Is Nike Still Sponsoring Shelby Houlihan?

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

1.) "No one knows the source of the nandrolone for sure, except possibly Shelby, who was unable to prove it." She provided a defense on how it got in there so this is what we go off of. Furthermore, she and her coaches were deceptive in their explanation. (Claiming she got it from a pork burrito and obfuscating the fact she order a steak burrito).

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

2.) "Whatever you think “trace” means, the quantity was a small amount, larger than what usually occurs naturally, but entirely within the limits of and consistent with ingestion of food rich in nandrolone." The amount was 3x what she would have gotten if it came from an offal burrito (again, she claimed pork and the receipt showed steak). This is not what she claimed she ate, and was proven that the offal that the food truck served was stomach muscle meat, NOT the organ meat that would have triggered the test. Impossible that the protein would have been "rich in nandrolone."

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

2.1 She did not claim to have that supplements "triggered" the test, so we cannot therefore assume that's where they came from. And people seem to conveniently forget that if they did come from them, THAT'S STILL A BAN.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

3.) "Given the small quantity found, two of the most likely sources of nandrolone remain accidental ingestion by the edible parts of soy-fed intact boar, or possibly contamination of supplements (banned or unbanned)." This mythcial "soy fed intact boar" literally does not exist in the American meat supply. Also, the meat was sourced to factory in which is what harvested, and they showed that the practices that would have resulted your fantastical beast were not used.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

4.) "Neither the AIU, nor the CAS disproved, or gave evidence disproving, intact boar consumption by burrito." The burden is on SHELBY to prove this, not AIU/CAS. Again, THE MEAT FROM THE FOOD TRUCK WAS SOURCED and the did show that the factory the meat came from weren't "soy fed."

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

5.) "Houlihan was put in the impossible situation of not being able to test the burrito, or some batches of supplements, to prove, or rule-out, these possibilities." Again, the meat was sourced and was shown that it couldn't have had natural nandrolone in it. Also, SHE HAS NO PROFF SHE ATE PORK. She has proof she ate a steak burrito!

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

6.) "There is no evidence that Houlihan consumed any artificial nandrolone supplements as suggested by the conflicted WADA lab director/AIU expert, giving a similar “entirely within the limits of and consistent with ingestion” argument."

These are literally cut/copied from the ruling -

"Prof Ayotte explains that nor-DHEA is a chemical/exogenous 19-NA prohormone which is found in norsteroid products and, when used orally, produces pseudo-endogenous results in urine analysis. According to her studies, the carbon isotopic signature of oral supplements of nandrolone precursors, such as nor-DHEA, possess “pseudoendogenous” carbon isotopic signature at -23‰ – similar to the one reported in the Athlete’s samples." (pg. 22)

"The analytical result is consistent with the consumption of a norsteroid oral supplement that has the same carbon isotopic signature as was reported in the Athlete’s samples." (p. 37)

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

7.) "Using the logic presented to the CAS, no one wins the lottery or gets struck by lightning, or bowls 300, or spontaneously combusts. It is easy to fall for this prosecutor’s fallacy, especially if you want to believe it." The amount of evidence against her in the ruling is so overwhelming that her defense actually being true would have been akin to winning the lottery.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

8.) "It’s possible that Shelby lied to the public, her competitors, her teammates/coach, but highly unlikely." From the gun they were being deceptive to the public AT BEST. She, Jerry, and Shalane claimed she tested positive after eating a pork burrito despite have no evidence and hiding the fact until later that she actually ordered and had a receipt for a steak burrito. They then went scorched Earth on WADA and the AIU and haven't shown any hint contrition, provided an apology, or even acknowledged their deceitfulness since then.

Someone should check this poster's IP address to see if it's coming from Beaverton.

rekrunner wrote:

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

1.) "No one knows the source of the nandrolone for sure, except possibly Shelby, who was unable to prove it." She provided a defense on how it got in there so this is what we go off of. Furthermore, she and her coaches were deceptive in their explanation. (Claiming she got it from a pork burrito and obfuscating the fact she order a steak burrito).

If that is what you are going off of, the burrito is the only explanation, period. Regardless, the CAS doesn’t know, the AIU doesn’t know, WA doesn’t know, the WADA Lab Director doesn’t know, the source of the nandrolone. No one knows the source, except possibly Shelby. We also heard testimony that she got a greasy burrito, and not a dry carne asada burrito. Maybe you were deceived at first, but there is no reason now to use that as an excuse.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

2.) "Whatever you think “trace” means, the quantity was a small amount, larger than what usually occurs naturally, but entirely within the limits of and consistent with ingestion of food rich in nandrolone." The amount was 3x what she would have gotten if it came from an offal burrito (again, she claimed pork and the receipt showed steak). This is not what she claimed she ate, and was proven that the offal that the food truck served was stomach muscle meat, NOT the organ meat that would have triggered the test. Impossible that the protein would have been "rich in nandrolone."

