Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sadly - no, with a comprehension impairment like yours. The decision was as I have just summarized - but for you that decision simply remains stuck in your throat. You do everything you can to depict it as something other than what it is. It isn't.

Do you understand the question? Can you find “the arguments by CAS of how it got there” in that decision? I can comprehend numbers: a paragraph number or a page number would answer the question.

I’ll just have to accept your honest and frank concession that sadly, even you cannot make sense of what you say.

I suggest you see a psychiatrist. The arguments are in the decision, which are essentially that it was confirmed and not disputed that Houlihan tested positive for a banned drug that she could not credibly account for with the explanation she offered. The conclusion is therefore that she had doped - and that is the only relevant conclusion. Speculation about other possibilities for the presence of the drug in her system is nonsense incapable of substantiation. She presented no defence other than the "burrito" story - and that was comprehensively dismissed by the Court. The only alternative is that she had doped. That is "how it got there", for those of impaired understanding. Who cares how she doped? All this is comprehensible to anyone except those who have an obsession with arguing that doping convictions do not mean an athlete has doped. Your denial of irrefutable fact for more than 40 pages is a disease of the mind.

ihatejoe wrote:

While this should be an apolitical issue, Shelby comes from a very patriotic city, county and state. This makes me more prone to support her position as I think she was raised in a highly moral environment. I blame the liberal Nike lawyers for this improbable story and believe that supplements are the true source of this positive. She should not have given in to the lawyers and taken the consequences of inadvertent use. She is a victim here.

Well, that settles it. You can't be a doper if you were raised in the right state. Perhaps you meant right-wing state?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sadly - no, with a comprehension impairment like yours. The decision was as I have just summarized - but for you that decision simply remains stuck in your throat. You do everything you can to depict it as something other than what it is. It isn't.

Do you understand the question? Can you find “the arguments by CAS of how it got there” in that decision? I can comprehend numbers: a paragraph number or a page number would answer the question.

I’ll just have to accept your honest and frank concession that sadly, even you cannot make sense of what you say.

CAS rejected the BTC legal team explanation of how the nadrolone got in shelby system. CAs was not asked or required to explain how it got there .

CAS intern wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Do you understand the question? Can you find “the arguments by CAS of how it got there” in that decision? I can comprehend numbers: a paragraph number or a page number would answer the question.

I’ll just have to accept your honest and frank concession that sadly, even you cannot make sense of what you say.

CAS rejected the BTC legal team explanation of how the nadrolone got in shelby system. CAs was not asked or required to explain how it got there .

Absolutely.

The CAS was not asked to argue how it got there.

The CAS was not required to argue how it got there.

The CAS made no such arguments of how it got there.

They did accept AIU arguments of how it probably did not get there.

Yet Armstronglivs accused me of “Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.”

He cannot explain this.

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

The arguments are in the decision, which are essentially …/quote]

Do you understand the question? Do you understand what you said earlier?

“… which are essentially …” is not what you said before, and we are not discussing your “which are essentially …” interpretations of a decision you clearly haven’t read.

You are lying, mainly to yourself — “the arguments by CAS of how it got there” are plainly not in the decision.

CAS was not asked to, was not required to, and did not give any such arguments.

I think everyone would appreciate it if you stop lying and pretending it’s my fault that you comment on things you haven’t read or simply don’t know.

Reposted with endquote fixed …

Armstronglivs wrote:

The arguments are in the decision, which are essentially …

Do you understand the question? Do you understand what you said earlier?

“… which are essentially …” is not what you said before, and we are not discussing your “which are essentially …” interpretations of a decision you clearly haven’t read.

You are lying, mainly to yourself — “the arguments by CAS of how it got there” are plainly not in the decision.

CAS was not asked to, was not required to, and did not give any such arguments.

I think everyone would appreciate it if you stop lying and pretending it’s my fault that you comment on things you haven’t read or simply don’t know.

Here are some quotes from another thread, from “sportsintegrityiniative” articles, that don’t really belong there, but are better included here, suggesting that the problem isn’t the CAS decision, but the WADA code itself, which was changed to shift the burden of proving “unintentional” to the athletes. It’s estimated that this applies to 5-15% of doping cases, or as high as 40-60% by a USOC ombudsman.

Some more quotes:

(Tygart): “… the Code in certain cases, railroads innocent athletes into four year sanctions. At our last count, we recorded 27 cases where athletes did absolutely nothing wrong but were treated like intentional cheats.”

“As Tygart highlights, the Code treats athletes as guilty of a doping offence unless they can prove that they are innocent.”

“As a result, that 0.6% (of ADRVs) also includes athletes that were sanctioned as they couldn’t conclusively prove that they are innocent. Assessing intent in anti-doping is hugely problematic, as an athlete’s first line of defence will always be that they didn’t intentionally cheat. However from conversations with NADOs over the years, it is estimated that somewhere between 5% and 15% of cases are considered unintentional.”

