Red flags in the Houlihan case that need explaining

VERY WELL SAID.

Some other points. (1) It shouldn't matter if an athlete is unlucky and accidentally ingests something that causes them test positive for a banned substance. The substance was found in the bloodstream. That's doping, end of story. Bad luck happens all the time in athletics be it injury or race tactics. Drug testing is no different. (2) The reaction among RoJo and the American media at large is racist. Period. Had this been an athlete with a strange last name, someone from North or East Africa, no one would come to their defense. (3) BTC looks worse after this by all coordinating posts defending Shelby. Back to point (1), banned substance in the bloodstream. Don't have to defend that just like you don't have make up an excuse every time your teammate gets injured. Bad luck happens. This makes it seem like they are all in on a banned substance micro-dosing conspiracy. I wouldn't doubt it after this...

Some of you people need to get a damn life. She is a drug cheat. She got caught. Enough already.

Where were your outpourings of grief when Coleman got banned and deservedly so.

Move on people! Move to hell on!

twoggle wrote:

In my opinion: 1) there is a huge variation from person to person; 2) there is a huge variation from animal to animal; and 3) 100g of organ meat can cause levels that far exceed what Houlihan messured (based on both the 100g test and 300g test). But these are small studies and we can’t extrapolate to a averages or maximums that can be expected. I think WADA has a lot of work to do in this area to find additional ways to differentiate “endogenous” and “exogenous” nandrolone.

The take away from the study is that it is possible to test positive. Figuring out what type of dose and the distribution of responses is well beyond anything you can do with such small sample sizes.

Let's say it is possible to test positive from eating at the food truck. How would you prove it that was the issue? Sure if we could travel back in time and test everyone who ate at that truck and a bunch of them came back positive, we could blame the truck. But we can't do that . How do we know if every pig they get is sketchy or if it 1/year?

That being said every athlete who tests positive has some type of story. This is more plausible than most but that doesn't make it true .

4 years? Should be life.

Here's the thing about slamming AIU...aren't they the ones that we have been applauding for the last few years every time an Ethiopian or Kenyan runner is caught with EPO? Are they now incompetent because they find an American BTC runner was cheating? This shakes up our view of BTC and Shelby, but it shouldn't shake up our view of AIU. They find those who are cheating...eventually.

Blame Game wrote:

Here's the thing about slamming AIU...aren't they the ones that we have been applauding for the last few years every time an Ethiopian or Kenyan runner is caught with EPO? Are they now incompetent because they find an American BTC runner was cheating? This shakes up our view of BTC and Shelby, but it shouldn't shake up our view of AIU. They find those who are cheating...eventually.

A problem with AIU is it's euro-technocrat arrogance. This little non-governmental organization went across borders to treat Russia like a colonial possession. The same is happening to the US.

This kind of political power wielded by an organization not accountable to anyone is what Brexit was about for many in the UK. AIU knows whats best. Appeals of AIU sanctions go to the CAS another quasi-governmental body located in Europe.

Possible but very very very very small chance, would have to get 100 to 300 grams of wild boar meat (which is not part of the US food supply and would be considered a contaminant in an of itself) in a beef burrito, possible but not probable.

Aisle53 wrote:

Blame Game wrote:

Here's the thing about slamming AIU...aren't they the ones that we have been applauding for the last few years every time an Ethiopian or Kenyan runner is caught with EPO? Are they now incompetent because they find an American BTC runner was cheating? This shakes up our view of BTC and Shelby, but it shouldn't shake up our view of AIU. They find those who are cheating...eventually.

A problem with AIU is it's euro-technocrat arrogance. This little non-governmental organization went across borders to treat Russia like a colonial possession. The same is happening to the US.

This kind of political power wielded by an organization not accountable to anyone is what Brexit was about for many in the UK. AIU knows whats best. Appeals of AIU sanctions go to the CAS another quasi-governmental body located in Europe.

Nike can't lose. If BTC, USATF, and USADA had got their way then good. If AIU, WADA, and CAS win then even better because Nike selling products for every sport out there probably controls them already or is working on it.

davies report wrote:

Another giver of +1 wrote:

They won't suffer if they follow the rules of the game:

Rule 2.1.1 "It is each Athlete's duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, Fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete's part be demonstrated in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under article 2.1."

Shelby Houlihan has been found guilty, lost her appeal, case over.

You are seeing this in terms of the rules being reasonable.

May not be over as the contract between athlete and governing body may be deemed unfair conditions and based on a gross disparity of power.

The rules are the rules. You sign up for them and agree to abide by them no matter how unreasonable they may seem. We see now that USATF agrees with the rules and reverses their decision to allow her to run in the trials under protest.

What is hilarious about this, is that apparently they did such a good job at distraction, they have a bunch of people who think they are really smart, arguing and debating how much pig you have to eat to trigger a failed test result.

There is no evidence she ate pork, Zero!

They do not even claim that she ate pork, they all stop just short of saying the words.

They throw out the possibility that somehow maybe possibly she might have gotten it from pork since it's a Mexican food truck that serves offal so it's not impossible that if all things conspired against her it's not unrealistic to think that pork by happenstance could have somehow contaminated her carne asada burrito that might have actually been pork but cannot say for sure.

