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.
Intellectually embarassing? I was told to stick with the facts. What do the facts say?
There is no doubt the banned substance was present in one instance, in an amount WADA calls "low" and consistent with oral ingestion, neither the source of the nandrolone, nor the intent to take nandrolone exogenously, was established to any intellectual or legal standard stronger than presumption.
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.
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.
"that were not formed or designed to protect innocent athletes" except it does protect athletes who don't fail drug tests by keeping drug cheats from the playing field... see how that works. Shelby is the one athletes need to be protected from
"that were not formed or designed to protect innocent athletes" except it does protect athletes who don't fail drug tests by keeping drug cheats from the playing field... see how that works. Shelby is the one athletes need to be protected from
The only thing I see is that this presumes that Shelby is a drug cheat. The CAS made no such ruling.
Recall I was reminded that in this civil dispute over rule violations, the standard is "preponderance of evidence", or "balance of probabilities" or "more likely than not".
In the case against Houlihan, there are many presumptions that do not meet that standard, because there is no evidence:
- of a pattern of taking nandrolone
- of intentional ingestion of nandrolone
- of knowledge of any rule violation, or knowledge of risk of a potential rule violation and manifestly disregarding that risk, at the time of ingestion of nandrolone
- that low amounts of orally ingested nandrolone can have any performance benefit
- that athletes generally believe orally ingested nandrolone can have any performance benefit
The facts state she ingested a completely different isotopic nandrolone substance than what would be found in offal, unless the pigs were force fed deca and she consumed about 70 pounds of it. Hence the pro-hormones supplement or other obvious cause: micro-dosing.
The facts state she ingested a completely different isotopic nandrolone substance than what would be found in offal, unless the pigs were force fed deca and she consumed about 70 pounds of it. Hence the pro-hormones supplement or other obvious cause: micro-dosing.
Sorry, there are actually no facts that state that.
On the contrary, the WADA TD document says ingestion usually produces values in the low, less than 10 ng/ml range, and sometimes exceptionally higher, and the literature on nandrolone research says it is sufficient to feed the pigs more soy (or other C3-plants), as conceded by Prof McGlone, to produce the measured carbon isotope values. This is also consistent with Prof. Ayotte's own research, which has found maximum values as much as 22-27 times greater than Houlihan's 5.8 ng/ml, with measured carbon isotope values of ~ -23.6 per mille.
Speaking of burdens, the AIU has a high burden to establish an AAF "greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
The WADA TD on nandrolone says 1) that the WADA Lab must demonstrate "that the 19-NA is not of endogenous origin", and 2) that consumption of pork is considered "endogenous", and 3) that "the (exogenous) origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis" "(f)ollowing consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs".
At the point of reporting the test results, the burden is on the WADA Lab to demonstrate "not of endogenous origin". Once the athlete invoked pork consumption, the WADA Lab is unable to use GC/C/IRMS analysis to establish the exogenous origin. (IMO) the WADA Lab, the AIU, and the CAS majority erred, as according to the WADA TD, the WADA Lab should have reported the B-sample as an ATF, with the comment indicating that the GC/C/IRMS result is inconclusive, citing pork invocation as a factor preventing a reliable GC/C/IRMS analysis.
Why would the CAS majority rule otherwise? The CAS Panel is composed of lawyers who rely on the scientific experts for direction. In this case, they relied on the AIU-expert, who has a dual role of supporting the AIU, and as the Director of the WADA Lab that conducted the tests and reported the results. Given these dual roles, she may be reluctant to neutrally determine that the WADA Lab report was mistaken. There is also the question of "familiarity bias", as the CAS panelists may be more familiar with repeat experts like Prof. Ayotte, preferring her testimony over unfamiliar experts.
In any case, I agree with the dissenting CAS panelist that the AAF was reported improperly. Houlihan should never have been burdened with proving the source of the low amount of ingested nandrolone of inconclusive origin.