More quotes from another sportsintegrityinitiative link about the recent history of “intent”, and the shifting of the burden of “intent” to the athlete:

“Proving intentional doping is notoriously difficult.”

“This difficulty in proving intent was why the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) abandoned the ‘aggravating circumstances’ provision within the 2009 World Anti-Doping Code that allowed the standard two-year ban to be scaled up to four years. The burden of proof in establishing ‘aggravating circumstances’ was so high that it was almost never used. Instead, the 2015 Code opted for a standard sanction of four years that could be reduced down if – for example – an athlete could prove that use of a substance was non-intentional.”

“In effect, the 2015 Code reversed the burden of proof from innocent until proven guilty. An athlete is now considered guilty unless they can prove that they are innocent.”

“This is dangerous to athletes.”

“Not every athlete that is sanctioned for doping intends to cheat.”

“For the same reasons that it is difficult to prove intentional doping, it is difficult to put an exact figure on the number of athletes sanctioned for doping who did not intend to cheat.”

“At Tacking Doping in Sport 2013, Athlete Ombudsman for the US Olympic Committee (USOC) John Ruger said that between 40% and 60% of US doping cases are inadvertent – i.e. non-intentional.”

CAS, governed by Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act, having considered exhibits, witness statements and expert evidence, adjucated that the alleged facts about Shelby Houlihan presented to them were true, accurate and produced the consequence envisaged by the party.

The concept of Burden of Proof has been described by CAS as follows:

According to the general rules and principles of law, facts pleaded have to be proved by those who plead them [...]This means, in practice, that when a party invokes a specific right it is required to prove such facts as normally comprise the right invoked, while the other party is required to prove such facts as exclude, or prevent, the efficacy of the facts proved, upon which the right in question is

based.

Under Swiss law, the burden of proof is an issue pertaining to the merits of the dispute. It follows that each time the decision under appeal has been rendered by a governing body in Switzerland – or according to sports regulations containing a choice of law clause in favour of Swiss law – the CAS Panel can rely on the principle set out in Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code (SCC), according to which: Unless the law provides otherwise, the burden of proving the existence of an alleged fact shall rest on the person who derives rights from that fact.

Examples of some instances in which a burden is imposed on the athlete, like it was on Houlihan, to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances include:

A. Art. 3.2.142 of the WADC (in relation to contesting the validity of sample analysis and custodial procedures);

B. Article 10.4 (in relation to specified substances), which imposes the burden on the athlete to establish:

a. how the substance entered his or her system; and

b. that the substance was not intended to enhance the athlete’s performance or mask the use of a performance enhancing substance; and

(mods, fix the edit feature, please)

C. Articles 10.5.1 and 10.5.2 (in relation to other substances), which impose the burden on the athlete to establish:

a. how the substance entered his or system; and

b. that the athlete bears no fault or negligence, or no significant fault or

negligence.

rekrunner wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

The arguments are in the decision, which are essentially …/quote]

Do you understand the question? Do you understand what you said earlier?

“… which are essentially …” is not what you said before, and we are not discussing your “which are essentially …” interpretations of a decision you clearly haven’t read.

You are lying, mainly to yourself — “the arguments by CAS of how it got there” are plainly not in the decision.

CAS was not asked to, was not required to, and did not give any such arguments.

I think everyone would appreciate it if you stop lying and pretending it’s my fault that you comment on things you haven’t read or simply don’t know.

So much self-justifying drivel. How the drug got in Houlihan was through doping, because CAS rejected her explanation of food contamination. All that is in the decision. Once CAS rejected the burrito story it was left with the only logical alternative: she doped. The tests confirmed that. That's "how it got there" - and that was the CAS finding, resulting in a 4 year ban. Your obsession with semantics shows how little you understand basic English. Your fixation is with trying to deny the irrefutable. You are quite the full bunch of AXIS-IV disorders.

rekrunner wrote:

CAS intern wrote:

CAS rejected the BTC legal team explanation of how the nadrolone got in shelby system. CAs was not asked or required to explain how it got there .

Absolutely.

The CAS was not asked to argue how it got there.

The CAS was not required to argue how it got there.

The CAS made no such arguments of how it got there.

They did accept AIU arguments of how it probably did not get there.

Yet Armstronglivs accused me of “Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.”

He cannot explain this.

CAS determined it got there through doping because there was no credible alternative explanation offered. Once it painstakingly dismissed Houlihan's defence all that was left was that she doped. And that's what it decided.

Your denial is in your seeking to find any explanation for the presence of nandrolone but doping. For 42 pages. It will be with your dying breath.

