16 Questions That Need To Be Answered In The Shelby Houlihan Case

John_James_413 wrote:

High hopes wrote:

I wrote the other Red Flags thread that you referenced in the your piece. I think it's great that someone from the US T&F media is asking these questions. It was surprising how few questions were asked in the press conference - were journalists intimidated or just shocked? Some further questions you might want to ask:

1. For T&F journalists - Do you think you can report on your subjects impartially? If so, why has it taken a week for any publication to even start questioning the account put forward by the BTC team? I don't object to Jonathan Gault's opinion piece, but it seems to be a bit backwards that the more impartial and critical evaluation has only been published today, but the opinion piece, based on gut reaction which firmly came out for Houlihan's innocence, came out within a day. Not just to pick on LRC, Chris Chavez of Citius didn't ask a single question in the press conference. We're all T&F fans, but journalists have a job to do, even when that involves asking uncomfortable questions of people you like.

2. For Travis Tygart - is it true that you presented Shelby Houlihan's case to the CAS? If so, how can you claim to be an impartial regulator of anti-doping? Is it the responsibility of an anti-doping agency to be defending athletes that have tested positive? Have you defended any other athletes in the CAS? If so, who? If not, then why Houlihan?

3. For BTC and the lawyer - did you consider alternative sources of the contamination? Presumably, Houlihan takes numerous legal supplements and possible medication, is it possible any of these were contaminated? This is why Brenda Martinez was found at no-fault, she could provide evidence that her legal meds contained the banned substance.

4. For Schumacher/BTC - how many of your current athletes are taking thyroid medication or have TUEs? Are you prepared to provide a list of all medication and supplements that BTC athletes are taking or have taken in the last year?

5. For USADA - this is likely a very difficult question to answer, but since Rojo has raised it a couple of times: a USADA source has told LRC that Houlihan would likely have been let off if they had conducted the test. Is this true, and what do you think is the compelling evidence that would have allowed you to exonerate her? Doping is a strict liability offense and the case presented by Houlihan's team is inconsistent, clearly intended to deceive, and provides no firm evidence of the source of contamination. Would you really be prepared to declare an athlete innocent on the basis of a receipt for a burrito which there is no evidence contained pork, plus some iPhone location data? If so, why are your standards of evidence so much lower than the AIUs and does that call into question your fitness for purpose? How can athletes across the globe be confident that USADA is testing athletes properly and applying global anti-doping rules fairly?

Other than these questions, I think that everyone needs to be very careful when discussing USADAs intentions and motivations. USADA is a regulator, but it is also a political body and Travis Tygart operates more like a politician than a technical expert. If you're interested, listen to his interview with the Clean Sport podcast. He is clearly motivated by increasing USADAs influence within WADA and, it seems, believes USADA should hold sway over the world governing body. We can debate that and whether it is right, but it does mean that Travis Tygart and USADA are not impartial observers here, they have motivations beyond just finding dirty athletes. Journalists in particular need to be sceptical when discussing the motives of Tygart and USADA.

You need to learn English better first off.

This just sounds like rambling without any major point.

The only major point in this rambling was when you mentioned something about if her supplements had steroids in them.

Yeah pretty sure the last time I checked supplements DON'T have steroids in them.

Why do you all keep believing this crap?

rekrunner wrote:

Independent thought requires examining all the facts and factors in the case, in context, rather than just accepting the decisions without question. Even Rojo has 16 questions that need to be answered.

rekrunner wrote:

AIU:

1) Why did they classify the test results as an AAF and not an ATF, requiring further testing for confirmation?

rekrunner wrote:WADA:

2) Is Tygart right, and WADA rules need reform, so scarce anti-doping resources are not wasted?

rekrunner wrote:

3) Does the principle of "strict liability" place too much burden on the innocent athlete, placing responsibility for factors not under their control?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It's not your "thought"; it's CAS's decision. Let's try an experiment to see if you are capable of independent thought and not merely given to parroting the views and findings of others: based on what you understand of the case, are you satisfied that CAS came to the correct decision with its determination confirming that Houlihan doped?

That's right -- I expressed my thoughts on the CAS decision, among other things.

Independent thought requires examining all the facts and factors in the case, in context, rather than just accepting the decisions without question. Even Rojo has 16 questions that need to be answered.

Based on what I understand of the case, without all of the facts yet presented, there are a number of questions raised about the process, and the decisions. Here are 16 (+):

CAS:

1) What evidence was presented to the CAS as the source of the nandrolone?

2) Why did they reject the argument to reclassify the AAFs as ATFs? What did the dissenting panelist think?

AIU:

1) Why did they classify the test results as an AAF and not an ATF, requiring further testing for confirmation?

WADA:

1) In the past, the IOC limits for nandrolone were 5ng/ml for women and 2ng/ml for men. Why did they lower the limit for women from 5ng/ml to 2ng/ml?

2) Is Tygart right, and WADA rules need reform, so scarce anti-doping resources are not wasted?

3) Does the principle of "strict liability" place too much burden on the innocent athlete, placing responsibility for factors not under their control? Should some limits be re-examined in light of increasingly lax food regulations? Should some "no limit" drugs have a minimum limit?

