Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

Precious Roy wrote:

I'm sorry but there is no way anyone who has had carne asada before would get a burrito filled with pork offal (especially the high testosterone parts like heart, kidneys or liver) and just plow through it without taking it back to the taco truck and saying "what the hell did you give me?" Buche (pork stomach) has a weird flavor and texture that is nothing like red meat. The color is very light even when grilled. And Buche is rarely just the stomach muscle. It is almost always the digestive tract as that all comes out together when the pig is butchered. It doesn't matter how much salsa you dump over it. If you never had Buche before and were expecting grilled beef, you would not get two bites into a burrito filled with Buche before you took it back and asked for the right order.

rekrunner wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I am surprised so many people here are defending the WADA protocol. There's clearly a lot of unanswered questions abut nandrolone contamination and the specificity of the testing procedure.

It's possible to believe that

1) Shelby deserved her ban

and

2) We really need to improve the testing protocol/gather more data on nandrolone levels in the general population

The one thing that doesn’t sit well with me is how disadvantaged the athlete is in these cases — an issue highlighted by Tygart in cases of contamination in need of reform.

Besides the specific questions of boar meat, corn versus soy, and how to properly test for it, the whole process of shifting the burden to the athlete, applying the concept of strict liability, instantly places the athlete at a great disadvantage, once he/she is first notified of a problem. Athletes are not lawyers and scientists, keeping up to date with the latest case law and changes in anti-doping regulations and scientific testing protocols.

The athlete may be first notified of an issue 1 month after the fact, and then many things happen at the same time:

- they are often placed under provisional suspension, cutting off their main source of income

- they need to start a full investigation into facts that are 1 month in the past, about all the possible ways that some obscure drug they may never have heard of might have gotten into their system

- hopefully they keep diaries and receipts, and samples of supplements from the same lot, and if they are lucky, eat at restaurants who keep records and will cooperate with investigations

- investigations aren’t free — athletes have to hire lawyers and may have to pay for scientific tests

Under strict liability, the athlete is confronted with a wall of established presumptions that he/she has the burden to rebut:

- A and B sample positive results in an immediate presumption of guilt

- a presumption the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL

- a presumption the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM

- a presumption the ADRV was intentional

Hajo Seppelt recently released another documentary, this time critical of anti-doping, and one of the examples was of a German athlete, who had taken medication that was cross-contaminated with a banned substance. Luckily for him, he had one tablet left, and could get it tested, and his name eventually cleared. But even this best outcome cost him (his family) legal fees and scientific tests, and a lengthy period where he was unable to compete. If he didn’t have one tablet left, there would be no chance for him to clear his name, at any cost, and he would have to accept a nominal 4-year ban.

take a minute to reflect wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The one thing that doesn’t sit well with me is how disadvantaged the athlete is in these cases — an issue highlighted by Tygart in cases of contamination in need of reform.

Besides the specific questions of boar meat, corn versus soy, and how to properly test for it, the whole process of shifting the burden to the athlete, applying the concept of strict liability, instantly places the athlete at a great disadvantage, once he/she is first notified of a problem. Athletes are not lawyers and scientists, keeping up to date with the latest case law and changes in anti-doping regulations and scientific testing protocols.

The athlete may be first notified of an issue 1 month after the fact, and then many things happen at the same time:

- they are often placed under provisional suspension, cutting off their main source of income

- they need to start a full investigation into facts that are 1 month in the past, about all the possible ways that some obscure drug they may never have heard of might have gotten into their system

- hopefully they keep diaries and receipts, and samples of supplements from the same lot, and if they are lucky, eat at restaurants who keep records and will cooperate with investigations

- investigations aren’t free — athletes have to hire lawyers and may have to pay for scientific tests

Under strict liability, the athlete is confronted with a wall of established presumptions that he/she has the burden to rebut:

- A and B sample positive results in an immediate presumption of guilt

- a presumption the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL

- a presumption the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM

- a presumption the ADRV was intentional

Hajo Seppelt recently released another documentary, this time critical of anti-doping, and one of the examples was of a German athlete, who had taken medication that was cross-contaminated with a banned substance. Luckily for him, he had one tablet left, and could get it tested, and his name eventually cleared. But even this best outcome cost him (his family) legal fees and scientific tests, and a lengthy period where he was unable to compete. If he didn’t have one tablet left, there would be no chance for him to clear his name, at any cost, and he would have to accept a nominal 4-year ban.

