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

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

First you say this:-

"You keep getting things backwards — when there are “no facts”, this will not persuade me. “No facts” and “no arguments” will *not* persuade me — this is why I always ask for real world facts and observation".

And then this:-

"I did not say we had “no facts”. Why do you have to lie so much? Can’t you make points without resorting to twisting and lying and building strawmen cartoons?" (quote)

You are either an utter liar or your brain cannot keep track of what statement you have made to the next. Probably both.

Actually it was you who first said “No facts, no argument will persuade …”

On the contrary, I can be persuaded by facts and arguments.

But I cannot be persuaded in *your* scenario of “no facts, no arguments”.[/quote]

So, when I refer to the CAs decision that found Houlihan had a banned drug in her system for which she was suspended for 4 years, and that CAS rejected her burrito defence these are not "facts"? Because I said them?

rekrunner wrote:

Reposted fixing Armstronglivs mismatched quotes:

rekrunner wrote:

Actually it was you who first said “No facts, no argument will persuade …”

On the contrary, I can be persuaded by facts and arguments.

But I cannot be persuaded in *your* scenario of “no facts, no arguments”.

I'm sorry but gaslighting doesn't change the record of what you said. Correction- what you lied about.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You do understand how waste products find their way into the bladder, do you not? I wonder how Houilihan could have eaten a contaminated burrito without the nandrolone being absorbed at some point into the bloodstream - and thereby turning up in her urine?

It's likewise a bit difficult to see nandrolone as being a performance enhancing drug - which it is - if it is confined to urine and nowhere else in the body.

But the important thing is that Shelby never really had the drug in her body - because it was discovered in her "urine", which isn't her "body".

My understanding is that oral ingestion of nandrolone is not very effective, because it goes from the digestive system to the liver, and most of it gets filtered out and sent to the bladder, with only a small amount getting into the circulatory system.

For performance enhancement, injection into the blood is preferable, but also highly detectable, for a period of 6 months, or longer (Conte says 18 months).

Reportedly both parties agreed that the nandrolone was not injected — to be confirmed when CAS publishes their story.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So, when I refer to the CAs decision that found Houlihan had a banned drug in her system for which she was suspended for 4 years, and that CAS rejected her burrito defence these are not "facts"? Because I said them?

It doesn’t matter if you say them or not.

The first one is a fact that can be found in the Media Release.

The second one needs some rewording, but something close can also be found in the Media Release.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Reposted fixing Armstronglivs mismatched quotes:

I'm sorry but gaslighting doesn't change the record of what you said. Correction- what you lied about.

So to summarize, on the one side, we have a one-sided press release from Houlihan, her lawyer, and her coaches. On the other side, we have a two page media release from the CAS which did not include the grounds for their decision.

A lot of things were said, without supporting evidence. Much of this can be corroborated, or debunked, in a detailed Decision completed with the grounds.

Meanwhile, on the outside, we have a lot of commentators guessing beyond things that were said in either of these.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So, when I refer to the CAs decision that found Houlihan had a banned drug in her system for which she was suspended for 4 years, and that CAS rejected her burrito defence these are not "facts"? Because I said them?

It doesn’t matter if you say them or not.

The first one is a fact that can be found in the Media Release.

The second one needs some rewording, but something close can also be found in the Media Release.

But you tried to say that what I present you with aren't "facts". Yet these clearly are.

What you "understand" isn't necessarily fact. But if it is possibly correct it establishes that Houlihan is also likely to be dumb as well as dishonest. Further, I have seen no evidence to suggest endogenous nandrolone can occur at the levels Houlihan was tested for, which was 2 and a half times higher than the upper level for endogenous nandrolone estimated by WADA.

"My understanding is that oral ingestion of nandrolone is not very effective, because it goes from the digestive system to the liver, and most of it gets filtered out and sent to the bladder, with only a small amount getting into the circulatory system".

"For performance enhancement, injection into the blood is preferable, but also highly detectable, for a period of 6 months, or longer (Conte says 18 months)".(quote)

But haven't you repeatedly argued that drugs don't enhance performance, that this is only a "belief" that athletes have? Yet here you are using physiological arguments to refute yourself. But this is because you wish to suggest the athlete in question wasn't doping.

"So to summarize, on the one side, we have a one-sided press release from Houlihan, her lawyer, and her coaches. On the other side, we have a two page media release from the CAS which did not include the grounds for their decision."

"A lot of things were said, without supporting evidence. Much of this can be corroborated, or debunked, in a detailed Decision completed with the grounds."(quote)

So the brevity of the CAS media release is sufficient reason for doubting the court's decision? "A lot of things were said without supporting evidence" - yet you do know the court arrived at its decision on the evidence before it? That you haven't read its reasoning does not imply that the court lacked reasons for its decision. Or is it the predictable denial of the athlete who has been found guilty that persuades you? What reason would you have for doubted the integrity of the decision of an impartial judicial panel whose business it is to decide these matters? If they are not to be relied upon, who is?

