Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

rekrunner wrote:

When the CAS says “improbable”, this could be as high as 49.9%.

Okay - let's use 49.9% as improbable. Therefore probable = 50.1%

How many "events" are we talking about here - five or so? (Ordering a burrito getting a wrong one, eating the burrito despite it being the wrong one, not normal pork but a boar, a boar that was uncastrated, but it had to have undescended testes to even get into the food chain, then it had to have elevated androgen levels, but to have the levels that would attribute such a high result (for her) it would have had to have been killed at 6 months, and it's diet would have had to vary from the corn-based diets of bred-to-slaughter pigs in the US. So actually I count up 8. Let's do the numbers on 8 events at a probability of 50.1% as you suggested constitutes plausibly probable.

0.501^8 gives us a plausibly probable value of 0.397%. Less than half a percent probable. And that is why she is banned you absolute reach-around. You should be a lawyer man - you would be GREAT (laughing out loud).

rekrunner wrote:

The expert said 0.33% of boars make it to market, so it would have to be 300 samples, to get that expected 1. Then it would have to be during the pandemic, when there were supply problems and pigs were eating more soy — they may have to test 10000 pork samples.

Lol! You just wrote that a few hours ago, and yet, now you are back to trolling us with a 49.9% chance.

With 49.9%, you don't need to test 300, let alone 10000, to find one positive sample. Test 10, and find 3 - 7.

The pandemic is yet another smokescreen of yours, because it's still ongoing, and Team Shelby learned about the positive test after four weeks. So, what changed with Covid in Oregon between September and October 2020?

sanootage wrote:

There is no evidence that she had intent thus not a cheat.

Said by CAS to be a credible witness.

Judged by CAS to have committed an intentional anti-doping rule violation pursuant to article 2.1/2.2 after testing positive for a forbidden steroid,

Last but not least:

Calling a doper, who denies doping, a liar, is not wrong. And obviously, dopers are cheats.

And didn't you want to stick to the CAS report, instead of imaging a "mob" and hallucinating about "pitch forks" and "witch hunts" and "railroading innocent athletes"? Try to follow your own made-up rules before demanding that from everybody else.

Shelby is an American record holder who cheated just like American record holders Decker and Jacobs did before her.

Now continue talking about how Amercan athletes are cheated out of medals by dopers.

"If you're not cheating, you're not trying, and it's only cheating if you get caught." - Jim Rome

You are the one making up “other possible explanations” they examined Shelby’s explanation , and dismissed it . The other possible explanation are not being explored because they are stuck in your head , and not in the submission by the Shelby h legal team.

shelby is love

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

"If you're not cheating, you're not trying, and it's only cheating if you get caught." - Jim Rome

Jim Rome was successfully sued for having an intern removed when he took pictures of a step stool Rome uses on camera. Rome is a little guy like Ed Sheeran

The percentage scale is an argument that is stuck in your imagination , your lack of understanding the process is driving you to create imaginary scenario’s , and now you cannot separate the illusions in your head and the actual case study Shelby’s legal team just lost. There were no percentage scales or probability references , the probability scales are just random memories you have , maybe from a an old NCIS tv show you watched years ago.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The expert said 0.33% of boars make it to market, so it would have to be 300 samples, to get that expected 1. Then it would have to be during the pandemic, when there were supply problems and pigs were eating more soy — they may have to test 10000 pork samples.

Lol! You just wrote that a few hours ago, and yet, now you are back to trolling us with a 49.9% chance.

With 49.9%, you don't need to test 300, let alone 10000, to find one positive sample. Test 10, and find 3 - 7.

The pandemic is yet another smokescreen of yours, because it's still ongoing, and Team Shelby learned about the positive test after four weeks. So, what changed with Covid in Oregon between September and October 2020?

You are not being very honest.

0.33% was the percentage given by the expert for one factor.

Then you proceeded to multiply that by 0.01x0.01x0.01x0.1, suggesting that I “admit(ted) that the chances for each scenario are 0.33 - 1% (or lower). “ I admitted no such thing.

