Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

It is CAS's burden to prove pigs cant fly.

the copium the copium LOL she doped end of

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It looked pretty balanced to me.

Well if someone like you with such a long history of defending several banned drug cheats (for example Baumann, Decker, Houlihan, Jeptoo, Kiprop, Salazar, ...) calls a piece about a drug cheat "pretty balanced ", it has to be heavily one-sided.

While I agree with your 5 thoughts in principle, Gault didn't stop there. He then moved on to recommend twoggle3's blog despite its obvious bias and many inaccuracies, and then committed several non-sequitur fallacies thereafter, e.g. that the nandrolone must have been taken orally and that no distance runner would ever use nandrolone.

You are still under some self-delusion that attacking the mis-statements and filling in the fact gaps of a few posters constitutes a defense of banned drug cheats. One of your “defenses” is to pretend that I’m not attacking you (your arguments), but defending drug cheats. I am a defender of a complete set of all the known facts and history.

The accusation was that Gault just re-iterated Houlihan’s lawyer’s talking points. In fact, he represented the lawyer, the CAS, the AIU, and provided some of his own thoughts.

Although I don’t stand behind “40%”, from such a small sample, twoggle’s detailed post contained many valuable points highlighting exactly where the “controversy” was in a clear way.

signal hill wrote:

If I was the IAU I would cut a deal with Shelby reduce her ban to 1 or 2 years if she comes clean on who supplied her and also the other team members who were also doping. People must not be naive that is is a one off in the Burrito TC the reaction of the athletes to her initial ban just proves how they are all worried.

All cut a deal to block all US athletes competing at international level for systematic doping? Either or right like what has been suggested for other nations.

We get it she is;

1) American

2) a medal contender

3) an Instagram star

4) let’s run celeb

But is like many of us fellow athletes a doper, how many US athletes have been caught doping, suspected doping, or missed testing over the last 18 months. Doping should carry be a ban of 10 years for any competition.

signal hill wrote:

If I was the IAU I would cut a deal with Shelby reduce her ban to 1 or 2 years if she comes clean on who supplied her and also the other team members who were also doping. People must not be naive that is is a one off in the Burrito TC the reaction of the athletes to her initial ban just proves how they are all worried.

Team using Deca; get real.

How do you know Twoggle's post contained many valuable points? All you know about this guy is he could be bothered to publish a long blog post. That isn't a claim to expertise or experience. For all you and I know, everything he wrote could be utterly inaccurate from a scientific perspective. How many real scientists do you think would cite an anonymous blog post as evidence? How many people are allowed to give expert evidence in court without first establishing their credentials? LRC has really dropped the ball on this matter.

I'm calling it here: Twoggle is a complete charlatan. Anyone who has real expertise in this field would put their name to the post. The reason he hasn't, is because he's nothing more than an amateur with time on his hands and finding out who he is would undermine all his claims in the blog. I only hope LRC can row back in its support for this guy. Again, email some actual experts in the field

sanootage wrote:

unbelief wrote:

you have no idea what a tautology is

Congratulations on spelling it ok.

Or is that response too circular for you!

Unbelief is correct, you have no idea what a tautology is.

You answered it. It wasn’t the rule at the time.

Generally because I know how to read and comprehend what I read. I know how to detect and distinguish what is unsupported opinion, and what is fact, and what is an opinion or statement supported by external links (many of which are quite readable so I can also read and comprehend these), which may also be unsupported opinion, fact or statement supported by data and observations.

I don’t treat his blog as written by a scientist with experience and expertise, called to give expert evidence in court, but as “An Editorial Opinion by Twoggle” — an anonymous guy who posts on the internet. The value of his words are not “who he is” but the extent to which it is supported by experts, papers, documents, observations and other facts. Gault only recommended this post as a way to “get a better understanding of why Houlihan’s team feel they got screwed”, not as a way to understand the AIU’s submissions or the CAS decision.

Even if we ignore all of his own supplemental supported or unsupported opinions, the post contains a copious amount of links to many scientific articles and to official sources as can be found at WADA’s and CAS’s websites. Many of these links are also quite readable. You can use these links as a launching pad to form your own thoughts, rather than obsessing about “who he is” to see if he is worthy of blindly following on topics you wouldn’t otherwise comprehend.

High hopes wrote:

How do you know Twoggle's post contained many valuable points? All you know about this guy is he could be bothered to publish a long blog post. That isn't a claim to expertise or experience. For all you and I know, everything he wrote could be utterly inaccurate from a scientific perspective. How many real scientists do you think would cite an anonymous blog post as evidence? How many people are allowed to give expert evidence in court without first establishing their credentials? LRC has really dropped the ball on this matter.

+1

It's not "utterly inaccurate" though. Twoggle is basically using the lawyers' talking points, and adding some references about wild boar to make their points. But yes, he also does make false claims here or there.

Couple of examples:

"Fact #1: One of the tests that the laboratory used has a 40% false positive rate!"

False. No false positivity rate whatsoever; no one tested positive for nandrolone who shouldn't have. Fact: 2 of the 5 participants showed high delta-13C values after eating (German or Estonian) wild boar because of their diet. This does not apply here, with the meat being from commercial pigs "with largely corn-based diet".

"There is no question that once the Houlihan legal team invoked the WADA clause on January 19, 2021 that the nandrolone came from pork consumption, the GC/C/IRMS test should not have been performed on the B sample. Instead, the analysis should have focused on the "pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion."

Incorrect, see CAS decision. That was very much a question, and ultimately it was ruled that the lab used the correct procedures.

