The Railroading of Shelby Houlihan

Armstronglivs wrote:

.....duly authorized judicial body......

Wow! I have no dog in this fight, but that is a stretch. Exactly what steps did they utilize to become "duly authorized"....their own say so?

If nandrolone is so common in pork and at this burrito truck, why did her team not prove that? It seems like the easiest way to convince people would be to say we tracked it back to the source and yep the farm has tainted meat. Or even just test the burritos until you get one with even the tiniest amount of nandrolone and scream to the world about that.

Right now it seems like they did nothing besides discover she ordered a burrito and hope that would be enough…

So maybe she did get it from a bad burrito, but not believing that story because they have done nothing to proving anything beyond in a theoretical world something along those lines could happen.

I do not think the lawyer is an idiot, because in other cases he has traced it back to the source and won, which makes it far more likely they could not trace it back to a source.

Meaning guilty if you cannot prove how the substance was ingested due to contamination.

Gullible? Like the former President who swallowed the BS about Italian satellites changing votes in elections, or bought into the fantasies of the Kraken legal team? Or the QAnaon followers? Lots of gullible people on all parts of the spectrum.

Yeah, the biggest weakness in Houlihan's argument is that it relies on a series of really improbable factors all coming together against her to be true. That said, the same is true of the Brenda Martinez case and she was exonerated.

Similarly, if Nike/BTC/Houlihan could prove that this exact food truck just happened to serve product that by laboratory testing was proven to contain steroid contamination is sufficient quantities to plausibly trigger a positive test within the amount of time that Houlihan could have proven to have eaten there, you essentially turn the probabilistic argument on its head. It really would be unfair to Houlihan if all of this was proven to be true! Houlihan would look like an extremely unlucky person.

The problem is that - at least in terms of what the public has seen - we have to take Houlihan and her lawyer at their word on all of those items in italics that you'd actually need to prove in a legal proceeding. Maybe CAS has all of these details and refused to take it under proper consideration, but that seems unlikely from their summary judgment.

The fact that they did a polygraph (which, again, we haven't actually seen that report) does not inspire much confidence that they were actually able to sufficiently verify all the details of the story.

Another point of clarification that will hopefully be cleared up by the CAS report: Did they actually test the food at the truck? Did they investigate their food supply at all? If so, what were the results?

Are we to believe that a food truck in Beaverton, Oregon that is frequented by professional Nike athletes was not willing to cooperate with the town's famous and largest employer to help clear things up?

shocked I tell you again wrote:

Who are you? What are you trying to do? wrote:

2) Burden of proof is on Houlihan to prove she did nothing wrong. It has not been proven that Houlihan purchased food from Mexican food truck ten hours before ped test.

Shelby literally provided bank records to show she purchased something from that food truck. LOL.

Anyway, she's banned. now the problem is hers to solve... or not. No amount of posting on LR will make any difference.

Bank records? I was under the impression Ajee Wilson HAD debit &/or credit card transactions proving Ajee Wilson bought meet with steroids. I was under the impression their are NO debit &/or credit card transactions of Shelby Houlihan purchasing food from said Mexican food truck supposedly 10 hours before failed PED test. If there were bank records, we would have done supply chain tracking of meat and everything else on said food truck.

twoggle wrote:

That is why I am waiting for their evidence that the nandrolone was exogenous and how they justify their reasoning as pervthe WADA guidance document.

You seem very knowledgeable on this subject, so your going to have to help me out. Whether she consumed it in a burrito or a pill, wouldn't the nandrolone be exogenous? Endogenous as used in the article you imbedded (and how I have always heard it used), means produced within the body.

Yes, gullible.

No, not like any of that stuff. Those are far afield instances regarding gullibility. The Jussie Smollett type of gullibility is far closer to the type of liberal gullibility we are seeing regarding Houlihan.

Yes. And your response here has many wondering about your level of gullibility. You believed Smollett, didn't you? Uh huh. And you also believe taco trucks serve hog balls to unwitting white women too. We can read behind the crevices.

team Unruly Bush wrote:

twoggle wrote:

That is why I am waiting for their evidence that the nandrolone was exogenous and how they justify their reasoning as pervthe WADA guidance document.

You seem very knowledgeable on this subject, so your going to have to help me out. Whether she consumed it in a burrito or a pill, wouldn't the nandrolone be exogenous? Endogenous as used in the article you imbedded (and how I have always heard it used), means produced within the body.

Twoggle is just following WADA's usage. In their guidance documents, WADA refers to nandrolone that comes from meat from a non-castrated male pig as "endogenous." Their reasoning seems to be that nandrolone is endogenous if it was produced by some animal. So WADA categorizes nandrolone as endogenous regardless of whether it was produced directly by the athlete's own body (as in the case of pregnant athletes) or by eating the meat of a non-castrated male pig, which produced the nandrolone itself.

Mash Pie Slam Bone wrote:

SeattleSilver wrote:

Gullible?

Yes, gullible.

SeattleSilver wrote:

Like the former President who swallowed the BS about Italian satellites changing votes in elections, or bought into the fantasies of the Kraken legal team? Or the QAnaon followers?

No, not like any of that stuff. Those are far afield instances regarding gullibility. The Jussie Smollett type of gullibility is far closer to the type of liberal gullibility we are seeing regarding Houlihan.

SeattleSilver wrote:

Lots of gullible people on all parts of the spectrum.

Yes. And your response here has many wondering about your level of gullibility. You believed Smollett, didn't you? Uh huh. And you also believe taco trucks serve hog balls to unwitting white women too. We can read behind the crevices.

You aren't a detail guy. I've challenged SH's defense several times over the past week, including quite recently in this thread.

