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

Tofffui wrote:

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.

The Claimant’s above evidence remained basically uncontested by the Respondent. The Respondent did convincingly establish that the pork stomach meat from the food truck in December 2020 was from a frozen batch that had been purchased in September 2020 and was likely to have been affected by the summer disruption to the pork industry caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Prof McGlone testified that this would not have impacted on USDA inspectors’ presence at operational pork processing plants nor the protocols for controlling for cryptorchids from entering the US food supply.

casual obsever wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

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.

a) No, that is standard procedure.

b) No, no "contradictory evidence from her own research" was left out.

c) Yes we do:

RE a), as that is well-established standard procedure, no "defence" (the correct word is "Respondent") would ever argue against it.

RE b), the Respondent of course did not argue that, because nothing was left out. You made that up without any evidence whatsoever as per usual.

Read point 105 from the CAS report from 27 August 2021:

The Claimant’s above evidence remained basically uncontested by the Respondent. The Respondent did convincingly establish that the pork stomach meat from the food truck in December 2020 was from a frozen batch that had been purchased in September 2020 and was likely to have been affected by the summer disruption to the pork industry caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Prof McGlone testified that this would not have impacted on USDA inspectors’ presence at operational pork processing plants nor the protocols for controlling for cryptorchids from entering the US food supply.

And let's not forget the support Tygart - like Tucker earlier - just gave the AIU and CAS here in this matter, see post #207 in this thread from 12/20.

Tofffui wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Indeed. Like Tucker and Tygart. See my post above. But trolls will be trolls, and fans will be fans.

As I have said many times ….I agree with Tucker and also his point that we don’t know if she cheated.

So I do wonder whether Houlihan’s first thought upon notification of the positive test was to look at her supplements?

...

So if Houlihan can’t show supplements, and couldn’t show pork ingestion as credible, what’s left? Well, doping. And there’s a really interesting section in the CAS Decision where we get a hint of what World Athletics might believe happened. Of course, World Athletics don’t have to prove anything — it’s Houlihan who has to show a plausible non-doping explanation – but Prof Christiane Ayotte, who testifies for World Athletics in the case, says, in Points 76 and 114 that in recent years, they have begun noticing a new pattern of carbon isotope signatures in these 19-NA doping cases.

casual obsever wrote:

Tofffui wrote:

As I have said many times ….I agree with Tucker and also his point that we don’t know if she cheated.

Tucker said it's either supplements or doping, and Shelby herself explained why it wasn't in the supplements (which Tucker apparently didn't know).

So I do wonder whether Houlihan’s first thought upon notification of the positive test was to look at her supplements?

...

So if Houlihan can’t show supplements, and couldn’t show pork ingestion as credible, what’s left? Well, doping. And there’s a really interesting section in the CAS Decision where we get a hint of what World Athletics might believe happened. Of course, World Athletics don’t have to prove anything — it’s Houlihan who has to show a plausible non-doping explanation – but Prof Christiane Ayotte, who testifies for World Athletics in the case, says, in Points 76 and 114 that in recent years, they have begun noticing a new pattern of carbon isotope signatures in these 19-NA doping cases.