You might think that if you just listened to the AIU experts. You were deceived again. The WADA lab director/AIU expert didn’t tell you about her own study where the nandrolone levels were more than 20x the amount in Houlihan’s urine. I’m not strictly going by what she claimed, either, but all the available evidence. We also saw that one of the stomach burritos for sale that day contained chorizo — another potentially rich source of nandrolone.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

2.1 She did not claim to have that supplements "triggered" the test, so we cannot therefore assume that's where they came from. And people seem to conveniently forget that if they did come from them, THAT'S STILL A BAN.

She did tell us that she tested her supplements, but there were some she no longer had from the same batch. It’s a ban that can be reduced through “no negligence”. In any case, I’m not talking about what WADA considers a ban, but what are likely sources of the nandrolone.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

3.) "Given the small quantity found, two of the most likely sources of nandrolone remain accidental ingestion by the edible parts of soy-fed intact boar, or possibly contamination of supplements (banned or unbanned)." This mythcial "soy fed intact boar" literally does not exist in the American meat supply. Also, the meat was sourced to factory in which is what harvested, and they showed that the practices that would have resulted your fantastical beast were not used.

Of course it exists. During the pandemic some pigs were fed more soy. That’s in the CAS report and conceded by the AIU expert. Plus there are several reasons which we did not hear from the AIU experts about how intact boars can pass USDA inspection.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

4.) "Neither the AIU, nor the CAS disproved, or gave evidence disproving, intact boar consumption by burrito." The burden is on SHELBY to prove this, not AIU/CAS. Again, THE MEAT FROM THE FOOD TRUCK WAS SOURCED and the did show that the factory the meat came from weren't "soy fed."

I’m not talking about burden, but what we can conclude now from all of the available evidence. No one disproved Houlihan’s explanation. If there was no burden to disprove it, then my point is virtually guaranteed. There was no such showing about the factory meat. On the contrary, the CAS was convinced that frozen stomach meat was likely impacted by supply shortages due to the pandemic (meaning “soy-fed”). That’s in the CAS report.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

5.) "Houlihan was put in the impossible situation of not being able to test the burrito, or some batches of supplements, to prove, or rule-out, these possibilities." Again, the meat was sourced and was shown that it couldn't have had natural nandrolone in it. Also, SHE HAS NO PROFF SHE ATE PORK. She has proof she ate a steak burrito!

Again, no it wasn’t. And you are repeating what I said — she was in the impossible situation of not being able to prove what she actually ate. A receipt just shows what she paid for, not what she got and what she ate. The CAS agreed it was possible that she got the wrong order.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

6.) "There is no evidence that Houlihan consumed any artificial nandrolone supplements as suggested by the conflicted WADA lab director/AIU expert, giving a similar “entirely within the limits of and consistent with ingestion” argument."

These are literally cut/copied from the ruling -

"Prof Ayotte explains that nor-DHEA is a chemical/exogenous 19-NA prohormone which is found in norsteroid products and, when used orally, produces pseudo-endogenous results in urine analysis. According to her studies, the carbon isotopic signature of oral supplements of nandrolone precursors, such as nor-DHEA, possess “pseudoendogenous” carbon isotopic signature at -23‰ – similar to the one reported in the Athlete’s samples." (pg. 22)

"The analytical result is consistent with the consumption of a norsteroid oral supplement that has the same carbon isotopic signature as was reported in the Athlete’s samples." (p. 37)

Are you making my point, again? “is consistent with” is not evidence, but speculation about one possible source, even if it comes from the WADA lab director/AIU expert. The results are also “consistent with” soy-fed intact boar meat ingestion.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

7.) "Using the logic presented to the CAS, no one wins the lottery or gets struck by lightning, or bowls 300, or spontaneously combusts. It is easy to fall for this prosecutor’s fallacy, especially if you want to believe it." The amount of evidence against her in the ruling is so overwhelming that her defense actually being true would have been akin to winning the lottery.

There is a lot of general evidence, but almost none of it is specifically against her. The AIU experts speak generally about what happens across the USA and Canada. It is a textbook example of prosecutor’s fallacy.

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

8.) "It’s possible that Shelby lied to the public, her competitors, her teammates/coach, but highly unlikely." From the gun they were being deceptive to the public AT BEST. She, Jerry, and Shalane claimed she tested positive after eating a pork burrito despite have no evidence and hiding the fact until later that she actually ordered and had a receipt for a steak burrito. They then went scorched Earth on WADA and the AIU and haven't shown any hint contrition, provided an apology, or even acknowledged their deceitfulness since then.

Someone should check this poster's IP address to see if it's coming from Beaverton.

I was not deceived. They also didn’t tell us that they believe she got a greasy burrito she didn’t order, instead of the dry one she did. A video conference call is not the forum where all the details would come out. They claimed the best/only possible source was the burrito. Nothing in the CAS report falsifies that claim. Why would they need to show contrition, or apologize, or acknowledge deceit that doesn’t exist.

