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

rekrunner wrote:

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.

CAS didn't have to. It isn't part of the rules. Its presence was sufficient. But what they didn't buy was Mexican food.

CAS has told its story - it said Houlihan tested positive for a banned drug and it did not accept her excuse it came from eating Mexican takeaways. Only those inclined to accept Houlihan's excuse would have any rationale for questioning a decision made by the court that hears these matters. I guess that's you.

Armstronglivs wrote:

CAS has told its story - it said Houlihan tested positive for a banned drug and it did not accept her excuse it came from eating Mexican takeaways. Only those inclined to accept Houlihan's excuse would have any rationale for questioning a decision made by the court that hears these matters. I guess that's you.

That looks like you telling CAS’s story.

Here’s what the CAS told me:

“The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds which will be notified in short order.”

In the meantime, “commentators can only guess”.

John_James_413 wrote:

Are you serious right now?

Yet again just another person who DIDN'T READ THE QUESTIONS by ROJO.

Yet again just another person who just skimmed over this entire thread and made up some dumb comment.

ROJO isn't even protecting her.

Read his comments.

He wants her to prove that she's innocent by taking a steroid test every single day for up to a year and if she can produce a 3:58 or better then yeah we will believe her.

WHY HAVE YOU NOT READ THAT PART.

Where in that part do you see ROJO protecting her? It's like really? Wow you just sound like so dumb right now.

Why would anyone consider some arbitrary suggestion like getting tested every day and running some time over an actual failed drug test is beyond me. There's pages and pages of mental gymnastics where people are doing this very thing. This post is yet another.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

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

CAS didn't have to. It isn't part of the rules. Its presence was sufficient. But what they didn't buy was Mexican food.

I guess Shelby bought the Mexican food — when CAS tells their story we should see the receipts.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

CAS didn't have to. It isn't part of the rules. Its presence was sufficient. But what they didn't buy was Mexican food.

I guess Shelby bought the Mexican food — when CAS tells their story we should see the receipts.

Yes, you are only guessing. CAS was less inclined to believe her.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

CAS has told its story - it said Houlihan tested positive for a banned drug and it did not accept her excuse it came from eating Mexican takeaways. Only those inclined to accept Houlihan's excuse would have any rationale for questioning a decision made by the court that hears these matters. I guess that's you.

That looks like you telling CAS’s story.

Here’s what the CAS told me:

“The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds which will be notified in short order.”

In the meantime, “commentators can only guess”.

I would have thought the decision is the crucial part of the "story". But I quite understand that you are still in the dark as to why an athlete who tests positive and who fails to present a credible excuse incurs a suspension. There's always an excuse in your mind.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That looks like you telling CAS’s story.

Here’s what the CAS told me:

“The CAS Panel has issued its decision only, without the grounds which will be notified in short order.”

In the meantime, “commentators can only guess”.

I would have thought the decision is the crucial part of the "story". But I quite understand that you are still in the dark as to why an athlete who tests positive and who fails to present a credible excuse incurs a suspension. There's always an excuse in your mind.

Then why publish the grounds at all?

Not too long ago, you seemed to get it: “The argument for releasing the full decision is … to achieve greater understanding of how the court arrived at its decision and of the process generally.”

I understand why she incurred a suspension. The WADA code is rather clear on that.

But you asked me to judge if the ruling was correct, using independent thought, and I responded that I first need to know, in your words, “how the court arrived at its decision”.

I also raised some questions about “the process generally” and whether it is broken, and in need of repair.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I guess Shelby bought the Mexican food — when CAS tells their story we should see the receipts.

Yes, you are only guessing. CAS was less inclined to believe her.

Well if the CAS didn’t pay for the food, and they don’t believe Shelby did, who paid for the food? Whooosh.

Sometimes you seem to know a thing or two about law. So it surprises me when you are so imprecise about arbitration findings. The CAS panel found that she was unable to meet her burden of identifying the source of the nandrolone, on the balance of probability. This is not a finding that they didn’t believe her, or that her “excuse” wasn’t credible, but rather a finding of what the evidence before them probably showed, or probably failed to show.