To quote from Alan Abrahamson’s piece from last week : The important thing is the number before all that scientific gibberish. In Houlihan’s case, the number is minus-23. The carbon isotope signature for the largely corn-based diet of commercial pigs in the United States is minus-19. In scientific terms, the difference of four is a lot. Like, a lot. So much as to make her burrito defense, like, dumb, as the CAS panel found. Beyond which, the head of the Montreal lab, Christine Ayotte, testified – this is all right there, at paragraph 116, in plain, simple English, hardly dense – that Houlihan’s test results “were not unusual or special, and were like many other [adverse findings] … in the past years, both in terms of the amount of [nandrolone] and the carbon isotopic signature.” Ayotte, the CAS panel went on to explain, that “oral precursors” of nandrolone – that is, something you swallow – “such as ‘19‐nor DHEA’ and ‘nor‐Andro’ can be purchased from the internet, including from Amazon.” She also testified that, in 2016, when she tested a product called “Nor-Andro Max” that on the label contained 19-norAndro, what do you think the number came back at? Well, lookee here: minus-23.77, with a variation of 0.13. Wow. Houlihan’s number is minus-23. What a coincidence.
To quote from Alan Abrahamson’s piece from last week : The important thing is the number before all that scientific gibberish. In Houlihan’s case, the number is minus-23. The carbon isotope signature for the largely corn-based diet of commercial pigs in the United States is minus-19. In scientific terms, the difference of four is a lot. Like, a lot. So much as to make her burrito defense, like, dumb, as the CAS panel found. Beyond which, the head of the Montreal lab, Christine Ayotte, testified – this is all right there, at paragraph 116, in plain, simple English, hardly dense – that Houlihan’s test results “were not unusual or special, and were like many other [adverse findings] … in the past years, both in terms of the amount of [nandrolone] and the carbon isotopic signature.” Ayotte, the CAS panel went on to explain, that “oral precursors” of nandrolone – that is, something you swallow – “such as ‘19‐nor DHEA’ and ‘nor‐Andro’ can be purchased from the internet, including from Amazon.” She also testified that, in 2016, when she tested a product called “Nor-Andro Max” that on the label contained 19-norAndro, what do you think the number came back at? Well, lookee here: minus-23.77, with a variation of 0.13. Wow. Houlihan’s number is minus-23. What a coincidence.
Alan Abrahamson -- good find. Surely he has a full grasp of all the scientific gibberish, and can give us an unbiased perspective.
If you haven't been paying attention, -23 is also an expected value when the normally corn-fed pigs have their diets changed to include more soy. That is what makes Prof. McGlone's downplayed/ignored concession that soy replaced corn during the pandemic so important.
Prof. Ayotte also co-wrote a paper that measured -23.6 in a group after pork offal consumption.
So we can turn to the same Prof. Ayotte to support two possibilties: Houlihan's values can be explained by an oral precursor purchased on Amazon as she speculated to the CAS, or by offal ingestion from a pork (with a varied diet), as she co-wrote in a paper.
Maybe Houlihan should have also eaten more soy (or rice, potatoes, wheat, ...) and less corn (or sorghum, sugarcane, ...) to more closely match the depleted diet of the pigs.
Alan Abrahamson -- good find. Surely he has a full grasp of all the scientific gibberish, and can give us an unbiased perspective.
If you haven't been paying attention, -23 is also an expected value when the normally corn-fed pigs have their diets changed to include more soy. That is what makes Prof. McGlone's downplayed/ignored concession that soy replaced corn during the pandemic so important.
LOL. Alan has indeed an unbiased perspective, and clearly, you are back to your trademark all-out hard-core lying. Again, McGlone never said "that soy replaced corn during the pandemic". Stop, full stop. just stop.
Sorry, there are actually no facts that state that.
On the contrary, there are lots of facts that state that. Below are direct quotes from several independent experts including such facts and more.
