It is an irrelevant question. It doesn't f*cking matter where it came from, since it was in her body and she was unable to show legitimate cause.
It's the most relevant question -- too important to be settled by a presumption.
It wasn't settled by a presumption; it was settled because she failed to discharge an onus of proof on her to show a legitimate explanation for the presence of a banned drug in her system.
Correct, we do know the most important thing: a ped was in her body. The source was some drug company.
So you say. It is possible the source was from some drug company, unless it came from consumption of pork offal in a greasy burrito.
To resolve this ambiguity requires a fact-finding exercise to produce facts, and not uninformed speculation or unproved/invalid assumptions.
It didn't require a fact-finding exercise. You are simply trying to rewrite the rules by which these kinds of proceedings operate. She had a banned drug in her system; it wasn't required for antidoping to establish its "source" - that is utterly immaterial to the proceedings. The onus quite properly fell on her to show a legitimate explanation. Since she couldn't rebut the presumption of intent with the evidence she presented the violation was confirmed. So it wasn't a presumption that saw her convicted but her lack of exculpatory evidence.
The CAS found she couldn't overcome presumptions. How can you still be this uninformed?
What you choose to do with your time is up to you.
She was convicted because, firstly, she tested positive - this was not qualified or reduced in the decision - there was no ambiguity in that finding - and, secondly, it wasn't the presumption of intent that resulted in the finding of intent but her failure to show legitimate cause despite the evidence she produced.
If she had been convicted only on the basis of presumptions, as you fallaciously argue, there would have been no case to be heard and no defence able to be presented. You are an incorrigible liar.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
That's odd that she mentioned birth control recently. I think that would have shown up in the testing protocols, and I thought she had said previously that she wasn't using birth control. But also, it's 4 years later, and the whole subject can be mentally exhausting.
LOL that wasn't trolling, that was asking Detective P whether he had a source for his still unsubstantiated claim that Houlihan did not use testo and HGH.
I meant that I don't think a top Nike runner would deliberately use nandro when other options are way more strategic. Now it could be a trace contaminate in another pro-hormone, if those oral powders actually do anything to increase hormones. 🤷♂️
You continue to site single plausible items, but for all these (ridiculous) single items to line up is incredibly, unceasingly, increasingly, absurdly, embarrassingly, and insultingly implausible. Scientifically and Practicality Impossible.
And Absurd
Site? Practicality?
I know in the popular court, many believe it would be "scientifically and practicality (sic)" impossible, but I am wholly unpersuaded by a general argument which is neither "specific" nor "concrete" to the case of Houlihan. While the general likelihood across a nation will inarguably be low, the specific individual likelihoods will vary greatly, especially for non-randomly chosen cases pre-selected on the basis of the presence of a low amount of nandolone, under unique anormal conditions during supply chain issues in the middle of a world-wide pandemic.
That's not quite accurate. She still hasn't ruled out blaming pork in a burrito, but acknowledges it sounds "ridiculous". All her comments say she still doesn't know:
"It’s not easy to provide answers when you don’t really have them." "So to answer your question, I don’t really know." "maybe it was a vitamin" "Is it possible that [the nandrolone] was in one of the gummy vitamins? I don’t know. It feels unlikely, but like who knows?" "maybe birth control or something" "what if it was the birth control and we didn’t have time to explore that?"
They tried to find sources but only ran into dead-ends they couldn't prove: "where the animals were slaughtered could be almost anywhere". "It now seems nearly impossible that we would be able to track down whether the burrito contained meat from an intact pig." At the end of the first week, they sent vitamins to be tested, but no longer had the same batch. "two of the gummy vitamins I didn’t have the originals of" "We did our best to try to get everything that I did consume and send it off to a lab, but the results obviously were negative." Similarly, they purchased burritos in January to have them tested. "since the burritos purchased in January were from an entirely different shipment of meat, it unfortunately did not tell us anything about whether the meat I ate in December contained nandrolone." When one or two months pass, all the evidence gets consumed or discarded or destroyed.
The only way to understand the CAS findings are, that maybe it was from a greasy burrito, but the CAS found she didn't prove it as "more likely than not" with "specific and concrete" evidence -- that was the basis the CAS used for deeming presumed intent, and sanctioning the presence as if it were intentional.