If someone checked, the IP address will be in Europe.

rekrunner wrote:

I have to respectfully disagree. Her explanation was not completely torn apart, and the evidence was not overwhelming.

rekrunner wrote:

And she did not completely fail, as the CAS said it was possible.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I have to respectfully disagree. Her explanation was not completely torn apart, and the evidence was not overwhelming.

No. Of course here explanation was completely torn apart, and the evidence was more than just overwhelming.

Going through the CAS report, one finds escalating improbabilities for the cascade of unlikely events for her to be innocent from:

1) "possible" (that the beef burrito was pork offal burrito)

2) to "possible but improbable" (that the pork came from a cryptorchid EVEN IF it was pork offal)

3) to "possible but improbable" (that the nandro amount would be that high EVEN IF it was a cryptorchid)

4) to "possible but highly improbable" (that the cryptorchid - EVEN IF it existed - had such elevated androgen)

5) to not “consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork".

Even the defense admitted it would have been "commercial pork" (if it was pork offal), but keep deflecting with twisting the soy part. Therefore point 5 alone completely sinks her ludicrous excuse.

And yes, this includes considering the Covid situation, as also explicitly discussed in the CAS report.

As for the balance of probabilities, her oh-so-hard burden to meet: just point 2 alone would suffice to judge her guilty of intentional doping; same goes for point 3, and obviously point 5 is even more damning.

rekrunner wrote:

And she did not completely fail, as the CAS said it was possible.

“possible”? The only one the many issues here that was literally called “possible” was that the beef burrito was actually pork offal - see above how all the other scenarios, all simultaneously necessary for her to be innocent, were judged.

But then, you live in a strange world with your own definitions of English words where citing facts from NY Times and BBC and IAAF and CAS is "nothing more than tabloid gossip".

Kenneth Copeland, verified millionaire wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

If that is what you are going off of, the burrito is the only explanation, period. Regardless, the CAS doesn’t know, the AIU doesn’t know, WA doesn’t know, the WADA Lab Director doesn’t know, the source of the nandrolone. No one knows the source, except possibly Shelby. We also heard testimony that she got a greasy burrito, and not a dry carne asada burrito. Maybe you were deceived at first, but there is no reason now to use that as an excuse.

You might think that if you just listened to the AIU experts. You were deceived again. The WADA lab director/AIU expert didn’t tell you about her own study where the nandrolone levels were more than 20x the amount in Houlihan’s urine. I’m not strictly going by what she claimed, either, but all the available evidence. We also saw that one of the stomach burritos for sale that day contained chorizo — another potentially rich source of nandrolone.

She did tell us that she tested her supplements, but there were some she no longer had from the same batch. It’s a ban that can be reduced through “no negligence”. In any case, I’m not talking about what WADA considers a ban, but what are likely sources of the nandrolone.

Of course it exists. During the pandemic some pigs were fed more soy. That’s in the CAS report and conceded by the AIU expert. Plus there are several reasons which we did not hear from the AIU experts about how intact boars can pass USDA inspection.

I’m not talking about burden, but what we can conclude now from all of the available evidence. No one disproved Houlihan’s explanation. If there was no burden to disprove it, then my point is virtually guaranteed. There was no such showing about the factory meat. On the contrary, the CAS was convinced that frozen stomach meat was likely impacted by supply shortages due to the pandemic (meaning “soy-fed”). That’s in the CAS report.

Again, no it wasn’t. And you are repeating what I said — she was in the impossible situation of not being able to prove what she actually ate. A receipt just shows what she paid for, not what she got and what she ate. The CAS agreed it was possible that she got the wrong order.

Are you making my point, again? “is consistent with” is not evidence, but speculation about one possible source, even if it comes from the WADA lab director/AIU expert. The results are also “consistent with” soy-fed intact boar meat ingestion.

There is a lot of general evidence, but almost none of it is specifically against her. The AIU experts speak generally about what happens across the USA and Canada. It is a textbook example of prosecutor’s fallacy.

I was not deceived. They also didn’t tell us that they believe she got a greasy burrito she didn’t order, instead of the dry one she did. A video conference call is not the forum where all the details would come out. They claimed the best/only possible source was the burrito. Nothing in the CAS report falsifies that claim. Why would they need to show contrition, or apologize, or acknowledge deceit that doesn’t exist.

If someone checked, the IP address will be in Europe.

Long story short, Shelby was required to explain how the banned drug got into her system and she completely failed to do so. When asked to provide evidence to support her explanation, she couldn't provide ANY -other than a receipt for a STEAK burrito (countering her claim of eating a pork burrito) and testimony from her friends that there was "no way my bestie could have cheated!" Again, NO EVIDENCE she even ate the burrito in question. Her explanation was then completely torn apart by the overwhelming amount scientific evidence against her. Head back to your QAnon boards or whatever if you want continuing to believe BS.