Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

When I bring up the existence of other explanations, it is only to show that “doping/cheating/lying with synthetic nandrolone” is not the last remaining option after CAS was unpersuaded by the burrito as the source.

There are no explanations outside the Court's decision. "Other explanations" do not "exist" except in your head. Your alternatives are merely UFO fantasies, that were not put before the Court - by anyone - or decided by the Court. A psych awaits you.

Then we should reject your explanation too.

Armstronglivs wrote:

There are only two options. The drug either occurred accidentally in her system, or it didn't. The Court rejected the accidental explanation. But for 50 pages there are posters who can't accept that.

Just point us to the parts in the report where the CAS “rejected” “accidental” ingestion, and we can put this to bed right here on page 51.

If you cannot find it in the report, then we must not accept your explanation, because there are no explanations outside the Court’s decision.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

There are no explanations outside the Court's decision. "Other explanations" do not "exist" except in your head. Your alternatives are merely UFO fantasies, that were not put before the Court - by anyone - or decided by the Court. A psych awaits you.

Then we should reject your explanation too.

I don't have an "explanation"; I simply go with the decision, which is that CAS confirmed a doping violation while rejecting Houlihan's attempted excuse of accidental contamination. It appears your IQ is insufficient to grasp this outcome. Your alternative explanations are meanwhile the pure product of your imagination. That's what a psychosis can do.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I don't have an "explanation"; I simply go with the decision, which is that CAS confirmed a doping violation while rejecting Houlihan's attempted excuse of accidental contamination. It appears your IQ is insufficient to grasp this outcome. Your alternative explanations are meanwhile the pure product of your imagination. That's what a psychosis can do.

Then it is settled — even you reject your explanation. We found common ground.

To get you up to speed, I accepted back in June the CAS findings, one by majority, and one unanimously, that Shelby’s team failed to rebut presumptions.

Like you, I rejected several novel explanations that go beyond these CAS findings.

Page 1 of the thread. You never got beyond it.

Athletics Integrity Unit

@aiu_athletics

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has released the full decision regarding Shelby Houlihan🇺🇸

It outlines that the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional as the athlete did not establish the source of a Nandrolone metabolite in her sample.

And then kindly supplied by a previous poster.

quote]RunRaider wrote:

[/quote]

The phrase "deemed to be intentional" necessarily rules out accidental ingestion but is impossible for a doping denier to accept - even though it comes from a court process that gave the athlete in question every opportunity to defend herself. It appears you know more than her defence team, who didn't delve into the realms of conjecture that you entertain. Your fantasising is irrelevant. The ban stands.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I don't have an "explanation"; I simply go with the decision, which is that CAS confirmed a doping violation while rejecting Houlihan's attempted excuse of accidental contamination. It appears your IQ is insufficient to grasp this outcome. Your alternative explanations are meanwhile the pure product of your imagination. That's what a psychosis can do.

Then it is settled — even you reject your explanation. We found common ground.

To get you up to speed, I accepted back in June the CAS findings, one by majority, and one unanimously, that Shelby’s team failed to rebut presumptions.

Like you, I rejected several novel explanations that go beyond these CAS findings.

What is settled is your inability to grasp basic English. Next is your inability to accept the Court's decision that her doping was intentional. Which you will argue for another 50 pages.

So I couldn’t find the terms “rejected” and “accidental” in your selected quotes of the CAS decision, nor the AIU tweet. These must be your own words, which we should reject as nothing exists outside of the CAS decision.

But I see now where we diverge.

When you say “CAS”, you really mean the AIU and the WADA code.

When you say “rejected”, you really mean “found it “possible” but “unlikely/probable””.

When you say “accidental”, you really mean not “intentional”, as redefined by WADA specifically and solely for this purpose.

And you think a “presumption of intent” “necessarily rules out accidental ingestion”.

It looks like the misunderstanding comes entirely from your attempts to paraphrase a decision you obviously have never read, in your own words.

I will continue to reject your simpleton re-interpretations and stick with the contents of the CAS report, interpreted in the context of the WADA code, to understand what the CAS really decided and why.

I very much support you again.

What I can’t understand in the judgement and then the AIU release is that her offence be “deemed”intentional.

Why be “ deemed” intentional. This definitive use of “deemed “ is very strange.

I would lead many to say that she deliberately got herself “ pilled up” ; but the judgement never dealt with such.Strict liability all ready covers the matter: it is in you , you have no mitigation, guilty.

So, what exactly is in the Code or case histories that causes the word “ deemed” to appear.

Please let this be addressed without overly direct reference to this case in hand.

sanootage wrote:

What I can’t understand in the judgement and then the AIU release is that her offence be “deemed”intentional.

Why be “ deemed” intentional. This definitive use of “deemed “ is very strange.

