Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

CAS intern wrote:

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.

Which is it? The other possible explanations don’t exist (except in my head), or they do exist but were not explored?

More than one poster has said that “dismissing” the burrito story is a finding that she doped with synthetic nandrolone, an other explanation not explored by the CAS.

sanootage wrote:

What if the pig was pilled up?

That is what farmers do.

Maybe, but I have the impression that Oregon farmers tend to more natural and humane treatment of animals, many opting to raise their pigs without physical castration.

CAS intern wrote:

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.

You seem to be under some false impression that I do not understand the process.

I understand that the process changed in 2015, making it harder for legal teams like Shelby’s to win.

I understand at least one key anti-doping figure thinks the process is broken.

Some posters and “fans” seem to think “losing” means her story was found by the CAS to be completely false, when the process clearly defines that “losing” means below the standard of “balance of probabilities”. The percentages serve to make it clear that “0%” is not the same as “0-49%”.

rekrunner wrote:

sanootage wrote:

What if the pig was pilled up?

That is what farmers do.

Maybe, but I have the impression that Oregon farmers tend to more natural and humane treatment of animals, many opting to raise their pigs without physical castration.

I think that most boars would appreciate a shot of Deca .

rekrunner wrote:

CAS intern wrote:

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.

Which is it? The other possible explanations don’t exist (except in my head), or they do exist but were not explored?

More than one poster has said that “dismissing” the burrito story is a finding that she doped with synthetic nandrolone, an other explanation not explored by the CAS.

Exactly.

We and the panel just do not know and the panel were not charged with having to find out.

sanootage wrote:

I think that most boars would appreciate a shot of Deca .

That is so unlikely that not even the defense brought it up.

I too, as previously said, find the use of intentional ADVR as not meaning doper.

rekrunner wrote:

So when the CAS writes “intentional ADRV”, and you write “intentional doper”, they do not have the same meaning.

In your opinion, maybe. But I note that you are neither CAS nor Wada nor me.

Armstronglivs wrote:

sanootage wrote:

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.

She did not “ make up a story”.

She was asked for what she thought might have happened this was an opinion and not stated as a fact.

You know this.

I have a car crash, I think a tyre burst and that is my explanation but a examination of the car shows that the steering broke. That does not make my first explanation a lie.

Even you can grasp that analogy.

When I talk about justice for innocent athletes, I think it is important to understand that the CAS has to make a determination based on incomplete information. They may arrive at a decision based on the limited information before them, in line with the WADA code, but that doesn’t mean, using Tygart’s words, that an innocent athlete was not railroaded to a 4-year sanction.[/quote]

CAS made a decision based on tests that confirmed the presence of a banned drug in Houlihan's body and after considering and rejecting her attempted excuse because on expert assessment it lacked credibility in the eyes of the Court. That is only "incomplete information" to a doping apologist. There was no other information presented to the Court for it to arrive at any other decision. There is absolutely nothing in the CAS decision that suggests "an innocent athlete was railroaded to a 4 year sanction". You have no evidence for it, she had no evidence for it, and only a doping denier would claim otherwise. Your claims are baseless. But because you are quite insane you will keep denying her guilt for as many pages as this thread exists.

Schumacher/Shalane came out with a very uncharacteristic defense, but now, their silence speaks volumes.

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.

Not a doper as being a doper was never tested and strict liability does not require this.

sanootage wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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

She did not “ make up a story”.

She was asked for what she thought might have happened this was an opinion and not stated as a fact.

You know this.

I have a car crash, I think a tyre burst and that is my explanation but a examination of the car shows that the steering broke. That does not make my first explanation a lie.

Even you can grasp that analogy.

She wasn't asked for what "might have happened"; she tried to present an innocent explanation for the presence of a banned drug in her system. She failed because it wasn't believable. The Court decided she had doped, because there was no alternative explanation that it could accept. Hence, she is now serving a doping ban. To use your driving analogy, she tried to argue a burst tyre for an infringement of reckless driving. There was no burst tyre - and no broken steering. Another fantasy.

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.

Not a doper as being a doper was never tested and strict liability does not require this.

A doper is proven by a doping conviction. No semantic arguments change that.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

So when the CAS writes “intentional ADRV”, and you write “intentional doper”, they do not have the same meaning.

In your opinion, maybe. But I note that you are neither CAS nor Wada nor me.

They never tested intentional and never made any reasoning for intentional.

Armstronglivs wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Not a doper as being a doper was never tested and strict liability does not require this.

A doper is proven by a doping conviction. No semantic arguments change that.

It was not a doping conviction.

She was asked for an explanation, the only one that seemed possible was the food.

She never said that she definitely took food that was contaminated.

Your utter twisting of my analogy does you no credit and you know that.

I thought it is likely to be the tyre but examination showed the steering ; have I lied?

There are no percentage tables on the CAS decision. You have these thoughts in your head because you do not understand the process . She lost the case that she submitted . You are trying to educate others with probabilities and percentages , because your random thoughts are interfering with with a structure decision that has been concluded.

sanootage wrote:

She never said that she definitely took food that was contaminated.

No. You are going in circles. As cited before, point 8 of the CAS report:

In brief, the Athlete maintained that the 19-NA entered her body by eating a burrito from a food truck containing pork offal and that the burrito was the only possible source of the 19-NA in the Sample.

No supplement, no toothpaste; according to Shelby, "the burrito was the only possible source".

But then, she is also mysteriously hinting to her supplements as a possible source on social media. More obfuscation/PR, contradicting what she said earlier.