Never thought about tampering or the lack of it.
AIU are very keen to throw that into the hat so why not charge her with that?
Never thought about tampering or the lack of it.
AIU are very keen to throw that into the hat so why not charge her with that?
fatty nat wrote:Never thought about tampering or the lack of it.
AIU are very keen to throw that into the hat so why not charge her with that?
That's rarely done. They didn't even do that in case of Coleman, although his receipts showed that he lied. Kipsang for example got it for providing fake evidence.
pupil3142 wrote:
can we just confirm; is rekrunner really introducing the 'kenyans eat boar' defence?
please confirm / deny because this is a real new low.
Not all Kenyans, as I did acknowledge that some Kenyans fail to keep doctors records, suggesting they likely received banned substances from a doctor (or pharmacist), either intentionally or oblivious to the risk.
Not sure I can take the full credit for introducing a defense, by just raising obvious questions about a system that makes no difference between genuine intentional ingestion, and presuming intent in cases of accidental ingestion that fail to be argued unintentional on the balance of probabilities.
“moultonk” did some rather thorough investigation and reported 1-month ago:
In Kenya, 49% of 182 small-scale farmers in one study did not practice castration on their male pigs ("Characteristics of the smallholder free-range pig production system in western Kenya", 2009).
In Ethiopia, where one study of 90 pig owners found that only 13% of them employed castration on their male piglets "Assessment of Pig Production and Constraints in Mecha District, Amhara Region, Northwestern Ethiopia", 2014).
This probably means the US figure of 0.33% boar in pork production is not applicable in other countries with different standards.
I think the lesson to be learned, for all athletes, from all nations, worldwide, subject to the burden of having to prove “no intent”, is the importance of keeping samples of everything you ingest.
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
I looked at a few definitions of cheating, and they all involve some element of dishonesty and deception to gain an advantage.
Neither of these elements appear in the CAS report.
You don't think doping involves "some element of dishonesty and deception to gain advantage"? It is a banned practice, and so athletes tend not to be open about the fact they are doing it. But you wouldn't call their concealment of their doping "dishonesty and deception". Or even cheating?
If Houlihan had admitted to the world that she was doping she would have been sanctioned - so she didn't. That doesn't involve "some element of dishonesty and deception"? Your capacity for self-deception is endless.
Maybe.
I thought we were characterizing what was in the CAS decision, as opposed to arguing something that isn’t for 55 pages.
The CAS did not decide deception or dishonesty for the purpose of gaining an advantage.
On the contrary, the CAS called Houlihan a credible witness.
she'd have been on a mix of EPO and nandralone,and possibly winstrol as well.top athletes dont limit themselves to one drug.they take cocktails.
No, the lesson learned is to be careful about what you put into your body. Houlihan didn't have to buy burritos from the food truck. Not having the bad test results in the first place is far better than taking something out of the freezer as evidence for an appeal. What's to stop Nike from going out on a nationwide search to find some offal to stuff in the burrito?
casual obsever wrote:
fatty nat wrote:Never thought about tampering or the lack of it.
AIU are very keen to throw that into the hat so why not charge her with that?
That's rarely done. They didn't even do that in case of Coleman, although his receipts showed that he lied. Kipsang for example got it for providing fake evidence.
I was surprised at Coleman not been done for tampering.
But they did Mark Dry with no other offence.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
No, the lesson learned is to be careful about what you put into your body. Houlihan didn't have to buy burritos from the food truck. Not having the bad test results in the first place is far better than taking something out of the freezer as evidence for an appeal. What's to stop Nike from going out on a nationwide search to find some offal to stuff in the burrito?
Why bring Nike into it?
Now that we've seen the TD process for the WADA labs, why shouldn't every women start taking birth control -- then it would be legal up to 3x what she tested positive for. No need to "cheat" with low amounts from boar offal burritos.
