Shelby's side of the story from wapo

Sorry -- your "use" did not consider conduct with athlete knowledge of a rule violation, or knowledge of risk of violation and ingoring the risk. You argued that mere presence in her system was sufficient to establish "intent" as a fact. In the best case, such specific conduct and knowledge, like intent, would be presumed, and was not established as a fact, or finding of fact if you prefer.

You false dichotomy of equating "probably not, based on incomplete information" as "certain" is, well false. I am not persuaded by your simpleton understanding that you've dumbed down for your own comfort and confirmation and comprehension.

As you partly concede from time to time, intent was presumed and deemed, and Houlihan was railroaded to a 4-year ban, with no showing nor evidence of intent. This is the predictable result of an inherently unjust, by design, set of rules.

More dishonesty followed by a backhanded insult with mockery for good measure. What class.

I included only the relevant part for brevity. The WADA Lab used a method to establish "exogenous" which they may not use to establish "exogenous" when "invoked by the athlete". The "since varying diets ..." is a explanation for the prohibition, but not the pre-requisite. It would equally apply to the varied diets of soy-fed farm pigs (conceded by Prof. McGlone), as we learned in the CAS report that soy will produce such pseudo-endogenous values in the same range of Houlihan's measured values. It is the varying diet that is relevant, not the "migrating wild boars". That was the focus by all parties throughout the CAS report.

But note again, the WADA Lab reporting is early in the process, before any effort is made to determine the source. Their only guidance of applicability is "consumption of edible parts ... invoked by the athlete". The WADA Lab cannot know whether "migrating wild boars" would be applicable to specific cases during this reporting phase, so cannot reject this guidance on that basis.

You keep saying Iowa slaughterhouse. The pork stomach did come from IBP (Iowa Beef Processor) but (some of?) the meat came from Farmland Foods, based in Kansas City with "processing facilities in Illinois, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Utah". The PI said he was told "that where the animals are actually slaughtered can be almost anywhere". (Prof. McGlone is wrong again?)

I would consider Ross's expertise regarding exercise physiology, and hydration and heat dissipation during exercise, and even Central Governor theory, but here he brings no scientific value, and is propped up as a false authority. Here he was just a highly paid parrot, echoing the words of the AIU and the CAS. Furthermore, Houlihan's case hinged on legal interpretations of words like "may not" and "may be" and "cannot" and standards of "not intentional", and not the science.

What is more relevant to me is the concession of the dependent scientists, like Prof. McGlone, that pigs were fed soy in the relevant timeframe, and the research of dependent scientist Prof. Ayotte, that says eating pig offal can produce values up to 130 ng/ml, or even 160 ng/ml, in research with small sample sizes, and the express guidance from WADA that says that intact pork consumption will usually produce nandrolone values in urine samples in the low, less than 10 ng/ml range, and exceptionally higher, and WADA research that says varying diets can cause varying isotope values.

If a banned substance is found in her system it is presumed she would have known that it was a banned drug - athletes are expected to be aware of what is on WADA'S list - ignorance is not an excuse - so, yes, "intent" to use the drug can be inferred from its presence in her system - like a meal she has eaten - and also knowledge she was thereby breaking the rules, which similarly implies "intent". Her argument against that, saying it was "accidental", failed for lack of adequate evidence.

That you cannot see this is why Houlihan is serving a ban and you are continuing to write irrelevant drivel on this site.

Intent as defined by WADA:-

"Persons who engage in conduct which they knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation"..

Shelby knowingly taking a banned substance, which is the only correct explanation since she couldn't show accidental contamination. An open and shut case and therefore an easy decision for CAS. An intentional violation and a 4 year ban. The system works. 3 cheers for that.

The real question is why do you continue to write senseless drivel? You are not persuasive because you clearly lack relevant knowledge.

I understand why she is serving a 4-year ban. It is the predictable consequence of a set of rules and organizations that were not formed or designed to protect innocent athletes. I agree with Tygart on this point.

What I don't understand is why anyone genuinely believes intent is a fact, when there was no such showing, to the standard of a preponderance of evidence, as I was informed above is applicable in civil actions, because there was no such showing with any evidence whatsoever. The WADA Code explains it is temporarily presumed for the sole purpose of permitting a 4-year ban on the basis of intent without having to show intent.

You go back and forth saying it was presumed -- which is exactly my point. Ignorance is indeed no excuse for the rule violations of presence/use (convicting both innocent and guilty athletes of rule violations by design), but it is an excuse for reducing or eliminating the sanctions for such violations.