And no, I didn't believe Smollett, although I didn't pay too much attention to the story originally. I am aware that he is an actor, but I have never seen anything in which he performed, so his name in the news didn't interest me very much. As a lawyer, I found the drama with the District Attorney and her contortions more intersting.

They also only had to prove their defence on the balance of probabilities, so 51% likely, not beyond reasonable doubt. That's how BS the burrito story was - that it wasn't even more likely than not.

Houlihan apologists are cut from the same gullible, liberal cloth as those who flounced their pants for Jussie Smollett. Like poltroons of yore, they long ago lost the ability to distinguish what they desperately want to be true, with what actually is true.[/quote]

Are you kidding? The posts this week have been like a Q-Anon meeting. Bunch of conspiracy theory nut cases with zero critical thinking skills.

Wise Old Man wrote:

It is preposterous to think Nike could not have induced the cooperation of the food truck workers, owners. If there was any exculpatory evidence to be had, we would have it. It's really not that hard to figure out the chain of custody of the meat served on the night in question and at least do some testing of meat from the same source to demonstrate the presence of nandrolone. This would still beg the question of whether or not SH consumed this meat, but it would have been a very valuable part of her defense. They either tried this and failed to find any nandrolone + meat, or they did not bother because they know the source, pharmaceutical nandrolone.

Several posters have referred to Nike's supposed power to influence Houlihan's case. I don't believe this is the case at all. It would look extremely bad (and be possibly illegal) if they are ever caught trying to persuade any witness to make statements in support of her. There should also be no doubt they are perfectly capable of throwing any athlete of theirs under the bus, by distancing themselves from actions the athlete took and saying they were the result of individual decisions; not guidance from Nike.

Since only 2% of pork in the food supply is boar meat, it is not surprising they failed to identify and prove the grower of the pork occasionally raises virile pigs. All of this might seem to indicate what a small probability it was for her to test positive, but what many fail to grasp is that if you have athletes taking 16 tests per year (which were all negative prior to the last one), it is statistically certain someone somewhere is going to get unlucky and have a positive reading. This time, it happened to Shelby. Next time, it will be someone else.

In the Zone now! wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

.....duly authorized judicial body......

Wow! I have no dog in this fight, but that is a stretch. Exactly what steps did they utilize to become "duly authorized"....their own say so?

Do you know what the Court of Arbitration in Sport does - or is that a "stretch" for you?

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

team Unruly Bush wrote:

You seem very knowledgeable on this subject, so your going to have to help me out. Whether she consumed it in a burrito or a pill, wouldn't the nandrolone be exogenous? Endogenous as used in the article you imbedded (and how I have always heard it used), means produced within the body.

Twoggle is just following WADA's usage. In their guidance documents, WADA refers to nandrolone that comes from meat from a non-castrated male pig as "endogenous." Their reasoning seems to be that nandrolone is endogenous if it was produced by some animal. So WADA categorizes nandrolone as endogenous regardless of whether it was produced directly by the athlete's own body (as in the case of pregnant athletes) or by eating the meat of a non-castrated male pig, which produced the nandrolone itself.

+1

I’m going to jump to a completely different line of thought and I’m sure there are people on this board that know more about this area than I.

One of the contraindications for medical nandrolone use is poor bilirubin excretion. Bilirubin levels could increase to unhealthy levels from nandrolone use, especially if excretion is poor.

After gallbladder removal, even years after removal, postcholecystectomy syndrome (PCS) can occur. Jaundice caused by excess bilirubin is one of the possible results of PCS. According to this paper, PCS has been seen to occur as much as 25 years after gallbladder removal and can occur in over 40% of cases for females:

A couple of thoughts:

1. It could be reckless for some people, in my opinion, to take nandrolone without a gallbladder.

2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t bilirubin levels one thing that is tested for in the Biological Passport? Nandrolone can affect those levels, but so can gallbladder removal (even years later). The Spleen plays a role in bilirubin production as well.

Those are some admittedly very rough thoughts … that may lead nowhere. :-)

Slow Your Roll wrote:

Houlihan apologists are cut from the same gullible, liberal cloth as those who flounced their pants for Jussie Smollett. Like poltroons of yore, they long ago lost the ability to distinguish what they desperately want to be true, with what actually is true.

Are you kidding? The posts this week have been like a Q-Anon meeting. Bunch of conspiracy theory nut cases with zero critical thinking skills.[/quote]

Yeah, and you're amazing at critical thinking!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!

No, it didn't happen to Shelby. She didn't get unlucky with what she purportedly ate. She doped.

Breton wrote:

There's also a transcript. Here's a quote from Epstein:

It is a common contaminant. Nandrolone makes up most of the positive tests that the Athletics Integrity Unit finds overall. We know it gets injected into meat illegally versus the chance that she was for some reason taking it orally, which would be very rare and the stupidest thing you could possibly take. So I’m sort of stuck between these improbable stories. But my reflex these days when someone test positive for nandrolone is to think that that may be accidental because it’s like the one substance that everyone knows not to take on purpose anymore. But it’s still a common contaminant.

Epstein gets one important thing wrong, which also speaks to why the food truck does not want to get involved in the case and attract attention. He says "We know it gets injected into meat illegally..." which, in this case, is absolutely 100% wrong. Nandrolone is a naturally-occurring substance in male pigs. But you know, many customers, like Epstein, will not understand this and avoid buying anything from the Mexican food truck if they hear anything about the case.

Given that it's unlikely we will get an admission of guilt from the Houlihan camp, were she guilty, I must ask: what evidence would make you change your position to "guilty?"

If there's nothing, this is not a discussion.