Plus, the pharmacokinetics tests are only meant to differentiate between ingestion and injection, not between e.g. boar and Deca:

Wada: "Therefore, if the consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete as the unlikely origin of a 19-NA finding, this may be established based on the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion [3, 5, 16-18]. Profiles of 19-NA and 19-NE excretion following oral ingestion will have a different time course than following an injection of 19-norsteroids."

"AIU should realize that they are damaging the reputation of anti-doping organizations by ignoring WADA guidance, despite a 2-1 victory at the CAS hearing."

Incorrect, WADA guidance wasn't ignored, see CAS decision. It was ruled that the lab followed WADA guidance.

"This 2008 research showed in Table 2 that ingesting 300 grams (10.6 ounces) of uncastrated pig organ meat could lead to as much as 130ng/mL of 19-NA in the urine: more than 25 times higher than the 5ng/mL."

While correct, this is misleading: the boar offal of the food truck in question serves boar stomach, not kidney etc. as in that Table 2.

"In Table 2, there are measurements of 19-NA levels in urine after ingesting uncastrated pig meat (not the organs). You can see that it is not only the organ meat ingestion that can lead to reliatvely high levels of 19-NA measured in the urine and potentially cause a drug test fail."

Misleading at best. "relatively high levels"? They were 0.6 to 2.4 ng/ml after eating 300 g wild boar meat, unlike Houlihan’s 5.2 – 5.8 ng/ml after eating 140 – 180 g commercial pig stomach.

"Fours Reasons That Shelby Houlihan Would Not Dope With Nandrolone"

Misleading at best, like in JG’s piece. For example, they neither considered that it could have been given sublingual instead of oral, or that the athlete chose oral (with less benefits) instead of an injection because that’s harder to detect (see the concept of microdosing for comparison).

Plus, as cited here several times, nandrolone occurs as contamination in other steroids, such as in the good old testo cream that the athlete might have used. That option also did not get mentioned, neither by JG nor by Twoggle.

"self-delusion"? And you don't just fill in gaps, you exclusively add points that make the drug cheats look better, such as claiming that their legal defense was poor (which actually is an opinion, not a fact).

Recent example about Houlihan:

With that, you are outright saying that even Houlihan herself doesn't know "where the nandrolone came from". With no evidence for that, you are acting as if she could not have used the nandrolone on purpose. "filling in the fact gaps", lol.

Correct. But then you moved on to say:

However, "his own thoughts" aren't balanced at all. By claiming that "Houlihan’s team feel they got screwed" he made clear that he thinks she is innocent. Without evidence of course, just based on his gut feelings, despite CAS' clear ruling.

Recommending Twoggle's biased blog isn't balanced either, unless he'd recommend an equally biased blog from the other side.

The real shame is that "journalists" and Shelby herself are using an anonymous blog post from a twitter account with 5 followers created right after she was banned as some kindof defense. I would bet good money that a Nike PR employee sat down and tried to cast as much doubt as possible in a blog post and then claim it as anonymous, then go spam that stupid post on as many articles about it as they can find.

Not sure if this was posted yet but LetsRun should hire this guy to write....

https://kevinbeck.substack.com/p/in-shocking-development-in-shelby

RuningManJumpSuit wrote:

Not sure if this was posted yet but LetsRun should hire this guy to write....

https://kevinbeck.substack.com/p/in-shocking-development-in-shelby

I think that people would snigger stay what ever anyone came up with when there was a month between text and result.

Still think sabotage.

Besides filling some of the gaps in facts, I also provide my own opinions based on the facts provided, and in some cases, my opinions based on my intuition — like anyone else.

If you read carefully, I say “I could agree that apparently …”, which is only outright saying something I could agree with based on appearances, and more importantly, no contradicting facts. As improbable as the pork burrito hypothesis is, nothing else was proven or even evaluated — just presumed. The evidence for Houlihan’s team not knowing either is the statement from the lawyer “we don’t know what she was given”. It’s possible she took nandrolone on purpose, but I don’t find it probable for reasons I have given earlier, elsewhere.

I said it looks balanced because he gave the positions of all three parties, rather than just Houlihan’s, as he was accused of. As I said, in an opinion piece called “5 thoughts”, I would expect to see his thoughts too. The phrases that “(they) feel they got screwed” and the recommendation to the blog was in the second of five thoughts: “Houlihan’s camp wanted …”. I do not interpret this as Gault’s imbalance, but just a complete treatment of 1 of 5 thoughts, regarding one of the parties. I’m not aware of any blog that explains the AIU’s position, or the CAS position. Are you? In fact, that is precisely what was missing since June, until the CAS published the 44-page report.

RuningManJumpSuit wrote:

Not sure if this was posted yet but LetsRun should hire this guy to write....

Awesome. Among other things, this here is what I've been saying all along: all just for PR, nothing else:

It was also clear from the outset to people who can think straight that the brazenly desperate appeal had zero chance of succeeding, that Houlihan’s team (and Nike generally) had to know this, and that Houlihan’s strategy therefore had to center on instantly painting a non-overturnable suspension as forever unjust and making sure the “fact” of this injustice would withstand whatever incriminating facts were later offered to the public.

You reveal your lack of knowledge about exogenous Nandrolone. You don't even know what Deca is.

casual obsever wrote:

RuningManJumpSuit wrote:

Not sure if this was posted yet but LetsRun should hire this guy to write....

Awesome. Among other things, this here is what I've been saying all along: all just for PR, nothing else:

It was also clear from the outset to people who can think straight that the brazenly desperate appeal had zero chance of succeeding, that Houlihan’s team (and Nike generally) had to know this, and that Houlihan’s strategy therefore had to center on instantly painting a non-overturnable suspension as forever unjust and making sure the “fact” of this injustice would withstand whatever incriminating facts were later offered to the public.

So what was the product? You don't know. Your just throwing mud at the wall hoping some of it will stick.