The WADA Code treats rule violations and intent sequentially and independently, not mixing and mangling and equating and interchanging them together senselessly the way you do.

I simply do not share your faith that even the most diligent athlete would know all the substances that may or may not be present in their meals, or all of the unlabelled substances which may or may not be in their supplements or medications.

You are just presuming she knowingly took a banned substance and pretending it is a correct explanation. It is unpersuasive without any real facts or evidence.

In 2015, the WADA Code dropped the standards of protection for innocent athletes, making 4-year sanctions an easy decision without having to establish intent. The system works to railroad athletes to 4-year bans regardless of intent. Yay!

You should learn how to read.

"relevant part for brevity", lol, cutting the quote of mid sentence, coincidentally leaving out the most important part.

Note that you go and and on about that one small part of one *comment* in the TD (excluding the relevant part of that comment), not even the actual rule...

IBP? Not Iowa or what? Also, relevance?

"Here he [Tucker] was just a highly paid parrot, echoing the words of the AIU and the CAS. "

Here you go again. I just proved you wrong with a direct quote, but you keep insisting that you are correct anyway without a shred of an argument. This is tiring.

"the concession of the dependent scientists, like Prof. McGlone, that pigs were fed soy in the relevant timeframe"

More lies from you. Stick to the facts please, and include the relevant part for a change. Here is what McGlone said in 115 of CAS - emphasis in bold, so you don't "forget" it again:

"Prof McGlone conceded at hearing that the diet of some pigs was altered during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the fact that the supply chain slowed down, which resulted in certain pig farms increasing the amount of soy fed to their pigs as opposed to corn. However, Prof McGlone submits that this practice was not maintained for a sustained period of time because of the (higher) costs of soybean and that corn remained overall the main diet source for all pigs in the United States."

Thus, the temporary change to more soy - not exclusively soy - was irrelevant according to McGlone.

In fact, if you'd bother to google this, you'd find that the price of corn went down during the course of 2020 because of its increased availability (less need for fuel production).

And stop pretending the offal in question included liver and whatnot. At no point ever did Houlihan or her lawyer make this claim. That is all you under your 28 different handles on letsrun.

The only relevant point in all of that was your saying "I don't understand". The rest followed.

You've just shown you don't know what "unreadable" means. Of course you don't. It is everything that you write.

Since you don't know what are facts or evidence, but only speculation, you will say that.

I only post as rekrunner. It is you who stopped posting with your registered handle and now post under multiple anonymous handles. There cannot be more than one poster with your extreme brand of conclusions based on cherry-picking half the facts, despite your denials.

The part I left out was left out because it is actually not important, even after considering your explanation. The TD guidance and clarification says if the athlete invokes pork, the GC/C/IRMS may not be used to establish "exogenous" origin. The "why" is not relevant, as that cannot change the fact that it may not be used when "invoked by the athlete". That surely explains why one of the CAS panelists could not agree that the WADA Lab reported the AAF correctly, casting doubt on whether any rule violation even occurred within WADA guidelines.

I don't know why Iowa is relevant -- you are the one who keeps repeatedly bringing up Iowa. In 104, Prof. McGlone thought it was relevant and represented to the CAS that IBP/Tyson -- the Iowa Beef Processors -- is not a boar kill plant. With a name like Iowa Beef Processors, perhaps it is true that they don't knowingly process intact boars. But it turns out that IBP/Tyson is not the sole source of pork meat and offal -- Prof. McGlone is proved wrong again, and Houlihan paid the price for the CAS relying on the honesty and integrity and knowledge of the AIU experts who don't really seem to know all of the facts, or are prepared to accurately represent the facts.

What Prof. McGlone said in 115 is also not relevant. No one is saying the practice had to be maintained for a long period of time. It is sufficient that it was practiced for a short time at the right time, as Prof. McGlone conceded was the case. The corn was available because there were supply chain issues backing it up at the source -- the issue was that no one was driving the trucks to deliver the corn to the pig farmers during COVID, so the farmers had to vary the diets to include more soy.

Regardless of your quotes, Prof. Tucker is being propped as a false authority with no established credentials in anti-doping science. Whether he is propped by you and/or letsrun doesn't matter. He added no scientific value and injected no scientific expertise. He just parrotted the AIU and the CAS. For example, he could have searched the literature to find the obvious discrepancies between the literature, and corrected the false claim that was represented to the CAS. No one needs an expert to provide hearsay explanations with no added value.