Kyle Merber said it very well:

Kyle Merber wrote:

"At this point, the majority of non-biased fans do not believe that a burrito was the cause of the failed test. Despite the dissertation by an anonymous author, the CAS findings overwhelmingly determined that the probability of that meal being the catalyst was close to zero. It is clearly a story that was reverse-engineered as Shelby and her team desperately search for answers. And while they do that, can you blame them?

Her friends are doing what friends do and truly believe she is innocent — there is not some crazy Nike conspiracy theory to sway public opinion behind their support. We know what those templated social media posts look like and this isn’t that.

.

I disagree. Her friends can't be that naive and lie for her because they think she is innocent.

Also, Shelby and her supporters did not "desperately search for answers"; rather they searched for an excuse that at least some fans would fall for. Obviously the absurd beef burrito - which actually had to be uncastrated boar (who had a rare sexual disorder and was fed soy instead of corn like his siblings and also had inexplicably high androgen) offal (which included lots of kidney and liver instead of the normal stomach muscle offal) - story loaded with what ifs without evidence, would get laughed out of court, but it was enough to convince some hardcore fans who wouldn't pay attention to those details ("Sure, nandrolene can come from meat, we all know that, and Shelby would never dope").

Members of the BTC pretty much have to say they believe her because, if they don't, they run the risk of the finger pointing at the program rather than the athlete.

The reason they came up with was likely purposely not researchable or repeatable to any certainty at all. For instance, if it is said that the substance was in a supplement, the supplement would need to be produced and tested. So that was a non starter.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So much self-justifying drivel. How the drug got in Houlihan was through doping, because CAS rejected her explanation of food contamination. All that is in the decision. Once CAS rejected the burrito story it was left with the only logical alternative: she doped. The tests confirmed that. That's "how it got there" - and that was the CAS finding, resulting in a 4 year ban. Your obsession with semantics shows how little you understand basic English. Your fixation is with trying to deny the irrefutable. You are quite the full bunch of AXIS-IV disorders.

None of this explains why you say the CAS argued how it got there.

They made no such argument, and drew no such conclusion.

casual obsever wrote:

I disagree. Her friends can't be that naive and lie for her because they think she is innocent.

Also, Shelby and her supporters did not "desperately search for answers"; rather they searched for an excuse that at least some fans would fall for. Obviously the absurd beef burrito - which actually had to be uncastrated boar (who had a rare sexual disorder and was fed soy instead of corn like his siblings and also had inexplicably high androgen) offal (which included lots of kidney and liver instead of the normal stomach muscle offal) - story loaded with what ifs without evidence, would get laughed out of court, but it was enough to convince some hardcore fans who wouldn't pay attention to those details ("Sure, nandrolene can come from meat, we all know that, and Shelby would never dope").

Her friends can be that naive. You have Centro's were both from running families absurdity, the red herring superspikes thing, and so on. It's in their best interest to believe her, and she can probably look them in the eyes and say she didn't knowingly dope with nandrolone. It's probably true, but it came from somewhere else and not a burrito.

Fada tyme is right on the second point. They couldn't find an easy-to-blame provable thing e.g. she couldn't exonerated. You can't claim a bad supplement if it's a) illegal in any way --> then showing it would defeat the purpose b) is provably not the reason. The pork burrito was one where it's plausible with the timing and it's not demonstrably false so you hope AIU/CAS don't take it to the logical conclusion and poke holes in that Hail Mary tactic.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So much self-justifying drivel. How the drug got in Houlihan was through doping, because CAS rejected her explanation of food contamination. All that is in the decision. Once CAS rejected the burrito story it was left with the only logical alternative: she doped. The tests confirmed that. That's "how it got there" - and that was the CAS finding, resulting in a 4 year ban. Your obsession with semantics shows how little you understand basic English. Your fixation is with trying to deny the irrefutable. You are quite the full bunch of AXIS-IV disorders.

None of this explains why you say the CAS argued how it got there.

They made no such argument, and drew no such conclusion.

You can take a horse to water - but you can do nothing with a horse's a*rse.

rekrunner wrote:

CAS intern wrote:

CAS rejected the BTC legal team explanation of how the nadrolone got in shelby system. CAs was not asked or required to explain how it got there .

Absolutely.

The CAS was not asked to argue how it got there.

The CAS was not required to argue how it got there.

The CAS made no such arguments of how it got there.

They did accept AIU arguments of how it probably did not get there.

Yet Armstronglivs accused me of “Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.”

He cannot explain this.

No , Armstrong accuse you of denying the explanation CAS put forwards and the reason Shelby lost the appeal. You haven’t put anything together that counters the CAS explanation. You lack the understanding of what an appeal is, it is a debate on evidence that was put forward by Nike . It is not a process to introduce new evidence or theories. You are losing this debate because you actually don’t understand the process.