Burritogate All Comes Down to Corn

This is good stuff from you and the OP. False positives seem quite possible given their positive criteria. It would be so insanely dumb to dope with oral nandrolone it makes me more likely to believe that the test is simply poor and overly convoluted.

OP = Kasey?

moultonk wrote:

After studying the research and methods used to identify exogenous nandrolone use in athletes, I believe the Houlihan case ultimately revolves around the question of corn consumption...

Interesting. Just out of curiosity, what is your background? And who is paying your bills these days?

link is wrong in op.

if it is such a wonderful post maybe rojo could get the foundation documents right?

I’m glad to see this thread restored — it is much more interesting reading than someone grabbing a pitchfork shouting “burn the witch”.

Given that most Kenyan busts since 2004 are for nandrolone — something widely known to be easily detectable for decades by athletes/coaches/managers/agents/fans with just a small amount of doping knowledge — it makes me wonder whether such injustice to “innocent” athletes unable to prove the source of nandrolone was their everyday diet, occurs more frequently.

Back to the beginning O.P.

* The burden of proof is on investigating agency to prove a positive test and then to give a likely narrative for motive and opportunity.

* Once an athlete has tested positive, the burden of proof changes. The burden is then on the athlete to prove no intent to ingest P.E.D.s.

* What is different from Ajee Wilson's positive test and Shelby Houlihan's positive test? Wilson used debit card or credit card. Based on bank records, we knew the exact date and time of transaction and location of transaction. Food source was located for Ms. Wilson. There is no proof Shelby Houlihan ordered food from a Mexican food truck.

* O.P., your thread is entertaining but there is no proof Shelby Houlihan purchased food from a Mexican food truck which makes your research regarding quality of meat in Oregon unimportant at this moment.

* Nike and Shelby Houlihan should have hired private investigator to prove Houlihan purchased tainted meat from a Mexican food truck. Since that cannot be proven, your research at this time is not helping Ms. Houlihan.

Harambe wrote:

This is good stuff from you and the OP. False positives seem quite possible given their positive criteria. It would be so insanely dumb to dope with oral nandrolone it makes me more likely to believe that the test is simply poor and overly convoluted.

In 1998, the IOC conducted a study on 621 athletes at the Nagano Olympics.

5 of the athletes, all women, exceeded the IOC limit.

O.P., O.P., O.P. ... wrote:

* Nike and Shelby Houlihan should have hired private investigator to prove Houlihan purchased tainted meat from a Mexican food truck. Since that cannot be proven, your research at this time is not helping Ms. Houlihan.

Actually they did have a PI, and chose to not answer the question whether or not they tested the meat...

O.P., O.P., O.P. ... wrote:

* Once an athlete has tested positive, the burden of proof changes. The burden is then on the athlete to prove no intent to ingest P.E.D.s.

How exactly are you reaosnably supposed to prove a lack of intent to do something?

That is a lot of effort. Unfortunately in the 6 months following the positive Shelburrito was unable to find/purchase any meat exhibiting this problem.

Why do you think that is?

Here is an editorial I put together based primarily on various posts I have made (with help from ideas from others’ posts). Hope there aren’t to many typos!

https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html

Haven't had time to read it yet but I appreciate people coming on here to post such insightful stuff.

I'm now following you as a poster and will get emailed when you post.

I'm amazed at all the details in this thread.

Far too many improbable things would need to line up for this to happen. Always go with the easiest explanation, the banned substance is there because the athlete knowing took the banned substance.

Great article. I'm through part 1 and have a few questions:

1) I don't really understand the PK of NA excretion test that's a replacement for the IRMS. Do they have to go get another sample ASAP? Do they compare A and B samples? You can't do PK with one point.

2) Presumably there is some standard of proof needed for the athlete to invoke the pork-ingestion excuse and thus invalidate the IRMS test? Otherwise you'd always do that if you were popped for nandrolone. Isn't a key fact of this case that WADA and CAS didn't believe she actually ate pork?