Pretty much all of the above is sheer propaganda. You act like nothing had happened since the first announcement of her ban, but we all have learned so much more.
3) It wasn’t just not “more likely than not”, rather it's only a tiny tiny chance if any: 3A) RW: "Dr. Philip Skiba is a director of sports medicine for Advocate Medical Group in Chicago and was a consultant on Nike’s original Breaking2 project in 2017. He read today’s report and said in a phone call with Runner’s World, “There’s an extraordinarily small chance, basically zero, that this a false positive.”
4) Contrary to your often repeated claims, the AIU and CAS etc. did a great job:
Tygart, in the recorded Houlihan 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"
To conclude, the only proper way to understand the CAS finding is that it's basically impossible to have come from a burrito, and Houlihan admitted that the supplement theory is even less likely. So yes, it clearly was intentional doping.
I could go on, but what's the point. You will just continue with your long disproven propaganda.
It's the most relevant question -- too important to be settled by a presumption.
It wasn't settled by a presumption; it was settled because she failed to discharge an onus of proof on her to show a legitimate explanation for the presence of a banned drug in her system.
According to the CAS, her "failure" was rebutting presumptions, presumptions which led to the CAS "findings".
It wasn't settled by a presumption; it was settled because she failed to discharge an onus of proof on her to show a legitimate explanation for the presence of a banned drug in her system.
According to the CAS, her "failure" was rebutting presumptions, presumptions which led to the CAS "findings".
The “finding” was the positive test. The CAS gave her the opportunity to rebut the finding and she failed to do that. Because she couldn’t. Because she put the nandrolone into her body on purpose.
It didn't require a fact-finding exercise. You are simply trying to rewrite the rules by which these kinds of proceedings operate. She had a banned drug in her system; it wasn't required for antidoping to establish its "source" - that is utterly immaterial to the proceedings. The onus quite properly fell on her to show a legitimate explanation. Since she couldn't rebut the presumption of intent with the evidence she presented the violation was confirmed. So it wasn't a presumption that saw her convicted but her lack of exculpatory evidence.
I'm not rewriting the rules of these proceedings, but pointing out the defects and limitations of how these proceedings operate. The rules as written permit railroading innocent athletes to 4-year bans, based on a set of presumptions lacking supporting facts.
She was convicted because, firstly, she tested positive - this was not qualified or reduced in the decision - there was no ambiguity in that finding - and, secondly, it wasn't the presumption of intent that resulted in the finding of intent but her failure to show legitimate cause despite the evidence she produced.
If she had been convicted only on the basis of presumptions, as you fallaciously argue, there would have been no case to be heard and no defence able to be presented. You are an incorrigible liar.
Did she test positive? You keep saying that, but that itself is a "finding" based on a set of presumptions. I'm not persuaded that the WADA Lab properly reported the AAF in line with WADA standards, or that the AIU met their higher burden that an ADRV occurred. I'm not alone -- one of the CAS Panelists was persuaded that Houlihan rebutted these presumptions.
In that case, you are right to say that there should have been no case to be heard and no defence to be presented.
That's odd that she mentioned birth control recently. I think that would have shown up in the testing protocols, and I thought she had said previously that she wasn't using birth control. But also, it's 4 years later, and the whole subject can be mentally exhausting.
It's clear from her inteviews that she doesn't really understand the science.
The only birth control WADA mentions is oral contraceptives containing norethisterone, and the WADA Labs are instructed to test for THNE.
Note if sophisticated female athletes really wanted to microdose with nandrolone (is that an oxymoron?), they could take such oral contraceptives, and then values less than 10 ng/ml are considered "Negative Findings", and everything else is an "ATF". It is not possible for nandrolone at any level or any CIR to be considered an "AAF" in WADA's TD.
I know in the popular court, many believe it would be "scientifically and practicality (sic)" impossible, but I am wholly unpersuaded by a general argument which is neither "specific" nor "concrete" to the case of Houlihan. While the general likelihood across a nation will inarguably be low, the specific individual likelihoods will vary greatly, especially for non-randomly chosen cases pre-selected on the basis of the presence of a low amount of nandolone, under unique anormal conditions during supply chain issues in the middle of a world-wide pandemic.
According to the CAS, her "failure" was rebutting presumptions, presumptions which led to the CAS "findings".