20-20 hindsight is helpful after the fact, but what exactly is so careless about buying legitimate USDA approved food off of a food truck and eating it? It's hard for any athlete to know what "be careful" means practically, before any AAF. What is the red flag signal to an athlete that buying food off of a food truck carries any risk of an AAF? What other places would an athlete have to exercise such care? Organic food stores? Local supermarkets? Exotic restaurants?
Well eating at the food truck wasn't careless, since that's not the reason she got popped for doping. So she wouldn't have to worry about that.
S. Houlihan had three choices day 1: 1) Tell the truth as did some N.F.L. guys when positive steroid test; 2) Say nothing; 3) Come up with a grand lie that you believe, and a few clowns on this site believe.
S. HOULIHAN DID NOT GET STEROIDS IN HER BLOOD FROM A FOOD TRUCK.
Back to page 1 wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
No, the lesson learned is to be careful about what you put into your body. Houlihan didn't have to buy burritos from the food truck. Not having the bad test results in the first place is far better than taking something out of the freezer as evidence for an appeal. What's to stop Nike from going out on a nationwide search to find some offal to stuff in the burrito?
S. Houlihan had three choices day 1: 1) Tell the truth as did some N.F.L. guys when positive steroid test; 2) Say nothing; 3) Come up with a grand lie that you believe, and a few clowns on this site believe.
S. HOULIHAN DID NOT GET STEROIDS IN HER BLOOD FROM A FOOD TRUCK.
What should she have said if she did not have a clue how it got in her system ?
And the account she suggested was her best assumption and as such not a lie.
I do not accept was she said caused the positive but I don’t think it was a lie; rather a unfounded opinion.
When my 4 year old nephew breaks something and spins a fanciful tale of anthropomorphized woodland creatures having startled him and caused him to break the object, I don't accept that as an "unfounded opinion". Quit making up weasel words for a lie.
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
When my 4 year old nephew breaks something and spins a fanciful tale of anthropomorphized woodland creatures having startled him and caused him to break the object, I don't accept that as an "unfounded opinion". Quit making up weasel words for a lie.
Panel found her credible and she was not done for tampering.
sanootage wrote:
Back to page 1 wrote:
S. Houlihan had three choices day 1: 1) Tell the truth as did some N.F.L. guys when positive steroid test; 2) Say nothing; 3) Come up with a grand lie that you believe, and a few clowns on this site believe.
S. HOULIHAN DID NOT GET STEROIDS IN HER BLOOD FROM A FOOD TRUCK.
What should she have said if she did not have a clue how it got in her system ?
And the account she suggested was her best assumption and as such not a lie.
I do not accept was she said caused the positive but I don’t think it was a lie; rather a unfounded opinion.
Does the "you" in #3 refer to me? I don't believe the burrito was a possible source for the nandrolone.
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
Well eating at the food truck wasn't careless, since that's not the reason she got popped for doping. So she wouldn't have to worry about that.
If we are sticking with the decision, no one identified the source of the nandrolone.
I just used "Nike" as catch-all since so many believe Nike was involved.
My response was to the poster's recommendation that athletes should throw a leftover portion of whatever they eat in the freezer. CAS determined that it was highly implausible that the burrito contained nandrolone. Evidence provided by the athlete that was entirely under her control would not change that.
As I've posted before, every other other athlete that was going to the OT, besides Houlihan, managed not to be banned. If the other places you listed were legitimate possibilities, it just seems likely that multiple athletes would have tested over the nandrolone limits.
I don't know how the nandrolone got in her system but once the results came back from the lab, it was over for her.
If we are sticking with the decision, they did rule out the food truck as the source or else she would have won her appeal. Your silliness is amusing.
Adam Smith, Communist wrote:
If we are sticking with the decision, they did rule out the food truck as the source or else she would have won her appeal. Your silliness is amusing.
Re write please.
flyingfrog wrote:
Cliff notes please
Huh?
First item is the cliff notes.
Basically, we don't know where it came from so she's guilty
The Unkle wrote:
flyingfrog wrote:
Cliff notes please
Huh?
First item is the cliff notes.
Basically, we don't know where it came from so she's guilty
Yes ; strict liability.