Houlihan:

1) Is Shelby on birth control?

2) Does she take WADA-legal supplements?

3) What was the rest of her food log?

4) When did she have other urine tests? What were the nandrolone levels?

General questions outside the case:

1) For athletes historically sanctioned for nandrolone, or a derivative or metabolite: What percentage were women? What were their levels? How many eat pork, and/or edible organs? How much of that pork can potentially be uncastrated male pork? How risky is it to eat foods like sausages, and hot dogs?

2) For women who have consumed pork or pork offal, what is the upper range of observed results?

3) In cases of "normal" food consumption or sabotage: How does an innocent athlete "prove" the source of nandrolone, on the balance of probability?

4) Is the IAAF/Russian scandal causing the AIU to be too aggressive in a heroic effort to restore credibility?

5) Is pork the only meat that can raise nandrolone levels in urine?

6) Can 5ng/ml in Dec. 2020, in the off-season, implicate performances in Oct. 2019 and July 2020, or implicate other BTC athletes?

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Independent thought requires examining all the facts and factors in the case, in context, rather than just accepting the decisions without question. Even Rojo has 16 questions that need to be answered.

"Even Rojo"... nice one!

And naturally, your questions have the expected tendency to throw doubt on the guilt of the banned drug cheat. No surprise there.

In any case, I have a few answers for you:

rekrunner wrote:

AIU:

1) Why did they classify the test results as an AAF and not an ATF, requiring further testing for confirmation?

That happened in December/January. It's only the new WADA guidelines from April 2021 that suggested to look at the excretion pharmacokinetics. Suggested, not insisted: "may be established by".

So the simple answer is that they followed the normal procedure.

rekrunner wrote:WADA:

2) Is Tygart right, and WADA rules need reform, so scarce anti-doping resources are not wasted?

No. Drug cheats have it already too easy. On the contrary, WADA rules need reform so that more cheats get caught.

And btw, Tygard should get fired for the non-compliance of USADA (providing courtesy warning calls ahead of ooc tests, not flagging missed tests as such if the athlete gets found hours later) and their incompetence (screwing up the Coleman case).

rekrunner wrote:

3) Does the principle of "strict liability" place too much burden on the innocent athlete, placing responsibility for factors not under their control?

Not at all. In fact, it should be taken more literally, not just based on a casual "more likely than not" as in case of Lawson.

Here are 10 (really!) other questions:

Houlihan:

1) Why do you insist on keeping your ABP and all your other test results secret?

BTC:

2) Why do you continue to support a banned athlete, even after the unanimous CAS ruling?

3) Why do you insist on keeping your ABP and all your other test results secret?

Schumacher/Flanagan:

4) Aren't you ashamed to so vigorously attack the anti-doping process?

5) Aren't you ashamed to so vigorously the Court of Arbitration for Sport?

6) What does it tell you that even the arbiter chosen by you ruled against Houlihan?

7) What were the nandrolone levels of your second flagged athlete?

AIU/WA/WADA/CAS:

8) What do you conclude from the overly critical comments of the coaches of the banned athlete?

9) Why were the BTC athletes tested so often?

10) Why don't you publicly reprimand USADA for giving forbidden warning calls to the American athletes?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Anything but answer this question:-

based on what you understand of the case, are you satisfied that CAS came to the correct decision with its determination confirming that Houlihan doped?

It appears "independent thought" only gives rise to more questions in your case, but never any answers- especially on the point of a whether an athlete is a doper. Even a CAS decision on that point has yet to persuade you. Your scepticism is truly herculean - but is what can always be expected from you. Your pretenses at inquiry into the facts and processes are just your usual gaslighting the thread. It is a case that has been heard and decided according to the proper processes; it isn't an allegation or an investigation. The one thing that is unarguable is that she is a convicted doper, like any other - but nothing sticks more in your craw than to have to acknowledge that. As I have said - you are the equivalent of a Holocaust denier who has found his niche in denying doping.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Anything but answer this question:-

based on what you understand of the case, are you satisfied that CAS came to the correct decision with its determination confirming that Houlihan doped?

It appears "independent thought" only gives rise to more questions in your case, but never any answers- especially on the point of a whether an athlete is a doper. Even a CAS decision on that point has yet to persuade you. Your scepticism is truly herculean - but is what can always be expected from you. Your pretenses at inquiry into the facts and processes are just your usual gaslighting the thread. It is a case that has been heard and decided according to the proper processes; it isn't an allegation or an investigation. The one thing that is unarguable is that she is a convicted doper, like any other - but nothing sticks more in your craw than to have to acknowledge that. As I have said - you are the equivalent of a Holocaust denier who has found his niche in denying doping.

Oh I thought this was "an experiment to see if (I am) capable of independent thought".

Answers without facts are not answers at all, but speculation, hypothesis, hope, wishful thinking, faith, etc.

Perhaps many of my questions will be answered once CAS publishes their "side of the story".

None of my questions questioned her conviction, or the presence of a prohibited substance in her samples.

But you asked me to use independent thought in order to independently judge if such a conviction was correct, based on my understanding of the case.