The “finding” was the positive test. The CAS gave her the opportunity to rebut the finding and she failed to do that. Because she couldn’t. Because she put the nandrolone into her body on purpose.
But was the test positive? That was the first set of presumptions. Houlihan had the opportunity to rebut the presumptions. Regardless of failure or success, the presumptions are still presumptions.
Pretty much all of the above is sheer propaganda. You act like nothing had happened since the first announcement of her ban, but we all have learned so much more.
See for example: 1) She ruled out the burrito: WSJ: "But she no longer thinks that tainted meat cost her trips to two Summer Games."
2) She ruled out the supplements: RW: "But she told me they'd ruled out supplement contamination early"
3) It wasn’t just not “more likely than not”, rather it's only a tiny tiny chance if any: 3A) RW: "Dr. Philip Skiba is a director of sports medicine for Advocate Medical Group in Chicago and was a consultant on Nike’s original Breaking2 project in 2017. He read today’s report and said in a phone call with Runner’s World, “There’s an extraordinarily small chance, basically zero, that this a false positive.”
3B) Letsrun: "Tucker: “The contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.”"
3C) WSJ, see above: "The court concluded that the probability of Houlihan’s explanation “is (very) close to zero.”"
4) Contrary to your often repeated claims, the AIU and CAS etc. did a great job:
Tygart, in the recorded Houlihan 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"
To conclude, the only proper way to understand the CAS finding is that it's basically impossible to have come from a burrito, and Houlihan admitted that the supplement theory is even less likely. So yes, it clearly was intentional doping.
I could go on, but what's the point. You will just continue with your long disproven propaganda.
The solution to debunking (alleged) propaganda is providing facts, and not your own alternate propaganda. You seem to be heavily persuadable by "appeal to authority" opinions of outsiders (a popular fallacy among the uninformed), combined with "appeal to non-authority" second hand retellings (a popular children's "telephone game").
What is not lacking are presumptions, and opinions, but what is lacking are the relevant supporting facts, not only for CAS findings, but also for fan-based conclusions that the CAS did not draw.
1) That is what Rachel Bachman wrote in WSJ.
2) That is what Matt Hart wrote in RW.
3) While it is true that it would be a "tiny tiny" chance generally across the USA for athletes chosen at random, individual probabilities can vary widely based on exceptional facts and factors, especially during unique conditions during the pandemic.
3A) That is what Dr. Skiba said in a phone call to Runner's World - his opinion based on what the CAS wrote.
3B) That is what Ross Tucker wrote -- his opinion based on what the CAS wrote.
3C) Again, something the WSJ wrote, paraphrasing what the CAS wrote.
4) What is Tygart's opinion? Previously (according to the Oreganian) he seemed to be more skeptical of the AIU for not going above and beyond the rules to conduct the fact-finding necessary to protect innocent athletes. Maybe the AIU and the CAS followed the rules -- but these are the rules that can railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans.
We cannot conclude, as you suggest, that "it's basically impossible to have come from a burrito", because the facts necessary to conclude this basic impossibility in this specific case do not exist.
The fact is that on Day 1, Houlihan said she didn't know, and today, on day 1888, she still says she doesn't know. Despite all your second and third hand opinions and retellings, nothing has materially changed to increase the public knowledge (that's me and you and all the other "fans" of the sport) about the origin of the nandrolone. It could be pork ingestion. It could be supplements contaminated during manufacture. It could be doping with intent. It could be from a greasy beef burrito. It could be something no one has thought of. No way to tell based on all the accumulated evidence. The only way to draw conclusions is to presume them first.
The fact is that the CAS doesn't know enough to support their findings, because they had incomplete information before them and relied on unproven (if not invalid) assumptions (and fallacies), and a codified set of presumptions. Regarding the source, the AIU doesn't know, Profs. Ayotte and McGlone don't know, Rachel Bachman doesn't know, Matt Hart doesn't know, Dr. Skiba doesn't know, and letsrun readers don't know, either.
With just adopting one different presumption, "charged athletes presumed innocent until proven guilty", Houlihan would be given all the benefits of all the doubts, and would not be sanctioned.
If you want to go on and on, try something else than giving me the baseless or second or third-hand opinions of outsiders. Show me some tangible fact, like the Amazon receipts, or the empty bottles in the trash, or testimony from insiders, for the oral nandrolone precursors that Prof. Ayotte "suggested".
