Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

First “drug cheat apologist” and now “denier-in-chief”. All this name calling.

Just to get you up to speed, no one is denying the presence of nandrolone.

Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.

Another 42 pages of doping denial coming up. I would suggest a psychiatrist if it would help. But it wouldn't.

The CAS argued “how it got there”? Oh that would be a value added contribution.

Just to be sure, can you quote the relevant parts of that argument?

Thanks in advance.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.

Another 42 pages of doping denial coming up. I would suggest a psychiatrist if it would help. But it wouldn't.

The CAS argued “how it got there”? Oh that would be a value added contribution.

Just to be sure, can you quote the relevant parts of that argument?

Thanks in advance.

It got there because she doped, not because she ate a burrito. That part of their reasoning that you find hard to follow.

sanootage wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

The original CAS ruling in June: "committed an intentional ADRV"

On page 1: "anti-doping rule violation (ADRV)"

The current report explains why.

Intentional anti-doping rule violators out!

I am not convinced.

Can you provide the link to what you refer to as “The original CAS ruling in June” please.

This is a dead-end — “intentional ADRV” is the correct term (see TAS-CAS link to the media release below).

The “catch” is that “intentional” explicitly has a “special” definition in the WADA code:

“As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes or other

Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew

that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule

violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.59”

“59 [Comment to Article 10.2.3: Article 10.2.3 provides a special definition of

“intentional” which is to be applied solely for purposes of Article 10.2.]”

The second catch is that the prosecuting ADA or ADO does not need to demonstrate intent, but rather intent is “presumed”, and it is the burden of the accused athlete to rebut the presumption of intent.

As such, the AIU/WA/CAS did not identify exactly what conduct makes it intentional, but in the hypothetical case of a burrito containing nandrolone laden boar offal, the decision to buy food off a truck that also sells food with offal, and eat that food, despite the different appearance (greasy versus dry) are all considered intentional conduct. If there is a risk that this conduct might result in an ADRV (which in this case, Houlihan argued that it must have), and the athlete knew there was a significant risk, and the athlete manifestly disregarded that risk, that qualifies it as “intentional”.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The CAS argued “how it got there”? Oh that would be a value added contribution.

Just to be sure, can you quote the relevant parts of that argument?

Thanks in advance.

It got there because she doped, not because she ate a burrito. That part of their reasoning that you find hard to follow.

Maybe I skimmed too fast over the relevant parts. All I saw were arguments, not from the CAS, but from the AIU, and their experts, about one way how it probably or likely didn’t get there.

If you could just quote the relevant CAS reasoning that you are referring too, that would help avoid another 42 pages, and we can nip this right in the bud.

Do you have a quote, or a paragraph number, or a page number, or some other tangible reference to help me find the CAS reasoning you suggest exists? I can’t follow something if I couldn’t find it.

Thanks in advance for your specificity, and avoiding making it personal.

rekrunner wrote:

This is a dead-end — “intentional ADRV” is the correct term (see TAS-CAS link to the media release below).

The “catch”

Oh come on. No catch. You are the one insisting that "drug cheat" is not to be used because CAS didn't say so. And now you are arguing against using the words that CAS said, despite them being "the correct term", because they are a synonym for "drug cheat" - unless you want to argue that doping is not cheating:

"intentional ADRV" with the drug nandrolone --> intentional anti-doping rule violator with a drug --> intentional doper --> drug cheat.

RuningManJumpSuit wrote:

Not sure if this was posted yet but LetsRun should hire this guy to write....

https://kevinbeck.substack.com/p/in-shocking-development-in-shelby

+1

Love Kevin Beck, used to race him, but his ending is pathetic. What does Women's Running need saving from? Women's Running is doing perfectly fine at the moment between Mu, Hassan, Kipyegon, Gidey, Jepchirchir. We good.

Because taking a contaminated supplement is still a doping infraction (the rule saying an athlete is responsible for all 'food' intake) and she knew she'd get a six months to two year ban. Her team chose the 'contaminated meat' defence hoping to get no ban as that has worked for other athletes. Their big mistake was choosing pork offal as the meat.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.

Another 42 pages of doping denial coming up. I would suggest a psychiatrist if it would help. But it wouldn't.

The CAS argued “how it got there”? Oh that would be a value added contribution.

Just to be sure, can you quote the relevant parts of that argument?

Thanks in advance.

Para 90 of decision is of help.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The CAS argued “how it got there”? Oh that would be a value added contribution.

Just to be sure, can you quote the relevant parts of that argument?

Thanks in advance.

It got there because she doped, not because she ate a burrito. That part of their reasoning that you find hard to follow.

