Shelby Houlihan is Clean, USADA Still Tests Her Regularly Since Ban

nothing like a Shelby thread to randomly go 10 pages long for no reason.

She lives rent free in everyone's heads because some people are gullible enough to believe her lies.

--lied about why she was not competing though her agent, and herself (said she was injured and that training was going well, they could just keep training)

--mislead people about the burrito story omitting the ordered carne asada

--lied about "trace amount" it's not considered trace amount

--lied saying she believed for sure it was the burrito, only to turn around and say she wasn't sure where it came from.

--lied that Travis Tygart supports and believes her (he does not and has said so)

--Continues to lie about where the nandy came from (she knows exactly where it came from I'm sure of it), continues to spark fear in her competitors of eating meat, and drug testing through her lies, continues to lie about her innocence.

Knowingly telling something that is known to be untrue.

Now prove that.

USADA has spoken many times about contamination catching the innocent.

You fully know this so why lie.

Even you admit doping control catch the innocent.

The rules don’t mention Houlihan; why do you lie.

Answer ?

+1

He just said this in Dominic's podcast:

"The Athletics Integrity Unit that handled it did exactly what they were supposed to do under the rules"

and

"The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence"

as was pointed out in detail by Tucker.

I understand now that when you talk about the "rules" you are referring to the asylum you inhabit.

Um. Lots of people doing illegal things stop doing those illegal things (or hide them better) once they get caught.

Thread: "O.J. Simpson is innocent, media still observes him closely and NO MURDERS SINCE 1994."

But the rules don’t refer to Houlihan at all.

You then insult to cover up your grossly misleading and false statements.

Answer ?

Response please.

Response please.

Remember, she would have had to eat 4 lbs of 100% contaminated meat to make her levels

I don’t accept that her presumption was correct but where did you get those figures from?

Armstronglivs runs away and hides from his misleading nonsense. Yet again.

... or just a few ounces of "offal", like kidneys, heart, or liver.

One of the more dishonest points from the "experts" was to bring "meat" into a discussion of a claim of nandrolone from "offal".

On the one hand, the "experts" told the CAS that it was double and triple what was found in "literature", while one of the "experts" personally authored "literature" finding "offal" produce levels up to 25x more than Houlihan's.

Ayotte should never have been allowed to give expert testimony and be a witness to fact.

ie to be able to say how wonderful her own work was. This leads to leaving out contradictory evidence from her own research.

We have no idea if this was argued by the defence at at point.

Why do you need to know what was argued by the defence?

We know that as much evidence was presented as the defence thought could help them, then the people who were to make judgement applied the rules to all the evidence and did not come down in favour of SH.

How could you possibly make a better judgement without all the evidence.

Why do you think your judgement would be better or fairer than theirs?

Do pay attention to the words in posts that you reply to.This will stop you wasting your time and that of others.

My point is about Ayotte and what arguments may have been made in the pre hearing exchanges as the suitability of her being both a witness to fact and expert opinion esp her leaving out key contrary research from her own papers.