Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

^ This ^

For comparison, see this piece from runnersworld:

^ They interviewed an actual expert rather than falling for an anonymous random guy on the internet.

Or this piece from runningmagazine:

^ They actually read and understood the official report.

sanootage wrote:

nobody read this wrote:

Went through the whole thread and nobody seemingly read through her quotes in this article on page 17 of the thread:

“We tested all of my vitamins and supplements which all came back negative. Unfortunately, there were a couple that we didn’t have the original batches of because I was notified a month later and those supplements were already consumed,” shared Houlihan.

SH knows exactly how the nandrolone got in her system. It wasn’t from a food truck.

On what basis do you say that she knows?

Why are you taking my vitamins and supplements interesting to the athlete already think these are giving her the edge in competing so let’s stray from the grey as long as we stay under the limit.

If you are taking supplements to improve you are already you are doping just it’s legal

That Runners World article is showing the way it should be done - interview people who know the science, not scraping around on the dark corners of the internet looking for literally anyone who will support your views. Let's give the benefit of the doubt just for a second - Rojo was replying on a message board so there's room to speculate. I'll wait to see what LRC publishes about this before judging how they have handled the news, and also listen to the podcast. If they are going to quote Twoggle3 as a source of evidence, rather than say, a scientists who has worked for Nike, then we can write off LRC as a source of serious journalism. Again, I would hope Jonathan, as a trained journalist, can try and introduce some journalistic standards into the reporting, such as only citing credible sources

From the verbiage used, it seems pretty clear that she regularly takes a laundry list of supplements. That's fine, but if I was a betting man, I would guess that she ventured into some less wholesome products (by herself potentially, or maybe Nike/BTC sanctioned) that flirted the grey area a little too close and one of them was contaminated.

Or she knowingly doped. At this point it really doesn't matter. She tested positive, and then went with a hail-mary BS story that was laughably bad and completely implausible. The willingness to fully commit to that story by her and her team is almost more off-putting than everything else.

sanootage wrote:

suspicion in the ignition wrote:

Not really. Imagine the DA's case against you in a murder trial is that they have your blood and footprint at the scene and your only defense is that there theoretically could be someone who has the same physical data. It is in fact possible (1 in a billion). The possibility isn't a defense and you will be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's the key, yes, there is an infinitesimal doubt, but it's not reasonable. And the burden of proof is lower with CAS than in a crime in the U.S.

Yes she broke the rules but that does not mean she is a cheat.

Right, but she has to provide a believable explanation as to why the the nandrolone was in her system and she couldn't. Maybe it came from a different source and it was unintentional, but CAS can't overturn the ban just because Shelby claimed she did not cheat. CAS even stated they found her to be credible but believed her claim that burrito was contaminated was close to a zero probability.

You've been claiming sabotage was involved; can you at least provide a motive?

Wet Coast hits it right on the head!

Why are you not preserving your supplements after you get a letter saying you got popped? Simple. That's where the Nandrolone came from. You didn't finish this 'burrito' but you kept taking your supplements. Makes a lot of sense. All the things that could exonerate or corroborate a story IF the story was 'incidental ingestion', but, of course, that's not the cover story they went with. No original samples. No bottles to trace. Just a 'trust us' were not as bad as Salazar.

Then you have this 'sabotage' troll that cannot understand that cheating/violating the rules is a distinction WITHOUT a difference in competitive sport.

Unless of course you accept his wild and unverified premise that she was sabotaged, then you can do all the semantic cartwheels you want to obfuscate the fact that banned substances landed in your body and you have a absolutely hideous explanation for "Why" that is the case.

sanootage, no one on this board should be feeding your trolling or buying any pencils from your cup. For your points to sound even mildly less eccentric, you really should put forth some hard evidence instead of the constant conjecture. Big claims require big evidence, not just 'sabotage wasnt looked into, so it must be sabotage'

He cant give you anything because he's literally got a cardboard sign shouting at passersby at this point in the thread.

They have to commit, they are all in the same life boat, which is funny when Centro made his first comment, I think he said a big more than he intended to about the situation ('This couldve very easily been any of us').

In this game though, the ones with the best results are going to get the most scrutiny and frequency of tests, and that's Shelby circa 2020.

casual obsever wrote:

Yes, hahahaha, and of course they pretended it to be only 5 ng/ml, not 7 or 8 ng/ml.

(5.2 to 5.8 ng/mL when adjusted for specific gravity)

Here's how you know this is a MOD in the LRC.com circle:

"A point that interests me.

Ayotte has been a discredited witness.

She acts as a witness to fact; her lab report.

She then acts as a witness for opinion.

I may well have got all this wrong but how can she be an expert opinion on her own lab testimony?