Independent expert Professor Tucker – consulted by Letsrun:
With confidence, I’d say "not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion." Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty.
Independent expert Dr. Skiba – consulted by Runner’s World:
There’s an extraordinarily small chance, basically zero, that this a false positive.
USADA Chief Executive Officer Tygart
The Athletics Integrity Unit that handled it did exactly what they were supposed to do under the rules.
The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence.
CAS panel
Based on the above, the Panel finds it is possible but improbable that the meat of an uncastrated boar ended up in the burrito that the Athlete ate. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the burrito she partially consumed on 14 December 2020 contained boar offal.
Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels. The Panel – on a balance of probabilities – is not ready to accept this.
The Panel finds it possible but improbable that the ingestion of boar meat (cryptorchid) would have resulted in the urinary concentration found in the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples.
The Panel finds that the carbon isotope signature of the Athlete’s A- and B-Samples is neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the ADRV was unintentional, and the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional.
Shelby Houlihan is found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules.
Alan Abrahamson -- good find. Surely he has a full grasp of all the scientific gibberish, and can give us an unbiased perspective.
If you haven't been paying attention, -23 is also an expected value when the normally corn-fed pigs have their diets changed to include more soy. That is what makes Prof. McGlone's downplayed/ignored concession that soy replaced corn during the pandemic so important.
LOL. Alan has indeed an unbiased perspective, and clearly, you are back to your trademark all-out hard-core lying. Again, McGlone never said "that soy replaced corn during the pandemic". Stop, full stop. just stop.
Sorry, it just seems to ignore too many facts that can be found in the CAS report. I could stop but people keep responding to me with a load of nonsense.
Hard-core lying? You lie each time you accuse me of lying. Maybe "replace" is a poor choice of word, but some of the corn was replaced with soy. Here is Prof. McGlone's concession of "soy ... as opposed to corn":
"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."
This is what makes values -23 credible, contrary to Alan Abrahamson's dumbing down of the scientific gibberish.
Maybe the science is gibberish to Abrahamson and to you, but I understand what is being measured.
On the contrary, there are lots of facts that state that. Below are direct quotes from several independent experts including such facts and more.
Independent expert Professor Tucker – consulted by Letsrun:
Independent expert Dr. Skiba – consulted by Runner’s World:
USADA Chief Executive Officer Tygart
CAS panel
If the best you can do is to lie and create red-herrings to obfuscate the point, I will surely not be persuaded.
None of these quotes you liberally provided from "independent" "experts" or from the CAS report, or from a CAS press statement, are "facts (which) state she ingested a completely different isotopic nandrolone substance than what would be found in offal, unless the pigs were force fed deca and she consumed about 70 pounds of it."
I can understand you may be obliviotly unaware that a body of peer-reviewed literature replete with facts exists, and ironically it is Prof. Ayotte herself, with co-authors, who published facts in the form of test results of 22-27 times (130 and 160 ng/ml) the quantity of nandrolone found in Houlihan's sample (5.8 ng/ml), and measured isotope ratios of around -23.6 for a group of subjects who ingested pork offal. These publications did not mention that the pigs were "force fed deca" and that the subjects "consumed about 70 pounds of it".
Addressing your red-herring quotes, I am not suggesting that Houlihan's results were a "false positive", or that the WADA "rules" don't allow the AIU to railroad innocent athletes, unable to prove the source, to 4-year sanctions, or that these nandrolone values coming from pork would be a rare event, over time, across the USA.
If you want me to stop, then you should also stop responding to me with primitive lies and obfuscation.
Sure -- since you asked nicely, I will shut up now, for today.
As for tomorrow, as long as posters don't post obvious lies and nonsense responding to me, or disparage me, or pretend that presumption is fact, there would really be no need for me to respond.
Addressing your red-herring quotes, I am not suggesting that Houlihan's results were a "false positive", or that the WADA "rules" don't allow the AIU to railroad innocent athletes, unable to prove the source, to 4-year sanctions, or that these nandrolone values coming from pork would be a rare event, over time, across the USA.