There was not pork burrito. She got notified of the failed test, Nike got her a lawyer, one that had worked cases like this in the past. They looked at her food log and made up a story to fit. The studies on nandrolone are exactly why they chose this defense. She didn't eat pork. She lied. She is a liar. Arguing about how much pork does it take to get nandrolone to the center of Shelby Houlihan is nonsense.

Possible but not probable wrote:

Possible but very very very very small chance, would have to get 100 to 300 grams of wild boar meat (which is not part of the US food supply and would be considered a contaminant in an of itself) in a beef burrito, possible but not probable.

Nope we don't know that you need 100+ gms. You would need to test a lot of people with various doses to figure out what the odds of 1 person having a given result.

Think about college where one friend could drink all night and be functional while the other was out after 2 drinks .

And the whole point of authentic Mexican food truck is to imply the don't ask, don't tell rule about what the meat is in effect.

They had a PI and went back to the truck. They could’ve and maybe did test all these things. Right? They couldn’t put a case together. That was what they needed to do and they put forth a theory and a story but not a case. Maybe Shelby is the unluckiest person on earth but it sure seems like she got popped and couldn’t reverse-engineer an alibi.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

They had a PI and went back to the truck. They could’ve and maybe did test all these things. Right? They couldn’t put a case together. That was what they needed to do and they put forth a theory and a story but not a case. Maybe Shelby is the unluckiest person on earth but it sure seems like she got popped and couldn’t reverse-engineer an alibi.

I’ll say this: If the full CAS decision comes out and it shows that Houlihan presented solid evidence that she ate at a truck that served a burrito that contained enough meat contaminated with steroid to trigger a positive test, I’ll feel much more confident that she’s telling the truth.

Right now, all we know is that she tested positive, made a food log, and hired a lawyer, who decided that she likely consumed tainted meat. Could that be true? Sure. Could any athlete make the same claims without evidence and expect to prevail on appeal? No.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

davies report wrote:

You are seeing this in terms of the rules being reasonable.

May not be over as the contract between athlete and governing body may be deemed unfair conditions and based on a gross disparity of power.

The rules are the rules. You sign up for them and agree to abide by them no matter how unreasonable they may seem. We see now that USATF agrees with the rules and reverses their decision to allow her to run in the trials under protest.

Contracts have to be reasonable and can’t be unfair.

They have, for instance, have to comply with health and safety law, discrimination law etc.

Look how the Bosman case changed football.

And, the swimming completion rules law intervention of recently.

Is it reasonable that multi millions in each country to have sign up to rules that require them to give blood and urine samples any time of the day and in any place , at work, play or home?

Agree. They got everyone talking about pork organ burritos. It’s all done to get people to judge WADA and not SH or BTC. The press conference changed how I view the group. They came across as willfully misleading and the coaches made it seem like the process was beneath them. They seemed to feel entitled to a decision by friends at USADA that would basically ignore the sample.

But if the CAS decision shows that AND that CAS still formed a view that on the balance of probabilities she still doped...?

Does anyone seriously think that CAS just rolled up one morning after a heavy night of drinking, shuffled a few papers around, maybe smoked some Gauloise with a side serving of Pastis, looked casually at the papers in front of them and said "Fancy an early lunch, anyone? Let's just say she's banned, it's much easier that way, I can't be bothered reading her testimony"

CAS are the body that are, more than any others, duty bound to to review the evidence put in front of them, and it's up to the athlete and their team to put their best efforts into producing enough evidence and research that backs up their defence.

The fact that CAS still validated her sanction tells us all we need to know; her defence is best described by what the uncastrated boars still have - bollocks.

CleanSosa wrote:

Agree. They got everyone talking about pork organ burritos. It’s all done to get people to judge WADA and not SH or BTC. The press conference changed how I view the group. They came across as willfully misleading and the coaches made it seem like the process was beneath them. They seemed to feel entitled to a decision by friends at USADA that would basically ignore the sample.

+1

Nike PR wins again. Literally nobody will go after the cheat's coach or doctor or agent or team now.

All the interns/PR shills Nike sent into the forums and newspaper comment sections were worth their money, ironically this time not just supported by the known drug cheat apologists here, but also by rojo and Gault.

I just like how she fails a test and immediately says "Oh, it was due to that burrito I just ate", with such certainty.

If I took the same drug test tomorrow and failed, I'd have no idea where it came from. The eggs I had for breakfast today? The sandwich I had last week? My lunch on Wednesday? Wtf is nandrolene?

CatchBall wrote:

I just like how she fails a test and immediately says "Oh, it was due to that burrito I just ate", with such certainty.

If I took the same drug test tomorrow and failed, I'd have no idea where it came from. The eggs I had for breakfast today? The sandwich I had last week? My lunch on Wednesday? Wtf is nandrolene?

It's much more likely that she was notified of her positive test, notified Jerry and BTC, who notified Nike and that smug lawyer they have. They then decided on the "meat contamination defense" that has worked for Ajee Wilson and others, and then asked Shelby to make a list of everything she was eating around the time of her positive test. They landed on the food truck burrito because that was the only thing remotely close to anything that might possibly have nandrolone in it and they could blame it on the dirty Mexicans.