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.
According to the CAS, her "failure" was rebutting presumptions, presumptions which led to the CAS "findings".
The “finding” was the positive test. The CAS gave her the opportunity to rebut the finding and she failed to do that. Because she couldn’t. Because she put the nandrolone into her body on purpose.
According to changing WADA documents, I believe it would only be a valid adverse finding if the test was performed at least 6 days after the sample was collected when the new document was approved. But if the principle of athlete's benefit applies, then the older document would be more valid since the newer document wasn't active until 4 months later.
In any case, the process has issues by putting burden of proof on athlete.
Pretty much all of the above is sheer propaganda. You act like nothing had happened since the first announcement of her ban, but we all have learned so much more.
See for example: 1) She ruled out the burrito: WSJ: "But she no longer thinks that tainted meat cost her trips to two Summer Games."
2) She ruled out the supplements: RW: "But she told me they'd ruled out supplement contamination early"
3) It wasn’t just not “more likely than not”, rather it's only a tiny tiny chance if any: 3A) RW: "Dr. Philip Skiba is a director of sports medicine for Advocate Medical Group in Chicago and was a consultant on Nike’s original Breaking2 project in 2017. He read today’s report and said in a phone call with Runner’s World, “There’s an extraordinarily small chance, basically zero, that this a false positive.”
3B) Letsrun: "Tucker: “The contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.”"
3C) WSJ, see above: "The court concluded that the probability of Houlihan’s explanation “is (very) close to zero.”"
4) Contrary to your often repeated claims, the AIU and CAS etc. did a great job:
Tygart, in the recorded Houlihan 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"
To conclude, the only proper way to understand the CAS finding is that it's basically impossible to have come from a burrito, and Houlihan admitted that the supplement theory is even less likely. So yes, it clearly was intentional doping.
I could go on, but what's the point. You will just continue with your long disproven propaganda.
The solution to debunking (alleged) propaganda is providing facts, and not your own alternate propaganda. You seem to be heavily persuadable by "appeal to authority" opinions of outsiders (a popular fallacy among the uninformed), combined with "appeal to non-authority" second hand retellings (a popular children's "telephone game").
What is not lacking are presumptions, and opinions, but what is lacking are the relevant supporting facts, not only for CAS findings, but also for fan-based conclusions that the CAS did not draw.
1) That is what Rachel Bachman wrote in WSJ.
2) That is what Matt Hart wrote in RW.
3) While it is true that it would be a "tiny tiny" chance generally across the USA for athletes chosen at random, individual probabilities can vary widely based on exceptional facts and factors, especially during unique conditions during the pandemic.
3A) That is what Dr. Skiba said in a phone call to Runner's World - his opinion based on what the CAS wrote.
3B) That is what Ross Tucker wrote -- his opinion based on what the CAS wrote.
3C) Again, something the WSJ wrote, paraphrasing what the CAS wrote.
4) What is Tygart's opinion? Previously (according to the Oreganian) he seemed to be more skeptical of the AIU for not going above and beyond the rules to conduct the fact-finding necessary to protect innocent athletes. Maybe the AIU and the CAS followed the rules -- but these are the rules that can railroad innocent athletes to 4-year bans.
We cannot conclude, as you suggest, that "it's basically impossible to have come from a burrito", because the facts necessary to conclude this basic impossibility in this specific case do not exist.
The fact is that on Day 1, Houlihan said she didn't know, and today, on day 1888, she still says she doesn't know. Despite all your second and third hand opinions and retellings, nothing has materially changed to increase the public knowledge (that's me and you and all the other "fans" of the sport) about the origin of the nandrolone. It could be pork ingestion. It could be supplements contaminated during manufacture. It could be doping with intent. It could be from a greasy beef burrito. It could be something no one has thought of. No way to tell based on all the accumulated evidence. The only way to draw conclusions is to presume them first.
The fact is that the CAS doesn't know enough to support their findings, because they had incomplete information before them and relied on unproven (if not invalid) assumptions (and fallacies), and a codified set of presumptions. Regarding the source, the AIU doesn't know, Profs. Ayotte and McGlone don't know, Rachel Bachman doesn't know, Matt Hart doesn't know, Dr. Skiba doesn't know, and letsrun readers don't know, either.