I have seen this in other cases with the extension into other Wada labs; under the same funding model and accreditation giving expert testimony on their best mates work.

I have also seen world super experts in an analytical field being dismissed as the are not from sports drug laboratories even though they head up the worlds leading university in Carbon Isotobe analysis."

Right from the original John Gault article and subsequent LRC.com assertions

Nice

"The Panel finds that neither the hair analysis nor the polygraph results are sufficient for the

Athlete to rebut the presumption that the ADRV was intentional. As for the expert evidence

of Dr Kintz, the Panel notes that the hair analysis failed to take into account oral precursors

of nortestosterone (nandrolone), such as “19‐nor-DHEA” and “nor‐Andro”. In addition, Dr

Kintz admitted that he is not capable of specifying how intense the exposure of the Athlete

to 19-NA must have been in order for the latter to be detectable in the context of a hair

analysis test. As for the polygraph test, the Panel finds that the questions posed were rather

restrictive. This is all the more true considering that the Athlete stated that, before receiving

the charge letter, she was not aware of what nandrolone is. It would have made more sense

to ask the Athlete whether she had taken doping substances at the material time."

Pretty damning statement on their two 'ace up their sleeve' rebuttals

They didnt test for what they didnt want to test for and openly admit they dont know what the standard for using a hair test would be anyways even if they were looking for something.

The polygraph is just a throw away, more for popular consumption because most people are under the mistaken impression that polygraph results prove anything.

rojo wrote:

Jerry Maguire wrote:

Heard from my brother in law who works in the government intelligence community. Apparently they think Russia had agents target and sabotage US athletes before the games.

Now this is interesting. I've always wondered why Russia wouldn't do that. It seems like it would be the perfect way to just ruin anti doping. Imagine if they just took out like Simone Biles, Kipchoge, Ingebrigtsen, etc.

As for my pork question, it wasn't a majorly important question for me. I just noticed in a draft article someone on our staff had both stats and I found it to be confusing.

Guys.... I was joking. Sorry, thought it was obvious.

Look at the speed with which international espionage was added to and picked up LOL

Gotta be the Russians....i heard that somewhere

A black man like OJ Simpson with a dream team of lawyers can be found Not Guilty.

How guilty is Shelby who has Nike lawyers and Doctors behind her and still can’t get off?

This conviction is an indictment against not only Shelby but BTC.

Any Coach that had no idea that Shelby was doping should be fired immediately for their ignorance of what is going on in the program.

Jerry knew. This is why he was outraged. The man is fighting for his job and his reputation. He lost his fight to many of us as his reputation is forever tarnished.

rojo wrote:

Why Shelby should be cleared.

So it's one thing to say that you think have a few questions about the CAS ruling, but it's a totally different thing to assert that she should be cleared based on what you wrote.

I guarantee you know deep down that she cheated and you are trying to be a contrarian because that's what generates buzz. You're trying to take a page out of Skip's playbook. I have a feeling you'd even admit it to someone you had a beer with. Otherwise, the alternative is just too frightening for me to believe.

Listen all y’all, it’s sabotage.

https://youtu.be/z5rRZdiu1UE

How can Al Sal be banned but not Jerry? Ban Shelby amd Jerry for life.

SDSU Aztec wrote:You've been claiming sabotage was involved; can you at least provide a motive?

Possibility, her boyfriend. He was not going to repeat as Olympic champion, nor was he going to repeat as US Olympic Trials champion. He would also eventually utterly fail in an American mile record attempt. Clearly, this was not going to be his year, whatsoever.

His girlfriend, on the other hand... a multi American-record holder with a ton of upside.

Suppose they've had these pseudo competitions between themselves where one improves and the other attempted to follow suit. Centro's pursuit of his individual goal was about reducing the discrepancy between his current fitness and an objective, desired end point (Olympic gold, bonus, attention, etc). A pseudo competition would have focused him on his relative standing against his gf, and elicited efforts directed at maximizing the distance between himself and her.

This probably isn't true, but you'd asked about a potential motive.

People engage in harmful, unethical behaviors in order to come out ahead of their rivals. Moreover, psychologists and research suggest that people invest effort into pulling others down when they feel competitive against them, when they feel threatened by them, and when they are put in a disadvantaged position.

Let's say this did occur. It's easy to see that a person like the BF, as a goal pursuer, would shift his focus from making individual progress to outperforming his GF, and begin to behave as if he was in a competition, choosing to hurt his GF to achieve relative positional gain, and relaxing after obtaining an upper hand.

Centro - Houlihan. Who had the most potential for success last December?

Like I've said, probably not, but sabotage isn't out of the question, especially by a person close to the person potentially sabotaged.