Is Nike Still Sponsoring Shelby Houlihan?

The reason all those improbabilities combined are underwhelming is because these improbabilities are the wrong ones to argue against a likelihood that the source of a nandrolone was ingestion of the bad pig parts.

The problem isn’t to count the number of bad pigs out of all the pigs.

The problem is to explain the likely source of the nandrolone, given the test results.

We aren’t interested in counting the pigs or the burritos that cannot produce those test results.

It just takes one soy-fed Oregon uncastrated boar in a stomach-chorizo burrito is enough to create an exception to the national statistics — and the AIU experts would convince you that that exception statistically cannot exist.

Regarding tabloid gossip, none of the facts you cited directly links Nike to doping. It was you who brought them all together to gossip about Nike, like a tabloid.

All these problems were compounded by Ayotte being allowed to be an expert witness to her own testimony of fact.No wonder she supported the WADA official line and one she was central and funded to create.

At this point, I'm 100% convinced that rekrunner is just the shared account of the entire Salazar family + Shelby's mom.

doesn't nike make it's money from BB shoes . The running shoe part is just charity and history.

quote " Her contract alone would have been over $100k, maybe even more than $200k."

that's towel guy money in the NBA G League

FartKing69 wrote:

At this point, I'm 100% convinced that rekrunner is just the shared account of the entire Salazar family + Shelby's mom.

I know for certain you are 100% wrong. What does that say about what it takes to 100% convince you?

It doesn't speak well for your own thought process, and your tendency to 100% self-deception, as you fell for a predictable irrational defense mechanism.

You are not the first one illustrating a defective thought process.

For clarity, some might think that my extensive posts about Houlihan have to do specifically with the findings against Houlihan, rather than the larger picture of a WADA process that cannot distinguish genuine intentional doping of an exogenous banned substance from accidental ingestion of USDA-approved foods available to the general public. WADA allows the ADAs and ADOs and the CAS to presume too much. Houlihan may indeed be as guilty as everyone thinks, but there is just no way to tell from the available evidence, without being presumptuous.

The best way to shut you up in regard to your Houlihan nonsense posts:

* Place a nice steak burrito in front of you.

* Place a burrito of wild boar testicles in front of you.

* We get to video tape you pretending you cannot tell the difference.

the best way to shut you up ... wrote:

The best way to shut you up in regard to your Houlihan nonsense posts:

* Place a nice steak burrito in front of you.

* Place a burrito of wild boar testicles in front of you.

* We get to video tape you pretending you cannot tell the difference.

I’ll find this .

Lars Sqweebles wrote:

the best way to shut you up ... wrote:

The best way to shut you up in regard to your Houlihan nonsense posts:

* Place a nice steak burrito in front of you.

* Place a burrito of wild boar testicles in front of you.

* We get to video tape you pretending you cannot tell the difference.

I’ll find this .

*fund

the best way to shut you up ... wrote:

The best way to shut you up in regard to your Houlihan nonsense posts:

* Place a nice steak burrito in front of you.

* Place a burrito of wild boar testicles in front of you.

* We get to video tape you pretending you cannot tell the difference.

It's curious that you propose this is the *best* way.

I'd be happy to eat both the beef burrito and the pork-stomach/chorizo burrito.

I am not subject to WADA, and would love to tell you all about it for the next 50 pages.

Is "not telling the difference" a real issue? It looks like a strawman fabrication.

I think everyone present agreed that the burrito was greasy, and unusually filling, rather than the dry carne asada burrito, and the CAS accepted the possibility that she did not get the burrito she ordered and paid for.

Like you said earlier, this is about the likelihood of different scenarios. So what is the likelihood that a professional runner who tests all of their supplements and has a team nutritionist actually eating an entire pork intestine burrito when they didn't order it? You mentioned the chorizo, Houlihan never claimed to have eaten chorizo in her defense...

rekrunner wrote:

For clarity, some might think that my extensive posts about Houlihan have to do specifically with the findings against Houlihan

Yes indeed.

rekrunner wrote:

Houlihan may indeed be as guilty as everyone thinks, but there is just no way to tell from the available evidence, without being presumptuous.

