Sports Scientist Ross Tucker breaks downs the Shelby Houlihan case for us

Don't engage with the rekrunner troll. They just try to detail the thread and make it like it actually are a discussion. But the final nail is in the coffin.

You're missing the probability of ingesting a 1 in 10,000 cryptorchild and also testing positive. You came up with 1 in 11 because you assumed the dopers only test positive 1% of the time, but the contaminated pork eater tests positive 100% of the time.

If 10,000 athletes eat pork, and 1,000 of them also took exogenous nandrolone, there are (roughly) 1001 athletes with nandrolone in their system. If both sources of nandrolone are equally likely to trigger a positive test, the likelihood of a positive test being from pork is 1 in 1001.

What pork?

Sorry to keep going on about it, but she bought no pork.

All these arguments are for nought.

She didn't buy pork.

It’s one of the many giant leaps of faith you need to take in order to believe Shelby’s fairytale.

You really made the case that an anonymous troll is better than knowing who is making statements? You've lost it. That's insane.

With Ross, I can look up who he works for, what he's done in the past, what takes he's had on controversial issues. I can look at what CAS cases he's been on. I can see what research he's published, the organizations he's consulted for, and so forth.

With Twoggle...I can do none of that. For all we know, it is Houlihan's defense lawyer or Nike's in-house scientist. Both of which would have a bias to present information that exonerates SH. It could be someone with a financial incentive to get Houlihan off. Or a reputational incentive to make SH look innocent.

With Ross, I know he isn't paid by Nike. I know he isn't paid by SH. I know he doesn't work for WA, or WADA or USADA.

It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than an anonymous troll who could be any of those things.

There's a reason you can't submit an anonymous peer reviewed article, and you have to state your conflicts of interest. Good to know you favor message board like trolls over how science works.

At this point there is no a tual doubt she doped.

Did you do any of those things?

With "twoggle" you won't let your guard down, and you will remain sceptical. Everything he says with support can be crossed checked against that support, and everything he says without support, can be taken with a grain of salt, or not taken at all.

With "experts", you likely won't do any of those investigations, and you will let your guard down and be less critical. That makes it worse -- not because the "expert" is worse, but because you have turned a rational part of your brain off.

I think it is better you educate yourself enough on a topic to distinguish what has merit from BS, rather than rely on the titles of a bunch of experts you thought you could trust, whose hidden agenda wasn't yet made public.

I'll also add that posters like you who responds to me with an unregistered handle, is no different than your anonymous troll with unknown expertise and unverifiable credentials.
That makes it quite easy for me to dismiss you.

Maybe you love twoggle because it allows you to let your guard down. You feel like your anonymous trolling on letsrun is valid. It empowers you because you don't have any expertise and no one will listen to you in the real world. Twoggle gives you hope that maybe you too can rise from the ashes of the letsrun message board, to have someone recognize you.

The rest of us realize that if you are anonymous troll, it means you aren't putting your name behind it for a reason. That may be fine on a message board. But if you want to be taken seriously in an actual debate where someones livelihood is at stake, it's not a good look. It means you have something to hide. Some connection.

Good luck with your dream. Maybe one day someone who fails a drug test will reference RekRunner.

All of the numbers in the scenario were made up, and all of them would carry some degree of uncertainty.

Even going with your adjusted 1 in 1,001, we see that 1 in 10,000 is the wrong measure, as we should not be counting the 8,999 of the athletes who would not test positive for nandrolone, given that we have a positive test result.

As I said upfront, I judge the words based on the merits, and how well it can be independently supported or corroborated.

A PhD title cannot cure words that lack merit.

My guard is up for "twoggle", for "Ross", for "Prof. Ayotte", for "Prof. McGlone", for the CAS, etc.

Yes of course they would all carry some degree of uncertainty. But you made one of them 1% and the other 100% (where's the uncertainty?). You skewed the results to favor your argument by 100 times. Perhaps your other posts are as misleading and dishonest as this one.

I'd forgotten about twoggle. The tweets and replies are crazy. I guess he was in new england in mid october, not sure for what. Boston Marathon?

As an aside to the discussion of the -23.6 value, I don’t believe that the CAS should have accepted Ayotte’s testimony (and not only for the blatently inaccurate testimony in the Lawson hearing).
I would compare what she says on the first paragraph of page 19 of the article you linked to from 2002 and especially:
Figure 3 of “The usefulness of GC/C/IRMS in determining the origin of low levels 19-NA – application in routine analysis” (2006); and
Figure 5 of “Determination of the Origin of Urinary Noranadrosterone-Traces by Gas Chromatography Combustion Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry” (2005)
to
how she characterized recent findings in the paragraph of section 116 of the CAS decision. In my opinion, it shows extreme bias (assuming that the CAS is not mischaracterizing her statements). Some will disagree and that is fine.

Also, have a look at his vaccination theories here on letsrun.

I’d rather stick to the subject at hand, but if you’re interested, I’m in Oklahoma City now. I’m not Dave Smith. :-)

How come SH legal team was not prepared so to discredit her.

She has a record over the decades of being allowed to give expert testimony on her own Wada labs unpublished work and even when her lab did the original analysis of the athletes sample.

What expert did SH send for the B sample?

Would not surprise me if the basis of the appeal is that CAS allowed Ayotte to appear in the multiple contexts she did.

Remember CAS has been critiqued for being too close to WADA.

IOC are massive funders and originators of both WADA and CAS; one day this has to explode.

God. it's like tracking the zodiac.