A driver kills a couple of children driving drunk. The police make him do a breathalyzer test ( he blows over) and even do a blond test, and it also confirms that the driver has levels illegal levels of alcohol in his blood. Are all of you know insisting that the onus shouldn't shift to the drunk driver to explain the level of alcohol in his blood? Maybe his drink really was spiked and he didn't know it. But no - you think the police should have the additional duty to prove how/when/etc. he consumed the alcohol and be required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the drunk driver drank alcohol on purpose, including the all the details of the consumption?

You really don't think it's ok for a court to make the presumption that the alcohol in the drunk drivers blood got there by voluntary consumption? You think the law needs to change and the police actually need to prove the voluntary consumption of alcohol? That should end road blocks and every drunk driving conviction in the world. Increase your tax dollars as police will now have to sit in bars and conduct surveillance on each and every person... not sure how they would do it for home parties etc. So, really, you would advocate to abolish drunk driving laws with the logic being exhibited by your Shelby deniers.

You guys are too much.

take a minute to reflect wrote:

A driver kills a couple of children driving drunk. The police make him do a breathalyzer test ( he blows over) and even do a blond test, and it also confirms that the driver has levels illegal levels of alcohol in his blood. Are all of you know insisting that the onus shouldn't shift to the drunk driver to explain the level of alcohol in his blood? Maybe his drink really was spiked and he didn't know it. But no - you think the police should have the additional duty to prove how/when/etc. he consumed the alcohol and be required to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the drunk driver drank alcohol on purpose, including the all the details of the consumption?

You really don't think it's ok for a court to make the presumption that the alcohol in the drunk drivers blood got there by voluntary consumption? You think the law needs to change and the police actually need to prove the voluntary consumption of alcohol? That should end road blocks and every drunk driving conviction in the world. Increase your tax dollars as police will now have to sit in bars and conduct surveillance on each and every person... not sure how they would do it for home parties etc. So, really, you would advocate to abolish drunk driving laws with the logic being exhibited by your Shelby deniers.

You guys are too much.

rekrunner wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I am surprised so many people here are defending the WADA protocol. There's clearly a lot of unanswered questions abut nandrolone contamination and the specificity of the testing procedure.

It's possible to believe that

1) Shelby deserved her ban

and

2) We really need to improve the testing protocol/gather more data on nandrolone levels in the general population

The one thing that doesn’t sit well with me is how disadvantaged the athlete is in these cases — an issue highlighted by Tygart in cases of contamination in need of reform.

Besides the specific questions of boar meat, corn versus soy, and how to properly test for it, the whole process of shifting the burden to the athlete, applying the concept of strict liability, instantly places the athlete at a great disadvantage, once he/she is first notified of a problem. Athletes are not lawyers and scientists, keeping up to date with the latest case law and changes in anti-doping regulations and scientific testing protocols.

The athlete may be first notified of an issue 1 month after the fact, and then many things happen at the same time:

- they are often placed under provisional suspension, cutting off their main source of income

- they need to start a full investigation into facts that are 1 month in the past, about all the possible ways that some obscure drug they may never have heard of might have gotten into their system

- hopefully they keep diaries and receipts, and samples of supplements from the same lot, and if they are lucky, eat at restaurants who keep records and will cooperate with investigations

- investigations aren’t free — athletes have to hire lawyers and may have to pay for scientific tests

Under strict liability, the athlete is confronted with a wall of established presumptions that he/she has the burden to rebut:

- A and B sample positive results in an immediate presumption of guilt

- a presumption the AAF was properly reported pursuant to the ISL

- a presumption the ADRV was properly managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the ISRM

- a presumption the ADRV was intentional

Hajo Seppelt recently released another documentary, this time critical of anti-doping, and one of the examples was of a German athlete, who had taken medication that was cross-contaminated with a banned substance. Luckily for him, he had one tablet left, and could get it tested, and his name eventually cleared. But even this best outcome cost him (his family) legal fees and scientific tests, and a lengthy period where he was unable to compete. If he didn’t have one tablet left, there would be no chance for him to clear his name, at any cost, and he would have to accept a nominal 4-year ban.