With just adopting one different presumption, "charged athletes presumed innocent until proven guilty", Houlihan would be given all the benefits of all the doubts, and would not be sanctioned.
If you want to go on and on, try something else than giving me the baseless or second or third-hand opinions of outsiders. Show me some tangible fact, like the Amazon receipts, or the empty bottles in the trash, or testimony from insiders, for the oral nandrolone precursors that Prof. Ayotte "suggested".
According to changing WADA documents, I believe it would only be a valid adverse finding if the test was performed at least 6 days after the sample was collected when the new document was approved. But if the principle of athlete's benefit applies, then the older document would be more valid since the newer document wasn't active until 4 months later.
In any case, the process has issues by putting burden of proof on athlete.
The WADA standard says "The most recently approved Technical Document shall be applied to the Analytical Testing of Samples prior to the effective date if it would lead to a result that benefits the Athlete". This would definitely be the case for the B-Sample analysis conducted after Jan. 18th and before Jan. 27th.
But in this case, both 2019 and 2021 documents identify the ambiguity, explicitly informing the WADA Lab that nandrolone from pork consumption is "endogenous", i.e. not "positive".
2019: "In the context of this Technical Document, “endogenous” origins of 19-NA include ... iv) consumption of the offal of intact, non-castrated pigs."
2021: "In the context of this TD, “endogenous” origins of 19-NA, at levels higher than 2 ng/mL, include ... iii) consumption of edible parts of non-castrated male pigs".
Regarding burden, recall, during A-Sample and B-sample analysis by the WADA Lab, the athlete does not yet have any burden to establish anything. At this early stage, the WADA Lab is burdened with the "demonstration, when required, that the 19-NA is not of endogenous origin". Assuming they can succeed with the demonstration, then the WA/AIU is burdened with establishing that an ADRV occurred, to the higher standard of "comfortable satisfaction". Only then is the athlete burdened with rebutting a set of presumptions on the "balance of probability".
The 2021 version makes it clear that the science used to "reject the hypothesis of endogenous" is inapplicable "following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs". In that case "the origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis" if "invoked by an Athlete as the unlikely origin". Any "demonstration that the 19-NA is not of endogenous origin" necessarily relying on "GC/C/IRMS" analysis must fail.
The 2019 version gives no guidance how to determine or reject pork consumption, but the WADA Lab is still required to "(demonstrate) that the 19-NA is not of endogenous origin", and if the 2021 version benefits the athlete, then WADA says it applies.
A CIR value of -23‰ is in the "endogenous" range for both athletes and pigs, and in the pseudo-endogenous range of some "preparations of 19-norsteroids". Houlihan's experts were correct to say "an AAF cannot be established in my case solely on the basis of GC/C/IRMS analysis" and "the science ... cannot distinguish whether the levels were due to exogenous ingestion of nandrolone or endogenous consumption of pig offal" and "the ratio between the two main metabolites of nandrolone , 19-NA and 19-NE, (NB: another procedure that can indicate "exogenous") cannot discriminate between exogenous and endogenous origin of nandrolone" and "there is no way for the AIU to prove to the Panel’s comfortable satisfaction that the Athlete has committed an ADRV".
The solution to debunking (alleged) propaganda is providing facts, and not your own alternate propaganda. You seem to be heavily persuadable by "appeal to authority" opinions of outsiders (a popular fallacy among the uninformed), combined with "appeal to non-authority" second hand retellings (a popular children's "telephone game").
Pointing out your nonsense with direct quotes from the CAS report/renowned scientists/interviews with the participants is neither appeal to authority nor the telephone game.
You have nothing but your distorted "understanding".
Classic your desperate repetition here:
We cannot conclude, as you suggest, that "it's basically impossible to have come from a burrito", because the facts necessary to conclude this basic impossibility in this specific case do not exist."
Of course we can. And we must. Especially in this specific case. Lots of expert concur. Even the drug cheat herself does now. And the facts have been explained to yo numerous times.
You are the one who is trolling with statements irrelevant to this specific case like your not applicable 130 ng/ml, or that 5.8 ng/ml are scientifically proven to be possible from boar and that a -23 per mille may come from wild boar etc. etc. and your, what was it, USDA approved meat, and railroading of innocent athletes. All desperate distractions from an anonymous letsrun armchair wannabe, who can neither understand the facts nor the explanations from the independent scientists.
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.