I cannot pretend a burrito only contains pork meat and pork stomach. That is absurd on its face. It is on record that Houlihan claimed a whole burrito was the likely source, with witness testimony that it was a greasy burrito. Maybe the nandrolone was in the grease, as Prof. McGlone told us is high in nandrolone. Or in chorizo. But surely a pork stomach burrito will contain a variety of other ingredients, not to mention grease, especially the chorizo burrito, regardless of the incomplete information and misrepresentations before the CAS.

You said it too: "... it is presumed she would have known ...".

If any facts or evidence existed, you've had plenty of opportunites to point them out.

Did Shelby say she didn't know nandrolone was a banned drug? No - she knew it was, which is why she came up with the BS about a burrito, instead of saying she took it without knowing it was banned. And why would someone take a performance enhancing drug without knowing that is what is was - and that she hadn't also checked that it was on the WADA list? If she had tried to argue she didn't know what she was taking or that it was proscribed she would have failed on the grounds she was clearly negligent. So the burrito was her best but still feeble effort. But morons like you will always fall for BS and then come up with your own litany of lies.

Hahahaha. You are projecting too much. I literally just caught you cutting a quote mid sentence, in order to leave out the most important part that makes your whole post null and void. And now you accuse me of "cherry-picking half the facts" out of nowhere, without a single example! That is rich.

Plus your lying about McGlone's soy statement. And ridiculing Tucker's job as "parroting". Not to mention all the slandering of the AIU and all the scientists. I wonder... are you simply utterly clueless, lie for the fun of it, or do you simply think you know better than all the experts, from Ayotte to Tygart?

Also, what denials. When, who, how, where? Do you really think we here are all Armstronglivs?

Yes. My God it is intellectually embarrassing to see some of the schlurping going on in defense of Shelby /BTC/Schumacher etc. She took the drug. The end. No chance in hell it came from a burrito. If she wanted to plead contaminated supplements it would’ve involved admitting at a minimum she was taking some sketchy pro-hormones thing that was explicitly banned under WADA. Anyone who entertains the burrito excuse is a big fat simple jack between the ears.

Yes. You are right. The end.

These are just more baseless presumptions from your imagination. You still have no facts or evidence. If you did, it would be simpler to point them out, rather than weave tangled tapestries of lies.

Wrong again.

My point stands with the justification included or omitted. The TD says that the test may not be used to establish the "exogenous" origin, after the athlete invokes pork, because, what is significant is that varying diets (C3-plants versus C4-plants) will invalidate the test, and wrongly convict athletes for consuming "the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs" if the pigs diet includes an increase in C3 plants, like soy. The WADA Lab could establish it optionally with other means, but not with the carbon isotope test.

I didn't lie about McGlone's statement -- you quoted exactly where he conceded soy. That the practice wasn't maintained for very long could explain why Dec. 2020 burritos would test positive, while Jan. 2021 burritos would not. But that doesn't undo the fact that Prof. McGlone conceded pigs were fed soy in a relevant timeframe during the pandemic. This concession undermines both Prof. McGlone's and Prof. Ayotte's testimony before the CAS.

You are disengenuously accusing me of leaving out parts which don't invalidate or nullify anything when included.

What do you suppose I think I know better than Tygart? I don't presume to know more than what he has said publicly, repeatedly. He said supplements were a more likely source based on a gut feeling without any evidence. Maybe. I don't say otherwise. I also agree with Tygart when he said the AIU acted within the rules, and again when he said that it is nearly impossible for athletes to prove accidental ingestion without a sample to test, and again when Tygart says the rules permit ADAs and ADOs to railroad innocent athletes to 4-year sanctions, and again when he said ADAs and ADOs should do more to protect the athletes in these certain cases, and again when he told the Oreganion that "he’s more skeptical of the rival doping agency and the way it handled this case than he is of Houlihan." I think nothing I said contradicted or superceded anything Tygart has said publicly.

With Prof. Ayotte, you would first need to specify which Prof. Ayotte you believe is representing the literature accurately -- the one who found 130 ng/ml in her own peer-reviewed research on nandrolone rich pork offal, or how about the one who found 160 ng/ml in one volunteer, from a group where they measured isotope ratios of -23.6 per mille from ingesting pork offal, or the one who represented to the CAS (without peer-review) in a hearing that Houlihan was 2-3x the highest values reported in the literature, for a meat-only scenario not rebutting Houlihan's main claim of nandrolone from pork offal. I suppose you may be right that she would know why she gave misleading testimony better than I would.

Tucker is simply a false authority on issues outside of his scientific domain. He said nothing I didn't already know from reading the CAS report.