Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

People seem to be missing the point of the report. They didn’t really care whether the pork excise was possible, they did feel it wasn’t all that plausible but they spent very little effort trying to refute it and even misstate some of the research in favor of pork causing a reading similar to Shelby’s. This is because other evidence clearly shows the pork story simply doesn’t matter: the carbon isotope ratio within the nandrolone being from fossil fuels is conclusive that it was artificial nandrolone. Whatever story Shelby wants to cook up, regardless of how possible it could be, can’t explain the presence of artificial nandrolone.

She doped. Get over it. Don’t be surprised if everyone that testified for her gets busted in the coming years.

This was one of the points of contention. While the results are consistent with artificial nandrolone, they are also consistent with ingestion of soy-fed boar offal. The CAS heard experts on both sides say, or concede, that pigs ate more soy during the pandemic, but the CAS decided that most commercial pigs eat corn.

rekrunner wrote:

This was one of the points of contention. While the results are consistent with artificial nandrolone, they are also consistent with ingestion of soy-fed boar offal. The CAS heard experts on both sides say, or concede, that pigs ate more soy during the pandemic, but the CAS decided that most commercial pigs eat corn.

Are you making new arguments or are you repeating yourself?

1) The S.R.O.s have a responsibility to prove a P.E.D. was in S. Houlihan's body at more than a trace amount.

2) It was then S. Houlihan's obligation to prove P.E.D. was in her system from what she so-called believed a normal food source.

You have been typing and typing for weeks and simply repeating yourself. You are not persuading readers on this site.

+1

Hold on, I just wrote that on the previous page:

Obviously the absurd beef burrito - which actually had to be uncastrated boar (who had a rare sexual disorder and was fed soy instead of corn like his siblings and also had inexplicably high androgen) offal (which included lots of kidney and liver instead of the normal stomach muscle offal) - story loaded with what ifs without evidence, would get laughed out of court

So if the Shelburrito team really thought all of the above is not only possible but combined more than 50% likely, they should have analyzed, say, 100 such seemingly regular pork samples from that very slaughter house and or food truck to show how often any of that occurs:

1) uncastrated boar

2) soy-fed boar

3) high androgen boar

And then analyze 100 boar offal burritos from that food truck to show how often it contains (instead of the advertised outer stomach):

4) kidney or liver or testicles

In over four months, they produced a big fat ZERO of those four points, of course. Yet, they need all four to have simultaneously occurred to comprehensively explain the test data. Case closed.

Are you ...? wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This was one of the points of contention. While the results are consistent with artificial nandrolone, they are also consistent with ingestion of soy-fed boar offal. The CAS heard experts on both sides say, or concede, that pigs ate more soy during the pandemic, but the CAS decided that most commercial pigs eat corn.

Are you making new arguments or are you repeating yourself?

1) The S.R.O.s have a responsibility to prove a P.E.D. was in S. Houlihan's body at more than a trace amount.

2) It was then S. Houlihan's obligation to prove P.E.D. was in her system from what she so-called believed a normal food source.

You have been typing and typing for weeks and simply repeating yourself. You are not persuading readers on this site.

Neither nor. I’m repeating the established arguments of others: some arguments that we can find in the CAS report; some alleged arguments we cannot find in the CAS report (i.e. CAS arguing how it got there); and some arguments about the process (your 1) and 2) above).

Take away some of your biased words and conclusions not found in the CAS report, and we are saying similar things.

No one said that Shelby’s team thought of all these things, in time for a hearing before the Olympic trials.

Analyzing 100 pork samples and 100 burritos sounds like a really high burden for any athlete, and four months doesn’t seem like enough time for that. They would have to be burritos sourced from December 2020 and pork sourced from before, and even then, it is a low probability event. 100 would not be enough. The expert said 0.33% of boars make it to market, so it would have to be 300 samples, to get that expected 1. Then it would have to be during the pandemic, when there were supply problems and pigs were eating more soy — they may have to test 10000 pork samples. Who pays for the pork and the tests? And it has to happen in less than 4 months as time is needed for both sides to prepare arguments and rebuttals, for adjudication.