Hahahaha

Let me see:

- the well established Wada lab would have to be wrong

- the experienced scientists would have to be wrong

- AIU would have to be wrong

- CAS would have to be wrong

AND of course:

- Shelburrito would have to have received the wrong meal and

- that wrong meal would have to have been pork offal and

- that pork offal would have to have included kidneys (or similar) in addition to the advertised stomach and

- that pork offal would have to have been from an uncastrated boar and

- that uncastrated boar would have to have been mature and

- that uncastrated boar could not have been commercially fed.

This isn't funny any more, rekrunner. Can't you troll with something new?

Not at all - that's exactly what this doping case, or rather Shelburrito's ridiculo excuse, is all about.

LOL

You forgot to add that that burrito would have to be from a mature boar, and would have to have included kidneys or testicles.

I could add that the PI failed to find a single farmer in the USA who fed exclusively soy to his pigs, but then you'd just troll with the same nonsense all over again.

I could add that the AIU experts understand this a lot better than you, and are a lot less biased than you - very obviously so. At least this time you didn't put experts in quotation marks or called them "so-called experts". But then you'd claim that you once used google and are thus the better expert.

Hahaha - you are confused with the timeline. You started trolling about "directly links Nike to doping." after I added these facts to a previous poster's statement about the Salazar building. But by all means keep embarrassing yourself with your alleged "tabloid gossip".

rekrunner wrote:

I think everyone present agreed that the burrito was greasy, and unusually filling, rather than the dry carne asada burrito, and the CAS accepted the possibility that she did not get the burrito she ordered and paid for.

To be precise:

- only the doper and some of her friend claimed the burrito was greasy and

- CAS never accepted the possibility that she ate a "burrito of wild boar testicles" or a burrito of - commercially fed - boar testicles or kidney.

Question: do you think it's advantageous for Shelburrito or BTC or Nike that you keep bringing up her case?

Personally, I do appreciate that you keep reminding letsrun of her doping.

ghat man wrote:

Like you said earlier, this is about the likelihood of different scenarios. So what is the likelihood that a professional runner who tests all of their supplements and has a team nutritionist actually eating an entire pork intestine burrito when they didn't order it? You mentioned the chorizo, Houlihan never claimed to have eaten chorizo in her defense...

It doesn't seem particularly unlikely that a professional runner with a team nutritionist would eat the wrong order anyway, when they are already home, and hungry, and the show is starting. According to the report, she about 3/4ths of it, and not the entire burrito.

Are you sure Houlihan never claimed it? The CAS report mentions a stomach burrito with chorizo as one of the items available that day.

casual obsever wrote:

Let me see:

- the well established Wada lab would have to be wrong

- the experienced scientists would have to be wrong

- AIU would have to be wrong

- CAS would have to be wrong

AND of course:

- Shelburrito would have to have received the wrong meal and

- that wrong meal would have to have been pork offal and

- that pork offal would have to have included kidneys (or similar) in addition to the advertised stomach and

- that pork offal would have to have been from an uncastrated boar and

- that uncastrated boar would have to have been mature and

- that uncastrated boar could not have been commercially fed.

This isn't funny any more, rekrunner. Can't you troll with something new?

I agree it's no laughing matter. I think it is tragic that clean athletes can get a 4-year ban, and a scarlet letter for life, simply for failing to prove what they ate 1-month or more after the fact, because the primary evidence is gone.

Maybe you participate for the humor, and leave when you get bored, but I take protecting clean athletes seriously, and it is clear that the process isn't refined enough to distinguish genuine real-world intentional doping, from presumed intentional ADRVs.

WADA/scientists/AIU/CAS don't necessarily have to be wrong about anything -- the CAS told us what the presumptions were. I guess it is correct to say, given the CAS explicitly listing two presumptions that form the basis of their findings, that their findings are presumptuous.

Any alternative suggestion, such as from WADA Lab Director/AIU expert Prof. Ayotte, that Houlihan consumed synthetic nandrolone, is speculative, where the likelihood was not evaluated, assessed, or compared, and similarly presumptuous (but not one of the presumptions reported by the CAS). There is insufficient evidence in the CAS report to conclude synthetic nandrolone is a more likely scenario than consuming commercial pork from USDA approved soy-fed sufficiently mature intact boar offal.

But I'm not arguing with the experts. I'm arguing with the likes of you, about how to interpret the expert backed report, and whether the expert backed findings in the CAS report are based on presumption or evidence, and whether they are subjective or objective, and what the report enables us to infer with evidence based confidence.