Whether the pandemic is a smokescreen or not, the CAS report was pretty clear that the pandemic caused supply problems in the pork industry, and pigs ate more soy. This impacts the probability that she ate corn fed meat versus soy fed meat.

casual obsever wrote:

Last but not least:

Calling a doper, who denies doping, a liar, is not wrong. And obviously, dopers are cheats.

And didn't you want to stick to the CAS report, instead of imaging a "mob" and hallucinating about "pitch forks" and "witch hunts" and "railroading innocent athletes"? Try to follow your own made-up rules before demanding that from everybody else.

The panel found her credible.

You are not a liar because you can’t explain what got in your system months ago.

What if the pig was pilled up?

That is what farmers do.

casual obsever wrote:

sanootage wrote:

There is no evidence that she had intent thus not a cheat.

Said by CAS to be a credible witness.

Judged by CAS to have committed an intentional anti-doping rule violation pursuant to article 2.1/2.2 after testing positive for a forbidden steroid,

Yes I read that and also para 90,

There is no evidence that she had any intent and was found credible.

It was that you are caught by strict liability and thus we must say this but with strict liability there is no need to say this.

Very very strange use of words at the very end of the judgement and ones that I don’t think were intended to give the common sense meaning that many attach to it.

I would expect some serious legal opinion on the words used because they run counter to much of the judgement.

sanootage wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Judged by CAS to have committed an intentional anti-doping rule violation pursuant to article 2.1/2.2 after testing positive for a forbidden steroid,

Yes I read that and also para 90,

There is no evidence that she had any intent and was found credible.

It was that you are caught by strict liability and thus we must say this but with strict liability there is no need to say this.

Very very strange use of words at the very end of the judgement and ones that I don’t think were intended to give the common sense meaning that many attach to it.

I would expect some serious legal opinion on the words used because they run counter to much of the judgement.

I repeat that there was no evidence of cheating.

This thread can never end while rekrunner draws breath. A doping conviction arising from confirmed positive tests, with the rejection of a feeble excuse that attempts to depict fast food as the culprit, cannot be the truth of the matter to a mind like his. If he were to admit that she is what she clearly is his world would collapse. So he will cling to his insanity. Forever.

sanootage wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Yes I read that and also para 90,

There is no evidence that she had any intent and was found credible.

It was that you are caught by strict liability and thus we must say this but with strict liability there is no need to say this.

Very very strange use of words at the very end of the judgement and ones that I don’t think were intended to give the common sense meaning that many attach to it.

I would expect some serious legal opinion on the words used because they run counter to much of the judgement.

I repeat that there was no evidence of cheating.

A doping conviction is not "evidence", it is proof of cheating.

It’s easy for non-mathematical people to get confused by percentages and statistics.

Arriving at 0.397% means that out of a pool of 252 athletes, one will probably test positive from this unlikely scenario. It remains a low probability event, but with a significant number of athletes and testing opportunities, would arise frequently.

It is one thing to arrive at general population probabilities. If we had all the data, we could adjust all of the factors for each general probability to accurately reflect the specific case of Houlihan in December 2020 with 100% certainty. Convicting specific athletes without this data, we end up netting dolphins with the tuna. How many? It’s hard to say. NADOs estimate between 5-15% of AAFs are unintentional. A USOC Ombudsman said in the USA, 40-60% was unintentional.

The problem with the principle of “strict liability” and “guilty until proven innocent”, is that all of the burden of collecting all this data falls on the athlete, who is first notified weeks, or sometimes months, when the primary evidence is no longer available.

sanootage wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Last but not least:

Calling a doper, who denies doping, a liar, is not wrong. And obviously, dopers are cheats.

And didn't you want to stick to the CAS report, instead of imaging a "mob" and hallucinating about "pitch forks" and "witch hunts" and "railroading innocent athletes"? Try to follow your own made-up rules before demanding that from everybody else.

The panel found her credible.

You are not a liar because you can’t explain what got in your system months ago.

But you are a liar when you make up a story that isn't believable. It "got in her system" the usual way.