Contrary to what you are implying, none of these independent experts claimed that AIU railroaded Houlihan or that she was innocent. Tygart for example explicitly said that
a) the AIU "did exactly what they were supposed to do under the rules"
and b) that CAS did "a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence".
To remind everyone of the CAS analyses, I cited all that they found to be "improbable", "highly improbable", and not "consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States". And again, Tygart praised them for their analyses of the facts and data and evidence.
What I like about these threads is that rekrunner always loses. The dopers get popped and WADA keeps doing what it is doing. Nothing rekrunner says or any of those he (mis)quotes changes anything. He is always on the losing end of it. That's what it means to be wrong.
This post was edited 27 seconds after it was posted.
Contrary to what you are implying, none of these independent experts claimed that AIU railroaded Houlihan or that she was innocent. Tygart for example explicitly said that
a) the AIU "did exactly what they were supposed to do under the rules"
and b) that CAS did "a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence".
To remind everyone of the CAS analyses, I cited all that they found to be "improbable", "highly improbable", and not "consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States". And again, Tygart praised them for their analyses of the facts and data and evidence.
I thought you might want to explain the relevance of your barrage of quotes or alternatively apologize for your lies. Unless I missed it, can you point out for me which of your quotes are facts that stated "unless the pigs were force fed deca" or "she consumed about 70 pounds of it."? If not, then that initial statement was a lie, which I called out, and you double downed on the lie, but supported it with obfuscation and deflection by providing unrelated quotes.
What's next? You call me the liar, and accuse me of obfuscation and deflection to muddy the facts?
But OK, let's continue with your deflection.
Before we jump to false conclusions about what Tygart thinks based on half the facts, he also said:
"(Tygart's) more skeptical of the rival doping agency (AIU) and the way it handled this case than he is of Houlihan."
"Travis Tygart, director of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, fears that Houlihan’s may be one of a growing number of "innocent positives.""
Sounds like between the two parties in the dispute, he was saying that Houlihan is more innocent than the AIU.
And as a reminder, Tygart repeatedly says "the Code in certain cases, railroads innocent athletes into four year sanctions".
Putting all these together, although the AIU with its experts are not beyond criticism, it is actually the WADA rules that Tygart repeatedly says are wrong, as the AIU was just following orders, "under the rules".
I'm sure the CAS did analyze the facts the data and the evidence, but the only two questions before the CAS could not be decided without presumptions unfavorable to the athlete established by the WADA rules:
"the presumption that the AAF was properly reported and notified by the Laboratory"
What I like about these threads is that rekrunner always loses. The dopers get popped and WADA keeps doing what it is doing. Nothing rekrunner says or any of those he (mis)quotes changes anything. He is always on the losing end of it. That's what it means to be wrong.
What a simpleton way to look at it.
I surely "lose" if you are keeping the score, but you haven't realized we are not playing the same game by the same rules. I'm searching for facts and evidence to establish robust truths, and pointing out where they are lacking, while you are searching for confirmation of five decades of mythology lacking in facts and evidence. It is not unlike scientists "losing" to global warming sceptics or flat-earthers.
It is the sport that loses when aggressive doping enforcement convicts innocent athletes based on presumptions rather than a robust body of evidence and facts.
What I like about these threads is that rekrunner always loses. The dopers get popped and WADA keeps doing what it is doing. Nothing rekrunner says or any of those he (mis)quotes changes anything. He is always on the losing end of it. That's what it means to be wrong.
What a simpleton way to look at it.
I surely "lose" if you are keeping the score, but you haven't realized we are not playing the same game by the same rules. I'm searching for facts and evidence to establish robust truths, and pointing out where they are lacking, while you are searching for confirmation of five decades of mythology lacking in facts and evidence. It is not unlike scientists "losing" to global warming sceptics or flat-earthers.