I would lead many to say that she deliberately got herself “ pilled up” ; but the judgement never dealt with such.Strict liability all ready covers the matter: it is in you , you have no mitigation, guilty.

So, what exactly is in the Code or case histories that causes the word “ deemed” to appear.

Please let this be addressed without overly direct reference to this case in hand.

Both the AIU and the CAS say it must be deemed, but I could find nothing in the WADA code containing this necessity to deem it as such. I don’t know if case histories require it either. Deeming it as intentional seems gratuitous.

The WADA code says the ban is 4 years unless the athlete can establish “unintentional”.

There is no need in the WADA code to deem it intentional to apply the 4-year ban.

The only need is to decide if the athlete could or could not establish “unintent”.

Treating it as an either/or false dichotomy ignores genuine cases where it truly was “unintended ingestion”, but the athlete simply did not, or could not, establish it to the burden of proof standard required, in part because the best evidence was long destroyed or consumed.

Note also that the WADA code broadens the definition of intent to include all:

“conduct which (the athlete) 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.”

In the specific case of Shelby, neither the World Athletics, nor the AIU, nor their experts, nor the CAS identified which conduct meets this definition, so I cannot explain why it “must be deemed” intentional.

I re looked at 86 to 90 in the decision which sort of helps. Perhaps you could have a look.

Why have intentional within the Code when the Code is based on strict liability.

I doubt that I can anywhere see such a torrent of meaningless verbal diarrhea as you continually deliver on these pages. If an act is intentional it cannot be accidental - although the latter is not necessary to say because it is logically implicit. You are an absolute f*cking moron.

Because that which isn't accidental is intentional, you f*ckwit.

As used in Rule 10.2, the term 'intentional' is meant to identify those Athletes or other Persons who engage in conduct that 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.

https://www.worldathletics.org/download/download?filename=a8b9e3d1-b992-4996-bb31-84e5961cb20b.pdf&urlslug=D3.1%20-%20Anti-Doping%20Rules%20(1%20January%202021)

Shelby's team had no other defense outside of the wild boar theory.

This theory and of it being unintentional was shot down by CAS.

Therefore, as Nandrolone was discovered in her body, from a drug test she completed, she was charged with an Adverse Analytical Finding.

She was 'deemed' to have intentionally broken the rules given the absence of being unable to justify why this substance was in her body.

gumpyrunner wrote:

Shelby's team had no other defense outside of the wild boar theory.

This theory and of it being unintentional was shot down by CAS.

Therefore, as Nandrolone was discovered in her body, from a drug test she completed, she was charged with an Adverse Analytical Finding.

She was 'deemed' to have intentionally broken the rules given the absence of being unable to justify why this substance was in her body.

You are correct - I have essentially said the same, as have others - but it will not deter the deniers here for another 50 pages.

Armstronglivs wrote:

gumpyrunner wrote:

Shelby's team had no other defense outside of the wild boar theory.

This theory and of it being unintentional was shot down by CAS.

Therefore, as Nandrolone was discovered in her body, from a drug test she completed, she was charged with an Adverse Analytical Finding.

She was 'deemed' to have intentionally broken the rules given the absence of being unable to justify why this substance was in her body.

You are correct - I have essentially said the same, as have others - but it will not deter the deniers here for another 50 pages.

Read comment to rule 10.2.3

This devises of the use of the word intent from the judgement from the use in the penalty.

You confuse the two.

Hence “deemed”.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I doubt that I can anywhere see such a torrent of meaningless verbal diarrhea as you continually deliver on these pages. If an act is intentional it cannot be accidental - although the latter is not necessary to say because it is logically implicit. You are an absolute f*cking moron.

You don’t proof-read your own posts?

I thought you said nothing exists if it is not in the report.

“accidental” does not appear in the report.

Where in the report can we find which act, specifically, that Houlihan committed that the CAS considered “intentional”?

While we could treat them as synonyms, it’s complicated by the fact that WADA expands the definition of “intent” to include other conduct besides the implied act of willful ingestion of a banned substance.

As you could see for yourself in the report, the CAS clearly indicates that “intent” is a presumption, and you will not find which act specifically met WADA’s expanded definition of “intent”.

But why introduce all this unnecessary ambiguity — if it really is all the same to you, you should have no objection to choose the set of words that CAS uses mindful of the context that the CAS is bound to. Why do you choose to re-express it with different words which mean different things not necessarily intended by the CAS or by WADA?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Because that which isn't accidental is intentional

But “accidental” isn’t in the CAS report — it doesn’t exist.

sanootage wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You are correct - I have essentially said the same, as have others - but it will not deter the deniers here for another 50 pages.

Read comment to rule 10.2.3

This devises of the use of the word intent from the judgement from the use in the penalty.

You confuse the two.

Hence “deemed”.

Read comment on 10.2.3