Determining or disproving intent based on national probabilities doesn’t seem like a good way to achieve justice for such low probability events, when they do happen — because it is possible with non-zero probability that such events will happen to someone, sometime, given enough opportunities. It would have been better if the expert from Texas analyzed what really did happen in Oregon, in mid to late 2020 during the pandemic.

It should also be noted that conclusions of “it got there because she doped” would be equally laughed out of court. Using your standard, many things would need to simultaneously occur to comprehensively explain the test data, and in that same four months, the World Athletics, their experts, the AIU, the WADA labs, and the CAS produced ZERO of these things. To their credit, they did not draw these kinds of conclusions. That comes from “fans” of the sport.

runspired wrote:

People seem to be missing the point of the report. They didn’t really care whether the pork excise was possible, they did feel it wasn’t all that plausible but they spent very little effort trying to refute it and even misstate some of the research in favor of pork causing a reading similar to Shelby’s. This is because other evidence clearly shows the pork story simply doesn’t matter: the carbon isotope ratio within the nandrolone being from fossil fuels is conclusive that it was artificial nandrolone. Whatever story Shelby wants to cook up, regardless of how possible it could be, can’t explain the presence of artificial nandrolone.

She doped. Get over it. Don’t be surprised if everyone that testified for her gets busted in the coming years.

What you describe as artificial nandrolone being in her system is by a long way not conclusive evidence that she doped.

Those who know anything about the history of Doping would conclude that no one on whereabouts would dope with nandrolone

Thus Occums Razer would indicate sabotage or supplements or even a farmer using enhancers.

You are again correct. I would add emphasis to the farmer enhancing his stock with a lot more than than soy.

rekrunner wrote:

Using your standard, many things would need to simultaneously occur to comprehensively explain the test data, and in that same four months, the World Athletics, their experts, the AIU, the WADA labs, and the CAS produced ZERO of these things. To their credit, they did not draw these kinds of conclusions. That comes from “fans” of the sport.

My standard? LOL. Plus, not "many things" at all; she could have simply bought it from Amazon.

They didn't produce any of that, because they didn't have to.

Shelby would have to, if she wanted to win.

But nice of you to admit that the chances for each scenario are 0.33 - 1% (or lower). Add maybe 10% for the wrong order, and we get, give or take: 0.0033 x 0.01 x 0.01 x 0.01 x 0.1 = 0.000000000033

= 0.0000000033% chance;

=99.9999999967% sure that it did not come from the burrito.

In conclusion, she was banned for doping. Yes she was. Clear cut case. You can argue about details, such as we don't know how she doped, and since when, and whether she could have run sub-15 clean etc., but the fact remains: a four year ban for intentional doping.

And of course, you will start all over again, pretending that CAS could have been wrong, therefore we can't call her a doper and whatnot. Knock yourself out. Keep the name of this drug cheat on page 1 of this forum.

Am hearing she told her sister and BTC she made "errors in judgement."

I think CAS called her bluff.

I'm cool calling her a doper with the likes of Regina Jacobs and Marion Jones.

So first of all, I don't buy that stupid burrito story any longer, it's complete bogus and won't stick to the wall any longer as a regular beef burrito would...

However, I do think that Shelby didn't purposefully use nandrolone (in the most dumbest way on earth), but that either her food or supplements had been contaminated somehow. Also, and that's probably going to be the most important argument in the appeals process is the question of due process. At least that should be the centre of their argument.

If the lab in Canada indeed didn't abide by the best industry practise and used a methodology that was arguably deficient, error-prone, and lacking accuracy in determining the source of the PED (or whatever the argument was, I'm a lawyer not a scientist), and presuming that they requested a more accurate testing method which was subsequently denied by the lab, there is a major issue with this judgement.

