Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

runningchick wrote:

Harambe wrote:

I am pleased that the expert witness Shelby brought confirmed that she didn’t inject it and that one dose of oral pro-hormone (necessary to produce the low level test results) would do effectively nothing for athlete performance.

I definitely don’t think this was intentional nandrolone doping. Shelby may have been taking a fishy supplement though.

If the issue was a legal but tainted supplement then why not immediately get all the things you take tested? It's the immediate defense strategy and if one of the supplements is positive then you have your way out of this mess. Only explanation involving "supplements" is if she was taking something that was not legal. Everything else she should have immediately submitted to analysis.

This is just speculation, but: One possibility is that she was taking a contaminated but otherwise legal supplement that she failed to list on her disclosure form when she was tested.

That would explain the alternative explanation and the specificity of the polygraph questions ("did you knowingly ingest nandrolone?").

If you fail to list a supplement on your disclosure form, you could save yourself a potential doping positive but inadvertently confess to tampering, which would incur its own sanction.

If you're of the mind that Houlihan would not knowingly dope but don't buy the burrito defense, that is the set of circumstances that makes the most sense to me.

It's alphabetical, so using my research, I would say one of these - Elise Cranny Chris Derrick Gabrielle Debues-Stafford

Rick Sanchez wrote:

Whose name is omitted in the space after Coburn and before Ferlic?

https://twitter.com/CleanSportCO/status/1405666744698425344

suspicion in the ignition wrote:

My man, expert testimony suggests that the right type of pig even ending up in the supply chain was 0.01%. Then factor that you still have to explain the aberrant carbon levels, how the wrong organs got introduced, that even given all that the levels found in her body were 2-3 times too high. If that's not the smoking gun that annihilates her story, then I really don't know what burden of proof you expect.

We're talking about infinitesimal odds her story explains the data. It's absurdly more likely that a professional athlete would cheat if we're talking probabilities. And if by some chance she didn't, then it got there through some other form. If you are holding on to the burrito story after this, no amount of evidence short of a confession will convince you.

Isn't the probability more like 0.0001%. How closer to zero does it need to be to state that we ain't buying that BS lame explanation?

Say what you may about Sha'carri and her pot, but at least she womanned up right away.

Charlatan wrote:

It's alphabetical, so using my research, I would say one of these -

Elise Cranny

Chris Derrick

Gabrielle Debues-Stafford

Rick Sanchez wrote:

Whose name is omitted in the space after Coburn and before Ferlic?

https://twitter.com/CleanSportCO/status/1405666744698425344

GDS is Canadian, so it's likely not her signing a letter to USATF.

I would be shocked if the removed name is a BTC athlete. Any Nike athlete would likely be putting themselves in a very difficult place signing onto the letter.

AGREE!!!! Kara talks a BIG GAME about advocating for Clean Sport, throws out speculation and opinions regularly. When this news broke, the podcast was silent and Kara shyed away. Very disappointing.

^^^seriously, this

Where is Clean Sport Collective wrote:

https://twitter.com/davidlikesyou/status/1433100870078636038?s=20

here's a running journalist's reasonable explanation for the CAS hearing. Nice right? I agree with everything he's saying. Anyways, here's what he's said about other athletes in the past.

https://twitter.com/davidlikesyou/status/1406448421897052162?s=20https://twitter.com/davidlikesyou/status/1232385302859329537?s=20https://twitter.com/davidlikesyou/status/1421997385186697221?s=20

I'm not trying to troll him here. I like him. but the inconsistency is just wild.

Tbf, he's just outlining the civil legal process in most countries. Decisions are taken on the balance of probabilities rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", which is the criminal standard for conviction. There's are good reasons that beyond reasonable doubt isn't the standard in doping cases, e.g. it's an incredibly high standard and no one would ever be found guilty, and it would of imply raising doping to the level of criminality and I'm not sure any athlete wants that risk.

CAS writes its decisions in legalistic language so it can't outright say, "your story is very likely horsesh1t", and instead uses phrases like "a sequence of events, the probability of which occurring is close to zero." In its legal language, CAS called Houlihan's story a total crock and dismissed the shambolic evidence her team put forward. It's damning, utterly damning

Tbf, he's just outlining the civil legal process in most countries. Decisions are taken on the balance of probabilities rather than "beyond reasonable doubt", which is the criminal standard for conviction. There's are good reasons that beyond reasonable doubt isn't the standard in doping cases, e.g. it's an incredibly high standard and no one would ever be found guilty, and it would of imply raising doping to the level of criminality and I'm not sure any athlete wants that risk.

