good points. But as much as I'd prefer him to be honest and call out Houlihan as the dirty cheater she is, he can't if he wants to keep his earn.

Will be interesting to see exactly how letsrun will report on this. Certainly not like the Guardian...

It's ironic that the founders have made the evils of doping a central theme of this site from the beginning. Yet now we have a pretty airtight case with a prominent BTC athlete and mostly just deflection so far.

adlai wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Good points. But as much as I'd prefer him to be honest and call out Houlihan as the dirty cheater she is, he can't if he wants to keep his earn.

Will be interesting to see exactly how letsrun will report on this. Certainly not like the Guardian...

It's ironic that the founders have made the evils of doping a central theme of this site from the beginning. Yet now we have a pretty airtight case with a prominent BTC athlete and mostly just deflection so far.

They may have realised that the Doping Rules are draconian.

rojo wrote:

I'm only halfway through it. I got to admit the fact that she refused to wear the carbon shoes really makes me believe she is much more likely to be guilty than if she did wear them.

This was a typo by rojo. He meant to say much less likely.

It logically makes zero sense that you'd dope with drugs but not wear the shoes. Unless it's a super elaborate humble-brag type of coverrup. Yes I know this type of stories shouldn't impact the evidence but I'm just telling you my thoughts.

Why in the hell if you are looking to cut corners wouldn't you wear the Carbon Plates?

Again, I'm only halfway through it but it looks like she had a former lab employee testify on her behalf.

Great job Rojo. You TRIGGERED a good number of people here. 👍 👍 😅 😂

sanootage wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Good points. But as much as I'd prefer him to be honest and call out Houlihan as the dirty cheater she is, he can't if he wants to keep his earn.

Will be interesting to see exactly how letsrun will report on this. Certainly not like the Guardian...

There is no evidence she cheated.

Such was never put to the test.

What?? Are you serious?

Not guilty.

"strict" or not, it is enough after a positive test to come up with a scenario that is "more likely than not" true. See the wordings in the cases of Claye and Wilson who got off without proving their innocence.

You seem to agree that Shelby did not get the roids from the burrito, but that's the only - obviously highly unlikely - scenario she offered...

Why does the Brojos and Gault act like she's not guilty, but immediately jump on all east africans?

Also, why do they defend Sifan Hassan so adamantly, but are so angry toward Katir? Last I checked, Sifan's countless rounds at the Olympics in oppressive heat at such a high performance level are not typical recovery periods for a clean athlete.

If you read the document and don't come away thinking anti-doping protocols are a MESS, you were too biased to begin with.

sanootage wrote:

ecoAnPac wrote:

okay so what's the conclusion of the report then, that she didn't???

Was silent on the matter.

Said she had the drug.

man then I wonder how it got there if it wasn't accidental

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.

in what way have you seen that sabotage outweighs ingestion?

First - The drug is in shelby's system.

Second - Shelby has presented a demonstrably unreliable justification for it being in her system.

Fourth- Shelby is somehow vindicated because she was sabotaged

What's the third step that takes us from a nonsense story and the drug in her system to sabotage?

The odds are greater than zero that it came from the spermatozoa of one Matthew Centrowitz. It was likely an experiment be learned while at NOP.

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?

1-3%

9-7%

90%

sanootage wrote:

There is no evidence she cheated.

Such was never put to the test.

No. If you look into the original verdict, you can see that she was banned for an intentional anti-doping rule violation. That fits with the normal definition of a cheater.