Harambe wrote:

Great article. I'm through part 1 and have a few questions:

1) I don't really understand the PK of NA excretion test that's a replacement for the IRMS. Do they have to go get another sample ASAP? Do they compare A and B samples? You can't do PK with one point.

2) Presumably there is some standard of proof needed for the athlete to invoke the pork-ingestion excuse and thus invalidate the IRMS test? Otherwise you'd always do that if you were popped for nandrolone. Isn't a key fact of this case that WADA and CAS didn't believe she actually ate pork?

Thanks!

1) WADA doesn’t define the testing of pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion. But even a single injected nandrlone dose causes high 19-NA excretion for weeks and often months. Houlihan had 4 USADA tests in Q4 of 2020 and 3 in Q1 of 2021. According to her lawyer, she had a number if tests in November of 2020 and at least one in January 2021. I believe they can use those tests to see what the levels of 19-NA were. Ideally, they would test her several times immediately after the lab found a positive A sample. I don’t know if they did that. I know that Houlihan’s mother said that she was supposed to be tested seven days in a row to look at excretion pharmacokinetics, but I can’t find such a rule written down.

2) In this case there is zero requirement for proof according to the WADA document. The Houlihan team argued for an Atypical Finding had the correct procedures been followed. It is a messy situation as far as nandrolone testing — I attempted to describe that in the conclusiin if Part 1.

The requirement of proof comes into play once the Adverse Analytical Finding is rendered. Then such proof is used to judge it still a doping test fail, but a “No Fault” finding without a ban. That is what happened in the cases if Ajee Wilson, Will Claye, Brenda Martinez and Jarrion Lawson per my understanding.

Are you O.P. under a different username? For any of your science to be relevant, one has to believe an Iowa girl, Shelby Houlihan took more than a few bites of pork and did not know she was eating pork. I do not care how many chili peppers and jalapenos, I know difference between beef and pork immediately.

* There is still no proof after your elaborate post that Shelby Houlihan ate at a Mexican food truck.

* There is still no proof that staff at said food truck, by error gave Houlihan pork instead of beef.

* There is no evidence Houlihan cannot tell the difference between beef and pork.

Your science is still near irrelevant.

Poster, this is all so similar to D.U.I. arrests and convictions. An individuals swears he/she was only drinking grape juice. Breathalyzer machine may have had an error rate outside of manufacture stated Standard Deviation. Breathalyzer converting alcohol content in mouth and lung vapors is not exactly the same as Blood Alcohol Level. You are twisting yourself into a pretzel poster. The reason why those defenses sometimes work in court of law, it takes Beyond a Reasonable Doubt for Criminal Conviction. Houlihan did not go to prison. The Civil Standard is More Likely Than Not. For whom are you employed poster?

rojo wrote:

I have now made it so it impossible for this thread to be deleted by a moderator.

Is there anyway to provide a summary of what you've found?

It's your board, right?

Yeah it's tricky to me and I'm not sure the protocols are entirely transparent.

In theory, the regulations are supposed to also ban oral nandrolone administration (and precursors). We know oral nandrolone is rapidly clearly and the PK would be similar (of course) to accidental oral ingestion. To me, the PK tests could only identify injection vs oral administration.

It seems to me these rules basically would allow oral nandrolone consumption as long as you ate pork daily and had proof, basically.

I've been making the case for a while that taking nandrolone orally is effectively useless so maybe WADA agrees and excludes it from their test? Or they have a more complicated/less concrete set of protocols they follow that are not transparent.

Almost certainly there are additional unpublished protocols or the protocols aren't being followed. Why the protocols aren't public or why they don't follow their own documents is puzzling, as you state.

Of course they knew exactly how she doped, but looking for any the-dog-ate-my-homework excuse is all too common. I bet they pulled a Baumann, and tested as many meat samples as they could find in Portland for months, but found 0 with nandrolone. At least they didn't put it into her toothpaste as a last resort.