The argument for releasing the full decision is not to allay concerns - or confirm them - over whether the court was in error, but to achieve greater understanding of how the court arrived at its decision and of the process generally. So far the only argument that the court may have arrived at the wrong decision is from the protestations of the athlete that it has convicted and penalised, as she claims her innocence. In that well-worn phrase - "she would say that, wouldn't she".

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you tried to say that what I present you with aren't "facts". Yet these clearly are.

You started saying “no facts, no arguments will persuade (me) …”

My response was that when you have no facts, and no arguments, this will not persuade me.

Whooosh — it went way over your head.

Armstronglivs wrote:

What you "understand" isn't necessarily fact. But if it is possibly correct it establishes that Houlihan is also likely to be dumb as well as dishonest. Further, I have seen no evidence to suggest endogenous nandrolone can occur at the levels Houlihan was tested for, which was 2 and a half times higher than the upper level for endogenous nandrolone estimated by WADA.

The lawyer himself said that no one would take it orally, due to the low bioavailability failing to deliver the desired effect.

I can’t find it back now, but in one of these threads, I saw that pork ingestion was reported to give a result as high as 16 ng/ml. Notwithstanding that 5 is 2.5x the 2ng/ml limit, 5 ng/ml is not very much, and is typical in the case of accidental ingestion, or supplement contamination. Linford Christie had 200 ng/ml and CJ Hunger 2000 ng/ml. Before WADA changed it in 2004, 5 ng/ml was the IOC limit for women.

It is unlikely that anyone but the unsophisticated, and certainly not a sophisticated Nike athlete from their remaining flagship club, since the Sydney Olympics takes nandrolone on purpose for performance enhancement, as Victor Conte explained, because it is well known that one dose can be detected for many months afterwards, reportedly, up to 18 months later.

Armstronglivs wrote:

"My understanding is that oral ingestion of nandrolone is not very effective, because it goes from the digestive system to the liver, and most of it gets filtered out and sent to the bladder, with only a small amount getting into the circulatory system".

"For performance enhancement, injection into the blood is preferable, but also highly detectable, for a period of 6 months, or longer (Conte says 18 months)".(quote)

But haven't you repeatedly argued that drugs don't enhance performance, that this is only a "belief" that athletes have? Yet here you are using physiological arguments to refute yourself. But this is because you wish to suggest the athlete in question wasn't doping.

I haven’t.

I have never argued that “drugs don’t enhance performance”— this has always been your misunderstanding — a rudimentary scarecrow that you keep stuffing with straw.

On the subject of drugs working, I say things like:

- it depends on the drug, the event, and the initial trained state of the athlete and their natural talent

- I don’t doubt that steroids work for women in events requiring muscular strength

- in the EPO-era, based on all-time historical performances, non-Africans — about 90% of the athletes world wide — did not progress like East Africans, and to a lesser degree, North Africans

- the benefit of legal methods like hi-lo altitude training are as scientifically proven as EPO and other forms of blood doping

- we lack controlled observations for the performance benefit of drugs for elite runners running elite performances

- prevalence is an indication of belief in potential effect, which may or may not succeed

Armstronglivs wrote:

The argument for releasing the full decision is … to achieve greater understanding of how the court arrived at its decision …

Voila! En fin!

Let’s “achieve greater understanding”.

That is my agenda.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

But you tried to say that what I present you with aren't "facts". Yet these clearly are.

You started saying “no facts, no arguments will persuade (me) …”

My response was that when you have no facts, and no arguments, this will not persuade me.

Whooosh — it went way over your head.

Quite the reverse. What I was saying obviously went over yours. A reading age of 5.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The argument for releasing the full decision is … to achieve greater understanding of how the court arrived at its decision …

Voila! En fin!

Let’s “achieve greater understanding”.

That is my agenda.

Unfortunately, it appears you have no understanding without it. I doubt the court's decision will remedy such a fundamental deficiency.

In all that the only acknowledgment of the effectiveness of doping is on "women using steroids in events requiring muscular strength". I guess that's about 5% of dopers. The rest is a liturgy to doubt. As it always is with you.

Heartening to all the Shelby supporters here that you, too, have accepted the bs that it was a Mexican takeaway that caused her to fail the test and not because she was doping. Fortunately a court has recognized that this is bs.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The argument for releasing the full decision is … to achieve greater understanding of how the court arrived at its decision …

Voila! En fin!

Let’s “achieve greater understanding”.

That is my agenda.

'So the brevity of the CAS media release is sufficient reason for doubting the court's decision? "A lot of things were said without supporting evidence" - yet you do know the court arrived at its decision on the evidence before it? That you haven't read its reasoning does not imply that the court lacked reasons for its decision. Or is it the predictable denial of the athlete who has been found guilty that persuades you? What reason would you have for doubting the integrity of the decision of an impartial judicial panel whose business it is to decide these matters? If they are not to be relied upon, who is?'

[/quote]

Crickets. But we know already whose version of events you have accepted.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Heartening to all the Shelby supporters here that you, too, have accepted the bs that it was a Mexican takeaway that caused her to fail the test and not because she was doping. Fortunately a court has recognized that this is bs.

At this point, no one, not even CAS, has determined the source of the nandrolone.