This is not a case where you have to come up with some voodoo to defend your position and neither one where you'd have to argue in favour of the American just because she is American. But if this was any other field of law, the suspicion here would weigh so severe that no conviction would be reasonable.

Charlatan wrote:

Am hearing she told her sister and BTC she made "errors in judgement."

I think CAS called her bluff.

I'm cool calling her a doper with the likes of Regina Jacobs and Marion Jones.

What’s your source? Has anyone else heard this? Damning if true

skeptic64 wrote:

Charlatan wrote:

Am hearing she told her sister and BTC she made "errors in judgement."

I think CAS called her bluff.

I'm cool calling her a doper with the likes of Regina Jacobs and Marion Jones.

What’s your source? Has anyone else heard this? Damning if true

"Errors in judgement" could just mean she was reckless in her diet and the supplements she used, so not damning at all.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

skeptic64 wrote:

What’s your source? Has anyone else heard this? Damning if true

"Errors in judgement" could just mean she was reckless in her diet and the supplements she used, so not damning at all.

Maybe. I really want to believe her and do but this would start to cast some doubt. Why would you use that phrasing with people close to you instead of just saying idk what caused this, I haven’t been careful enough- could be this one supplement I’m taking. Just sounds fishy.

How is it that the majority are happy with sporting justice that would not be accepted elsewhere.

How is it the Wada determines the methods and criteria of applicable science.

How is it that Ayotte is allowed to be a witness to fact and then be an expert witness of opinion about the accuracy of the creation of that fact and it’s context.

All perverse me thinks.

There is no evidence that she had intent thus not a cheat.

Said by CAS to be a credible witness.

Are you ...? wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

This was one of the points of contention. While the results are consistent with artificial nandrolone, they are also consistent with ingestion of soy-fed boar offal. The CAS heard experts on both sides say, or concede, that pigs ate more soy during the pandemic, but the CAS decided that most commercial pigs eat corn.

Are you making new arguments or are you repeating yourself?

1) The S.R.O.s have a responsibility to prove a P.E.D. was in S. Houlihan's body at more than a trace amount.

2) It was then S. Houlihan's obligation to prove P.E.D. was in her system from what she so-called believed a normal food source.

You have been typing and typing for weeks and simply repeating yourself. You are not persuading readers on this site.

Convinced me .

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Absolutely.

The CAS was not asked to argue how it got there.

The CAS was not required to argue how it got there.

The CAS made no such arguments of how it got there.

They did accept AIU arguments of how it probably did not get there.

Yet Armstronglivs accused me of “Just denying the arguments by CAS of how it got there.”

He cannot explain this.

CAS determined it got there through doping because there was no credible alternative explanation offered. Once it painstakingly dismissed Houlihan's defence all that was left was that she doped. And that's what it decided.

Your denial is in your seeking to find any explanation for the presence of nandrolone but doping. For 42 pages. It will be with your dying breath.

CAS never said she doped; that is your conclusion.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

skeptic64 wrote:

What’s your source? Has anyone else heard this? Damning if true

"Errors in judgement" could just mean she was reckless in her diet and the supplements she used, so not damning at all.

Up until about 15 or so years ago, N.F.L. athletes routinely publicly blamed positive P.E.D. test on supplements, some football players even publicly stated a company's name. I am sure Supplement & Vitamin Industry have put professional athletes on notice. They all know better than to blame Supplement & Vitamin Industry. Others posters have correctly stated over the past two months: Supplement & Vitamin Industry are not going to sneak expensive P.E.D.s into a $20 to $50 bottle for retail customers. So we have an athlete blaming a food truck, most likely a family business who do not have much money to fight S. Houlihan in court over defamation. Houlihan is blaming food truck x 2. Houlihan is blaming food truck for serving her pork when she says she requested beef. Houlihan is blaming food truck for not only serving her pork, but uncastrated wild boar.