If Shelby was doping intentionally why wasn't she running super spikes?

You said, referring to Ross's "explanations", that I pretended "there were none". I pretended no such thing.

Since you agree Ross brought nothing new to the discussion, Ross's "explanations", when he wasn't simply parroting from the CAS report, were just his expressed opinions as an outside observer to the case. I don't see any reason to give his opinions any special weight or consideration.

Don't you realise that you are citing Lawson's agent and Gault's comments instead of CAS?

What's next? Citing Houlihan’s lawyer to provide proof for her innocence?

The basis for my expressed thought was the content of your posts.

Someone ("CAS reader" the false one?) claimed "No one has defined low or large in that context, or given any actual values."

Turns out someone did give actual values.

I also cited the "expert witness" saying, as an expert, her duty is to express what she believes to be correct. That is another answer to "what in the world is the problem with the Ayotte lady?"

Dr. Ayotte has a history of false testimony in the Lawson case, but here Ayotte appears to be referring to two pieces of information: 1) “IRMS delta values (13C) of nandrolone and testosterone products available in the UK: Implications for anti-doping” (which I believe was first presented at the 32nd Manfred Donike Workshop on Doping Analysis in 2014 — not looking at my notes, though); 2) what she claimed was her own test from 2016.

Below is what I wrote 1-1/2 years ago about changes to WADA info about nandrolone. I don’t fault them for trying to improve their tests on a shoestring budget. I do fault them for little to no testing on false positives, no team of research design experts 100% outside of WADA and Sports Science consulting on research design, extrapolating from tiny studies or simply self-assured scientific speculation at hearings.

========
Below is some followup information to my editorial, "Houlihan,
Burrito-Gate and the Problems of Sports Drug Testing" at
https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html .
Early in the year 2000, the LA Times quoted the WADA Director as saying
about nandrolone metabolites in urine, "From what I understand, the
medical data shows the only way you can go above the two-nanogram level
[2 ng/ml of 19-NA] is by ingesting the drug. You can eat boar's
testicles all week and not reach that level."
By 2008, WADA knew that these statements were erroneous based on a study they cite in their Technical Document. A single ingestion of boar offal could lead to a measurement of 130 ng/ml of 19-NA (nandrolone
metabolite) in the urine -- 65 times more than what the WADA director
thought was impossible. A single ingestion of boar meat (without the
organs) could lead to 2.4 ng/ml of 19-NA, still more than the limit at
that time. This study was only conducted on only three subjects so that the findings of 130 ng/ml for boar offal and 2.4 ng/ml for boar meat may
not be even close to the upper limits had the study been conducted on
100 or 1,000 subjects. Houlihan had just 5.2 & 5.8 ng/ml of 19-NA in her
urine samples. Somehow WADA convinced CAS arbitors that Houlihan had 2 - 3 times more 19-NA in her urine than ever seen in the scientific
literature. It is easily provable with WADA's own citation that 30 times
more 19-NA was seen in 1 of 3 subjects than found for Houlihan.
Also in the year 2000, the director of the Montreal laboratory involved
in Houlihan's test (Ayotte), testified at a CAS hearing that the ratio
of the two nandrolone metabolites, 19-NA and 19-NE showing an "equality
of ratios" (similar amounts) was a hallmark of ingestion of a prohibited
substance. The amounts of 19-NA and 19-NE for Houlihan were not similar
as would have been expected (in the year 2000) for ingesting a
prohibited substance. The ratio of 19-NA to 19-NE for Houlihan was 3.9
to 4.5. In the year 2000, this would have indicated that she was not
taking a prohibited substance. But WADA had moved on to other
problematic tests.
By 2006, Ayotte and others for WADA determined that one cannot use the
19-NA/19-NE ratio (as she testified to before CAS), but could tell the
difference between exogenous nandrolone (doping) and endogenous
nandrolone (naturally-occurring, including pork ingestion) by looking at
the carbon isotope ratios using a GC/IRMS test. Figure 3 of Ayotte's
2006 report shows the exogenous (doping) results clustered between -27‰ and -31‰. The results in the report assumed to be endogenous
(non-doping) were clustered between -19‰ and -23.5‰. Houlihan's
measurement was -23‰. This would have indicated endogenous (non-doping) nandrolone metabolites. But as in the case of 19-NA and 19-NE ratios,
WADA had moved on to other problematic tests.
Several years ago, WADA decided the way to differentiate exogenous
nandrolone (doping) and endogenous nandrolone (non-doping) was to
conduct the GC/IRMS test as mentioned above, but compare the results to a reference compound. However, like all of their other speculations, they did little testing as to the number of false positives that could be generated. As I pointed out in another post, one small study showed a 40% false positive rate and another more recent small study showed at
least a 12.5% false positive rate when subjects ingested pork from
uncastrated (farm-raised or wild) pigs.
Each time, WADA is so certain that their testing procedures are
infallible and will testify to CAS as if they are. While there is no
mention of pig diets in the WADA technical document, their experts
relied on Houlihan's GC/IRMS test showing a result of -23‰ while pigs
fed a diet of corn to soy ratio of 4 to 1 (and 10 to 1 for a finishing
diet) will lead to human subjects with a GC/IRMS result of around -19‰.
Any significant increase in the percentage of soy or addition wheat or
barley or sorghum in the pig feed or any foraging by the pig can
drastically change the result of the GC/IRMS test. Other grains like
wheat are sometimes substituted to avoid the need for lysine and other
supplements. The soy industry has been pushing farmers to use a higher
percentage of soy meal. Soy carbon ratio: -29‰ ; Wheat: -25‰ to -27‰;
Barley: -27‰ to -29‰. A pig feed with 4 to 1 corn to soy ratio will have
a crude protein level of ~15% and a finishing feed with a ratio of 10 to
1 will have a crude protein level of ~7%. While the ingredient percentages are not listed on the label, one can see it is common for pig feed to have a much higher crude protein percentage (probably due to more soy or added wheat), especially finishing feed. The assumption by the WADA expert that all pigs are fed an imaginary average of 4 to 1 corn to soy (without any wheat, barley, sorghum, other ingredients or
foraging) doesn't match with many products for sale and many
recipies/articles available online.
Then there is the issue of meat contamination that wasn't mentioned. In 2021, Ireland found 10% of the pig samples with nandrolone, in Spain it
was over 14% of the samples. In Austria it was only 0.66% and Poland
only 1% of the pig samples with nandrolone. Malta had >18% of the pig
samples with nandrolone in 2020. In 2017, WADA presented issues with
meat contamination. They claimed that the chances of an adverse
analytical finding was small in the EU and higher in certain hot spots.
However, when tens of thousands of tests are conducted every year, it is
likely there will be some cases of contamination leading to adverse
analytical findings.
Finally, there is the issue that the WADA Technical Document that
provided an alternate testing strategy for Houlihan's exact case.
Houlihan's team asked that this testing strategy be followed as spelled
out in WADA's own technical document, but the Athletics Integrity Unit ignored the request. I think that it is absurd for WADA to identify a
problem, design an alternate testing strategy to address the problem,
put all of that in their testing Technical Document and then have no way
to trigger that strategy and then deny the need to use that strategy at
a hearing. Was WADA's comments in their Technical Document just "random
musings" rather than addressing a problem they identified? It appears so
as those musings are still in their Technical Document with no mechanism for them being triggered.