CAS writes its decisions in legalistic language so it can't outright say, "your story is very likely horsesh1t", and instead uses phrases like "a sequence of events, the probability of which occurring is close to zero." In its legal language, CAS called Houlihan's story a total crock and dismissed the shambolic evidence her team put forward. It's damning, utterly damning[/quote]

I'm totally fine with him Outlining the legal process too! I'm glad he did. What I'm not fine with is running journalists wearing their "outline the legal process" hat when it comes to Shelby, and their snarky side eye hat when it comes to everyone else. Pick one hat when it comes to this issue and stick with it. Also the chances of him stepping up and outlining the legal process if this were Sifan are less than zero.

But wouldn't it be a much much easier defense to say: oops forgot to declare this totally legal thing than coming up with the Burrito story?

Clean sport is a non binding , polical organization that is taking donation money to pay the salaries of the organizers . I would not support this or donate to it.

David Melly is a nobody.

He has done nothing in this sport.

Armchair QB. Give it a rest with the self-promotion.

In many other instances, both of actual doping cases and just pure speculation, he has not merely "outlined the civil legal process" but instead stated his opinions. Strange to avoid such in such a damning case now.

GDS does run with BTC so possible.. and she's shown herself to be moranic when dealing with logical people. She's one of those "man with a background in subject matter opens his mouth = mansplanning therefore I'm going to 'ok boomer' him and say something moranic like super shoes don't work it's all me baby, ALL ME AND ONLY ME."

so if mansplaining is a thing than a woman opening her mouth and saying something idiotic should be a thing too...

Very interesting that they are requiring that she prove herself innocent, rather than that they prove her guilty. The fact that cryptorchid, whatever that is, is highly unlikely to have been in the food chain or in quantities high enough to get that positive test doesn't mean that she wasn't served another meat that did have high steroid content. A Mexican food truck could have anything in the meat. Maybe they got shipments of meat from Mexico or from Mexican groceries that had high steroid content. So, then, it would have been a real steroid and have the 19-NA. They can also go back and test her other samples to confirm that she never had this steroid in her body but the one time. Although I was highly suspicious of Shelby after her just off the charts destruction of the field in the kick at U.S. trials a few years ago, this one might well just be real bad luck--to have eaten a burrito with bad meat. And maybe the pig offal story was wrong because it wasn't pig offal. Maybe it was beef, which does often have high steroid content. After all, they did order carne asada and they didn't say straight out that it could not have been carne asada, just that there was a lot of meat and that it tasted different than usual.

gumpyrunner wrote:

Frerichs testimony:

They unwrapped and ate their burritos, but none of them finished their burritos because the meat was very “heavy”....

Dumb question: a bunch of people ate the suspect meat, why did only Shelby test positive, were the others not tested?

I accept both dumb and dumber answers.

RunRaider wrote:

This is just speculation, but: One possibility is that she was taking a contaminated but otherwise legal supplement that she failed to list on her disclosure form when she was tested.

That would explain the alternative explanation and the specificity of the polygraph questions ("did you knowingly ingest nandrolone?").

If you fail to list a supplement on your disclosure form, you could save yourself a potential doping positive but inadvertently confess to tampering, which would incur its own sanction.

If you're of the mind that Houlihan would not knowingly dope but don't buy the burrito defense, that is the set of circumstances that makes the most sense to me.

They just couldn't get enough evidence to support the burrito defense which ended up being: there is a small chance that she got tainted meat. It was always going to be impossible to prove a month after the fact. Think the food truck has very detailed records of its meat or keeps samples?

What we need is some kind of pharmacokinetic or identification test that can show NA/NE came from low-concentration meat vs a concentrated oral preparation. Are there other metabolites we expect to see in urine after boar consumption? Is there is classic PK profile of meat consumption vs oral (pro)hormone consumption. <- they even say there is a PK test that can be done, but the CAS found that the lab doesn't HAVE to do it. I don't know how conclusive it is, though.

Antidoping is a tricky endeavor in that if you apply beyond-reasonable-doubt standards then tons of dopers will have a valid excuse. If you lower the standard of evidence you're inevitably going to catch innocent people who got unlucky. This could be an example of that, and part of the price we pay for catching dopers.

Supplement with unknown ingredients is also feasible, because they put steroids in supplements to make them effective and get repeat customers, but they can't label them as having steroids for legal and competitive reasons.

I agree that the reasons given as to how she had the drug in her system do not hold up to scrutiny. However, what does not make sense, as there was no evidence she was injecting it, is that she was taking it orally. A method which has no benefit for an athlete. Why would she do that?