No doubt the AIU experts have more expertise in their respective domains, but not so sure about the bias, being hired as experts for the prosecution. Recall Lawson's verdict was overturned because of Prof. Ayotte's testimony being less than "neutral". There is also the obvious issue of conflict of interest. Similarly expert McClone makes it sound like uncastrated boar meat wouldn't ever make it past USDA inspectors, but a quick trip to the USDA website shows the public that when presented with an intact boar, a simple smell test is enough for USDA approval into the food chain.

The few statistics that did come from McClone, such as "0.33%" and "less than 1 in 10000", when viewed against the 121 million pigs slaughtered each year, doesn't rule out that a lot of intact boars can make it into the food chain. For good measure, throw in the pandemic and supply problems increasing soy in the pig diets, and the hit on USDA workers expected to sniff pig carcasses during a pandemic of an airborne virus, and it looks like we didn't get the complete picture from the experts about the true likelihoods.

My first post responding to your collection Nike links asked: "Is there anything here that shows Nike is involved in anything related to doping?" Based on the lack of responses, I will presume not.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I think everyone present agreed that the burrito was greasy, and unusually filling, rather than the dry carne asada burrito, and the CAS accepted the possibility that she did not get the burrito she ordered and paid for.

To be precise:

- only the doper and some of her friend claimed the burrito was greasy and

- CAS never accepted the possibility that she ate a "burrito of wild boar testicles" or a burrito of - commercially fed - boar testicles or kidney.

Question: do you think it's advantageous for Shelburrito or BTC or Nike that you keep bringing up her case?

Personally, I do appreciate that you keep reminding letsrun of her doping.

Who else would have personal first hand knowledge of the greasiness or dryness of the burrito?

Not sure why you are talking to me about CAS accepting the possibility of "boar testicles" and "kidneys".

I didn't bring them up, and I don't think the CAS evaluated these organ parts one way or another.

As far as I can tell, the CAS didn't rule out any possibility.

And there is no telling what ends up in chorizo, until we see the list of ingredients, not to mention any other ingredients that might be contained in a greasy pork stomach burrito.

I don't have any problem with bringing up Houlihan's case as often as I want, and have no thought one way or the other about the advantages or disadvantages to Houlihan, BTC, or Nike.

I'm happy you appreciate my posts -- I'll make sure to keep posting to make you happy.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The reason all those improbabilities combined are underwhelming is because these improbabilities are the wrong ones to argue against a likelihood that the source of a nandrolone was ingestion of the bad pig parts.

Not at all - that's exactly what this doping case, or rather Shelburrito's ridiculo excuse, is all about.

Au contraire. The AIU argued the probability, given a burrito, it could produce a positive. We are interested in the probability, given a positive, it could come from a burrito. These are not exactly the same probabilities. One can seem overwhelming, while leaving the other underwhelming. One probability can be 1 in 10 million, while the other can be 1 in 10, without contradiction.

The AIU essentially “proved” that most burritos would cause an athlete to test negative, but some would test positive. The CAS agreed with such a possibility, but that the likelihood would be small. 121 million pigs slaughtered per year give many opportunities for this unlikely event to occur much more frequently than is intuitive. Supply issues during the pandemic, conceded by the AIU expert, created conditions for this specific positive test to become increasingly likely.

As one of the givens is a positive test result, and we are interested in determining the source of the positive, Houlihan should not be compared with the much larger population of burrito eaters who would test negative, but rather among the population of all athletes who would test positive, from all sources. An ideal evaluation would compare all the possible sources of a positive test against each other, with likelihoods adjusted and uncertainties reduced based on complete evidence.

In Houlihan’s case, the evidence is incomplete, as the late notice, 1 month after the event, did not permit preserving the primary evidence she needed, and the likelihood of other alternatives are simply not required to be considered. For example, we simply cannot determine whether Prof. Ayotte’s alternative suggested source is more likely, however plausible it may seem to “experts” and “fans” alike, because the adjudication process itself does not require collecting the necessary evidence to permit such a determination. All we can really say is that, with limited evidence, Houlihan could not “prove” that the burrito was the source to a CAS panel on the balance of probability, and therefore doesn’t qualify for any reduction or vacating of the sanction of the guilty verdict.