I'm curious to read whatever is available.

Finding products that produce -23.6% and -23.7% 19-NA in urine would be a substantial finding and certainly worthy of publication and useful for the anti-doping world. It would be odd to not publish that in a peer-reviewed journal.

From what I could find, it appears nor-DHEA (presumably 19-nor-DHEA) is not a precursor but a derivative of nandrolone. I could be wrong if they create each other like the relationship between pyruvate and lactate. But if it's only a derivative then that's a sneaky way to avoid future research that would dispute her claim.

Found it! You really know this stuff. The 4 products with carbon around -22% were nandrolone. Presumably the urine 19-NA isotopes would be similar?

It's interesting that those nandrolone samples were seized and not a commercial product. Hard for another lab to confirm results but also no clear motive to create fake data in 2018, prior to burrito gate.

The Shelby doping apologists here should be grateful for threads like these; it allows them to rehearse the same unsubstantiated claims they have made for the last 4 years that make not a whit of difference to the outcome of the case or how they will be decided in the future. So Shelby remains a convicted doper and no one is persuaded otherwise by the repetition of her defenders' arguments here.

Thanks. There have been a few of us that discussed this case in detail starting in 2021, some thinking she’s guilty and some thinking she’s not. I wrote an editorial (link in previous post) related to Houlihan and doping testing in general. Keith Moulton wrote a good piece (link at bottom of this post). Ross Tucker wrote his own analysis. Rekrunner has been posting on this case for years.

The assumption is that the ratios would be similar for 19-NA and I think that’s a good assumption. So, I can understand WADA changing their testing procedures again. But they change them without published false positive testing and apparently without a thought to the consequences for athletes.

keithmoulton.com

The CAS Report on Shelby Houlihan

Keith

A case of misleading analysis, inaccurate statements, and bogus evidence For those unfamiliar with the case, American 1500 meter runner Shelby Houlihan revealed in a press conference on June 14th, …

Open link

That's wild that a pork burrito might actually be it.

I don't have an opinion on whether she was or is 100% clean. I just think deliberate use of nandrolone doesn't make sense when there's other methods that are easier to get away with. What a court decides is not always aligned with reality. This is especially true with lower standards of evidence and a complicated situation.

Nandrolone is a known ped that is often used by distance athletes in Kenya, among other countries. That is why she used it. All drugs pose a risk to the athlete of being caught but done with expert assistance the risk as negligible, as only a fraction of dopers are busted.

Kenya almost got banned as a country because of their flawed testing program.

Houlihan was tested throughout 2020, so microdosing nandrolone would be like playing with fire.

Is there anything special about nandrolone compared to testosterone and EPO?

It looks like 19-nor-DHEA is a steroid itself. Maybe it converts to 19-NA in urine.

There is no evidence she was microdosing. She was caught and duly convicted of fully dosing.

I'll listen to people who disagree with me, but if you're going to say things that are clearly false I have to suspect that you know it's false and wonder about your motives. Her samples were 7.8 and 6.9 ng/mL and only once. That study of 1 full dose had peaks of 400 to 2,300 ng/mL with many of the subjects testing positive 4 months later and even 9 months. Palonek 2016 paper.

Her corrected values were even lower -- 5.2 and 5.8 ng/ml.

One dose of injected nandrolone is detectable for many months, making intentional injections by athletes for performance reasons unlikely, especially 2 decades after high profile busts like CJ Hunter and Linford Christie.

Here there was no dispute she ingested nandrolone orally. From a WADA point of view, this doesn't matter as the rules don't make a distinction between oral ingestion versus injection.

What makes intentional oral ingestion of nandrolone unlikely is that most of it is filtered out on first pass, never making it into the bloodstream to have any effect. This is confirmed by one study (albeit on men) that found no endurance performance benefit or recovery benefit from either oral nandrolone, or oral testosterone. (See "Effect of multiple oral doses of androgenic anabolic steroids on endurance performance and serum indices of physical stress in healthy male subjects")

Like the ones you make about Sam Ruthe. You are just the same.