No actual evidence that she cheated ,rathercould not account for it.

vdjames wrote:

No actual evidence that she cheated ,rathercould not account for it.

There is almost never 100% proof that a doper used the drug intentionally. Even when caught for EPO, the injection could have been given in their sleep. When caught with an ABP violation, the experts use a 99.99% or 99.999% threshold. See Kiptum's case.

Here, someone could have added the nandrolone to her toothpaste, for example. Or her sunscreen. Or she mistakenly took somebody else's mislabeled roid cream, thinking it's sunscreen. In theory. With a very very very tiny chance of it to be true, especially since she never mentioned any of that.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This is a dead-end — “intentional ADRV” is the correct term (see TAS-CAS link to the media release below).

The “catch”

Oh come on. No catch. You are the one insisting that "drug cheat" is not to be used because CAS didn't say so. And now you are arguing against using the words that CAS said, despite them being "the correct term", because they are a synonym for "drug cheat" - unless you want to argue that doping is not cheating:

"intentional ADRV" with the drug nandrolone --> intentional anti-doping rule violator with a drug --> intentional doper --> drug cheat.

Surely you are learned enough to be able to read the WADA code for yourself, and understand my point. After all you similarly noted that WADA redefined “endogenous” in a way that is non-standard.

Somehow the conversation drifted to you attempting to represent what my preference is. My preference is accuracy and avoiding ambiguity and avoiding deception.

I would be fine with anyone using the correct term “intentional ADRV” so long as everyone has the same common understanding 1) that it is WADA’s “special” definition of “intentional”, solely for this purpose and 2) that it is a “presumption” that was not demonstrated, shown, determined, or found, neither by the AIU nor the CAS, but rather one of the presumptions that failed to be rebutted by the athlete, according to the CAS panel in their report.

“Drug cheat” and “intentional doping” are your terms, not used by the CAS or by WADA.

As WADA broadened the meaning of “intentional”, the mundane meanings of these expressions are surely not a synonym for what WADA means by “intentional” ADRV.

vdjames wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The CAS argued “how it got there”? Oh that would be a value added contribution.

Just to be sure, can you quote the relevant parts of that argument?

Thanks in advance.

Para 90 of decision is of help.

Thanks, but hat’s not quite what Armstronglivs said.

I’m aware the athlete had to make an argument, but he said the CAS made arguments.

43 pages and still no answers to the two key questions for Houlihan supporters:

1. How did boar offal get into her burrito when it is stated in the CAS report that the food truck buys it's meat from a plant that does not process boar? Did it sneak in on its own?

2. How did Houlihan end up with 2-3 times more nandrolone in her system than could possibly have come from the burrito she ate? An uninjured expert witness t studied that Houlihan would have to have eaten at least two boar offal burritos to have the level of nandrolone found in her test. Apparently, she didn't even finish one. So, how did she get so much nandrolone in her system if she didn't dope?

Instead of looking for loopholes and technicalities to get her off the hook, let's focus on the facts.

You make full and reasonable sense.

High hopes wrote:

43 pages and still no answers to the two key questions for Houlihan supporters:

1. How did boar offal get into her burrito when it is stated in the CAS report that the food truck buys it's meat from a plant that does not process boar? Did it sneak in on its own?

2. How did Houlihan end up with 2-3 times more nandrolone in her system than could possibly have come from the burrito she ate? An uninjured expert witness t studied that Houlihan would have to have eaten at least two boar offal burritos to have the level of nandrolone found in her test. Apparently, she didn't even finish one. So, how did she get so much nandrolone in her system if she didn't dope?

Instead of looking for loopholes and technicalities to get her off the hook, let's focus on the facts.

Sabotage or supplements.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It got there because she doped, not because she ate a burrito. That part of their reasoning that you find hard to follow.

Maybe I skimmed too fast over the relevant parts. All I saw were arguments, not from the CAS, but from the AIU, and their experts, about one way how it probably or likely didn’t get there.

If you could just quote the relevant CAS reasoning that you are referring too, that would help avoid another 42 pages, and we can nip this right in the bud.

Do you have a quote, or a paragraph number, or a page number, or some other tangible reference to help me find the CAS reasoning you suggest exists? I can’t follow something if I couldn’t find it.

Thanks in advance for your specificity, and avoiding making it personal.

The CAS finding that she tested positive for nandrolone and had no plausible excuse for it, resulting in a 4 year ban. Hard for you to swallow, I know. But as a denier you will continue to look for excuses against all the evidence. She doped - and then lied about it. So you support a liar as well as a doper. Course you do. You are a stranger to truth. 42 pages shows that.

If you are insane.

When did she lie?

.