Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

Lest We Forget wrote:

America's fury wrote:

They keep throwing the term "authentic" around. What exactly do they mean by that?

The repeated use of the term "authentic" is supposed to conjure up images of Brown people. Brown people, as all racist White people know, are responsible for all of White people's problems. These disgusting, uncivilized Brown people living in a White city such as Eugene are to blame for a poor White girl getting caught cheating. Judging by the reactions in her social media and, unfortunately, LRC, using the term "authentic" worked as intended.

It's like that smart, white girl in class that finally gets caught cheating on the test. She then blames the 'authentics' for slipping the cheat sheets into her backpack. Poor girl!

There is no "false positivity" in that paper! As I explained here several times. I quote directly from the paper:

In fact, this paper, like several others, shows that the burrito story is nonsense:

Table 1 shows that the person with 2.9 ng/ml consumed a whopping 410 g of wild boar.

Compare this to Houlihan's after allegedly eating 140 - 180 g pork:

^ This ^

This is also discussed in the CAS ruling. As Hülsemann et al. wrote in that 2020 paper, their boars were wild, specifically from different parts of Germany and Estonia. Correspondingly, they found varying "δ13C values between −23.5‰ and −18.5‰".

Note that WA and by extension CAS actually relied on that very paper (among others of course) to find Houlihan guilty (page 33 for example).

No false positive, but a reminder that the diet of the boar needs to be considered, as CAS did. Therefore, they concluded:

But yes, that carbon isotope signature might have been consistent with that of wild boar from Estonia. This is not that complicated. rojo.

Steiner Math wrote: Giving as detailed description as possible of the person you are calling 911 about is not racist, it's common sense.

And THERE it is. The plausible deniability that I talked about. It's a fundamental tool of racists. Those intelligent enough to go beyond first-order thinking and who are arguing in good faith will concede that certain words, especially those that are strategically emphasized, carry semiotic weight. Provided you're not a troll and/or a racist, study semiotics and the Lasswell communication model to understand more about how the language of racism works. It's fairly intuitive but, in a nutshell, if the communicator (the White woman dialing 911) knows that her message (the emphasis that the man was Black) will be interpreted by the 911 operator (receiver) in a way that increases the danger to the Black man (the "effect." Black men are seen as more dangerous and are disproportionately injured and killed by police; this has been shown in numerous studies), then it not just "a detailed description," it's communicating something racist. With the added bonus of plausible deniability.

rojo wrote:

1) The current WADA rules specifically state that when pork is cited that a pharmacokinetics study must be done to see if the nandrolone is endogenous or exogenous., not the GC/C/IRMS Test which has a 40% fale positive rate.

It is demonstrably false to claim " that a pharmacokinetics study must be done". You should stop trolling with this.

It is demonstrably false to claim that the GC/C/IRMS test "has a 40% fale positive rate". You should stop trolling with this.

I tried to help you by telling you that several hours ago, but for some reason you chose to ignore that.

rojo wrote:

Just to be clear. YOU want me to accept the testimony of the lead investigator in this case - a known perjurer? Ayotte?

Seriously? You accuse Dr. Ayotte of being "a known perjurer"? What is your source for that?

Full Throttle Blip wrote: It's like that smart, white girl in class that finally gets caught cheating on the test. She then blames the 'authentics' for slipping the cheat sheets into her backpack. Poor girl!

Exactly. She understands the inherent bias of her audience and knows they'll react sympathetically toward her. Scapegoats have a way of eating up the noxious weeds of truth that sprout from obvious lies.

No, idiot, you tell the police what the person looks like and they'll be more likely to apprehend them.

flyingfrog wrote:

Cliff notes please

They see her rollin'

They hatin'

Patrolling and tryin' to catch her ridin' dirty

They catch her ridin' dirty

They catch her ridin' dirty

They catch her ridin' dirty

They catch her ridin' dirty

Steiner Math wrote: No, idiot, you tell the police what the person looks like and they'll be more likely to apprehend them.

You're clearly a troll. We're done here. Cheers!

Sorry if I missed the post (didn’t have time to read all of the MB) but maybe she didn’t wear the carbon plated spikes because they aggravated her plantar fasciitis? Seems like a lot of pros with ongoing lower leg issues struggle with the super shoes. I think Brazier didn’t wear them in 2019 and he also has plantar issues. Nike probably doesn’t want them saying that the shoes caused injuries so they both said something like they have naturally springy feet and like to feel the track.

Maybe she didn’t want to risk tearing her plantar ~8months before the Olympics at Worlds. And why take that risk at a meaningless time trial, especially when she clearly had the fitness to break the AR without them?

Anyway, I don’t really understand how these examples of someone’s character are really relevant (George Hincapie is said to be one of the nicest guys ever…but he is a doper). It isn’t just rojo holding on to the super shoe thing, Sean Ingle also included that she refused to wear the spikes in 2019. Haven’t gotten around to the Women’s Running article but it looks very pro-Shelby, I honestly feel like a crazy person that all these media folks are STILL defending her and giving her outs after reading the CAS report.

An assertion, supposedly based on her statements in the J Lawson case

I can do you one better, Captain Woke. Calling 911 actually comes from a place of privilege to begin with!

allman brothers wrote:

They see her rollin'

They hatin'

Patrolling and tryin' to catch her ridin' dirty

They catch her ridin' dirty

They catch her ridin' dirty

They catch her ridin' dirty

They catch her ridin' dirty

Shelby's friends tell her, she's been such a fool.

But she had to stand by and take it baby , all for lovin' burritos

Drown herself in Nandro as she looks at what she's done.

But nothing seemed to change, the CAS decision stayed the same,

And she can't run.

Sometimes she feels, sometimes she feels,

Like she's been tied to the whippin' post.

Tied to the whippin' post, tied to the whippin' post.

Good Lord, she feels like she's dyin'.

Lest We Forget wrote:

Steiner Math wrote: No, idiot, you tell the police what the person looks like and they'll be more likely to apprehend them.

You're clearly a troll. We're done here. Cheers!

If you're ever the victim of a crime, and the police ask you for a description of who did it, you are going to tell them the race of the perpetrator, if you think you're not, you're lying to yourself.

casual obsever wrote:

rojo wrote:

Just to be clear. YOU want me to accept the testimony of the lead investigator in this case - a known perjurer? Ayotte?

Seriously? You accuse Dr. Ayotte of being "a known perjurer"? What is your source for that?

google it. she has a poor history. perjury might be a bit far, but not much, and in the context, relevant.

Thanks unbelief and pupil3142. Just making sure. In Lawson's full CAS decision, CAS was indeed critical of her testimony, but CAS did not call it a lie, not to mention a perjury.

Presumably points 62 + 63:

A misunderstanding based on vague words like "low" and "high" and "large"? A poor memory? A lie?

Definitely not a perjury.

But I agree that that reflects poorly on her.

goontage wrote: I can do you one better, Captain Woke. Calling 911 actually comes from a place of privilege to begin with!

Ad hominem

Whataboutism

Straw Man

This is how I know I've won.

So following your backwards logic, she is better off to tell the police she is completely unaware of the race of the person? Because in reality you are racist for picking and choosing which races can and cannot be reported. Following your logic, it is OK to state that it was a white man or an Asian American man, but God forbid it was a black man reported. That makes someone racist for stating the race of a black man. What an incompetent moron you are. You are racist toward any race you show discrimination toward, that includes caucasians.

-

Bit more detail.

I would think that she not have been allowed to give expert opinion in any cases. But this is WADA type justice.