Apparently she ordered a beef burrito (a carne asada). If her “story” is that it included pork offal, or she got a pork burrito by mistake, and the only proof she has is a receipt that says “carne asada”, then the CAS has very little discretion to rule otherwise.

But this is all guesswork without the full Decision. Therefore, it would be interesting to see the details in the CAS report about what evidence was presented to the CAS, and what evidence they considered important and not important.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

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.

I found the reference, but it’s not 16 but 160 ng/ml of endogenous-like matabolites. That is 80x higher than 2 ng/ml.

Coincidentally it is the same WADA lab Director Christianne Ayotte who wrote back in 2006:

“Another study confirmed that in spite of interindividual differences, 19‐NA and 19‐NE were always measured in specimens provided in the hours following the improbable ingestion (non‐castrated pig meat being difficult to find) of such meat‐rich meal composed of non‐castrated pig tissues, with levels even reaching 160 ng/ml in one case. No trace of norsteroid metabolites was found in urine samples collected before or after the ingestion of castrated pig edible parts. As expected, the GC/C/IRMS analysis confirmed endogenous‐like 13C/12C value of metabolites.”

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

CAS didn't have to. It isn't part of the rules. Its presence was sufficient. But what they didn't buy was Mexican food.

I guess Shelby bought the Mexican food — when CAS tells their story we should see the receipts.

Has her American records been officially deleted yet? I'm still seeing them on wiki.

That's some bull crap.

It has still not been proven that she is a cheat.

John_James_413 wrote:

Has her American records been officially deleted yet? I'm still seeing them on wiki.

That's some bull crap.

That wasn’t part of the sanction.

John_James_413 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I guess Shelby bought the Mexican food — when CAS tells their story we should see the receipts.

Has her American records been officially deleted yet? I'm still seeing them on wiki.

That's some bull crap.

Her ban is effective December 2020, when her test popped, so anything she did prior to that point stands.

The main question no one is asking….. Shelby, why did you choose to keep the entire issue secret since you were first notified of the positive test? If you were truly innocent then you would have gone to the media immediately to begin building public support for your defense. But instead you never went public although you had every opportunity to do so all through the process.

I would also like to know when did you contact and hire Paul Greene to represent you? What did you share in your initial interview once you were notified of the positive test? What “new” details came out after you hired Greene to defend you?

CAS didn't accept the "food" explanation as a credible explanation for presence of nandrolone in her body. As it is their job to come to such determinations I accept their finding. Whether it is because they don't believe she ate the burrito - which I doubt, as it would be a commonplace - or, alternatively, they were not inclined to think the burrito could have likely resulted in the level of nandrolone she tested for - which is more probable - we won't know unless they reveal the detail of their decision. But, to me, while that information may be interesting it isnt necessary in order to accept their finding that she doped. I have no reason to believe they are either incompetent, biased, or simply wrong. Nor do I believe the rules are penalising "innocent" athletes. Strict liability can be refuted by factual evidence. This she couldn't do.

I dont need to see the full CAS decision to accept their finding that she tested positive for a banned drug without adequate explanation. Those facts aren't contested - apart from her insistence that it was from food contamination. They heard that and they didnt believe her. It is their job to make these determinations. If they were regarded as a body of low competence or even corrupt then there would be a need to see their full decision. But that isn't the case.

The only other reason I see for releasing the full decision is for reasons of public education, to enable us to understand the process better and how they arrive at their decisions. But I don't see that publication of the full decision is necessary because I don't think they got it right. I think they did. The details will be informative but not necessary to understand that she tested positive for a banned drug without adequate excuse and was accordingly suspended.

rekrunner wrote:

John_James_413 wrote:

Has her American records been officially deleted yet? I'm still seeing them on wiki.

That's some bull crap.

That wasn’t part of the sanction.

Then great. Play a game of make believe that she still has the records somehow.

She's proven herself to be too untrustworthy.

davies report wrote:

It has still not been proven that she is a cheat.

It has,she failed a drug test and got a ban,she’s a cheat.