It is the sport that loses when aggressive doping enforcement convicts innocent athletes based on presumptions rather than a robust body of evidence and facts.
You lose the arguments - both at CAS and on these threads. Then you lose the results. Dopers are busted and the process goes on with no regard for what you would wish. It means you are shown to be wrong again and again but as dense as you are you think second place means you've won. That's a loser.
I surely "lose" if you are keeping the score, but you haven't realized we are not playing the same game by the same rules. I'm searching for facts and evidence to establish robust truths, and pointing out where they are lacking, while you are searching for confirmation of five decades of mythology lacking in facts and evidence. It is not unlike scientists "losing" to global warming sceptics or flat-earthers.
It is the sport that loses when aggressive doping enforcement convicts innocent athletes based on presumptions rather than a robust body of evidence and facts.
You lose the arguments - both at CAS and on these threads. Then you lose the results. Dopers are busted and the process goes on with no regard for what you would wish. It means you are shown to be wrong again and again but as dense as you are you think second place means you've won. That's a loser.
Did I lose any arguments? This is just you again fundamentally misunderstanding what is written. Which results? I still have all my results.
I think the only thing I lost is time spent trying to inform ignorance and supplement half-truths to a small group of people who already think they know everything and don't want to accept that they do not.
I only lose when the losers are keeping the score. You lack knowledge and perspective and think baseless opinion and fantasy and myths and ignorance and half-truths and popular vote and subjectivity has more evidentiary weight than objective facts and evidence and authoritative support. Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, global warming deniers all think they win all the arguments too, but they fundamentally misunderstand the science they think they are debunking.
The real losers are all of the innocent athletes busted by a flawed process originally created to protect innocent athletes, but then presumes athletes are guilty until the athletes can prove themselves innocent within a process lop-sided against them by design. This includes athletes like Simon Getzmann and Jarrion Lawson, who luckily succeeded to "prove" their innocence, but still at great financial personal cost, and after having served a lengthy suspensions, and, to pour salt in the wound, they still end up with one doping bust on their record. This also includes countless athletes who simply cannot afford to challenge the charges and mount a defense according to a one-sided process, not to mention that French or English may not be their first language.
You lose the arguments - both at CAS and on these threads. Then you lose the results. Dopers are busted and the process goes on with no regard for what you would wish. It means you are shown to be wrong again and again but as dense as you are you think second place means you've won. That's a loser.
Did I lose any arguments? This is just you again fundamentally misunderstanding what is written. Which results? I still have all my results.
I think the only thing I lost is time spent trying to inform ignorance and supplement half-truths to a small group of people who already think they know everything and don't want to accept that they do not.
I only lose when the losers are keeping the score. You lack knowledge and perspective and think baseless opinion and fantasy and myths and ignorance and half-truths and popular vote and subjectivity has more evidentiary weight than objective facts and evidence and authoritative support. Flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, global warming deniers all think they win all the arguments too, but they fundamentally misunderstand the science they think they are debunking.
The real losers are all of the innocent athletes busted by a flawed process originally created to protect innocent athletes, but then presumes athletes are guilty until the athletes can prove themselves innocent within a process lop-sided against them by design. This includes athletes like Simon Getzmann and Jarrion Lawson, who luckily succeeded to "prove" their innocence, but still at great financial personal cost, and after having served a lengthy suspensions, and, to pour salt in the wound, they still end up with one doping bust on their record. This also includes countless athletes who simply cannot afford to challenge the charges and mount a defense according to a one-sided process, not to mention that French or English may not be their first language.
You've lost all the arguments. Nothing you say changes anything that matters - and certainly no decisions, like the Houlihan case - because your opinions are either irrelevant or simply wrong. Proof of that is the system for holding athletes to account will not change according to what you think and the doper Houlihan's ban will remain. As far as these threads are concerned, you persuade no one except yourself.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.