Nandrolone levels

xlev2 wrote:

The best one is "I never even heard of nandrolone"

Yeah, that was a good one.

If tainted meat is such a huge career ending issue, wouldn't you as an athlete do EVERYTHING in your power to avoid it?!? Do these athletes shop from taco trucks or cheap backyard butchers!?! This is no excuse, it is absolutely inexcusable at this point. She doped, period.

jackamo wrote:

"We concluded that the most likely explanation was a burrito purchased and consumed approximately 10 hours before that drug test from an authentic Mexican food truck that serves pig offal near my house in Beaverton, Oregon"

Do we think she regularly consumes pig offal or is she claiming her burrito was contaminated with 100s of grams of wild boar liver and she didn't notice?

I mean i think "WE" already know the likely answer to that question. They are just hoping to go on the PR offense can help them to keep some credibility until some other cracks surface, or WADA responds.

Strong denials are strong until they are turned into and deployed as the passive voice -- 'not our fault' 'mistakes were made' 'we didnt know'

I agree with Donotbelieve -- if this is so well known, then its well known to you as well, so that's undercutting your own position somewhat

jackamo wrote:

I mean i think "WE" already know the likely answer to that question. They are just hoping to go on the PR offense can help them to keep some credibility until some other cracks surface, or WADA responds.

Strong denials are strong until they are turned into and deployed as the passive voice -- 'not our fault' 'mistakes were made' 'we didnt know'

I agree with Donotbelieve -- if this is so well known, then its well known to you as well, so that's undercutting your own position somewhat

Agreed, the CAS is not unreasonable. If there was evidence that small contamination of uncastrated pig meat could trigger a false positive there would be more leeway. I'm just not buying that you could not notice.

I think we are seeing the free ride of Salazar hate/Schu love dichotomy coming to its end.

The glasshouse may have been a bit bigger than originally assumed for the obvious reason of image -- Salazar has been portrayed and likely is a terrible person, Jerry mostly likeable. That's not a condition that makes doping in their camps more or less likely

razorback3 wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

We need to track down this burrito stand in Beaverton. Do we have boots on the ground?

And then do what?

Find out where they get their pigs

Guilty and Still Lying wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

No lawyer has an ethical obligation to lie for a client. That’s hogwash.

A lawyer is under no obligation to not lie to the public.

I mean, this isn't even close to correct. In my state (Florida), there is a specific rule stating that in the course of representing a client, a lawyer cannot knowingly make a false statement to any third party. You can literally be disbarred for lying at a press conference. I'm sure each state's rules are similarly drafted.

This looks at urine concentration. Not blood. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Ever wonder why there are no commercially available testosterone replacement products? Because anabolic steroids are very poorly absorbed through the gut. Less than 3% in this case.

You've got an athlete with similar blood levels as people using THERAPEUTIC dose injections. She would have to have consumed at least 30 times as much as people inject therapeutically. Plus cooking that food would have further degraded the levels. That pig must have been swimming in nandrolone.

So, the next list will be updated toward the end of June but there are only two athletes on the AIU list who are banned for Nandrolone. David Kirui of Kenya and Ben Matiso of South Africa. So, it's not like AIU are throwing bans out left and right for nandrolone.

For the record, the rule for Florida lawyers is below. I have been practicing for 22 years. I have never lied to anyone in doing my job and can count on one hand the number of times that I know I was lied to by another attorney.

Still, there is certainly plenty of leeway for lawyers to reference facts that may or may not be true; but as Raysism pointed out, representing a client absolutely does not create any duty to mislead anyone else on behalf of a client.

4-4. TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN CLIENTS

RULE 4-4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is

necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless

disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6.

Comment

Misrepresentation

A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client’s

behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of

relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or

affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false.

Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading

statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false

statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false

statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of

representing a client, see rule 4-8.4.

Statements of fact

This rule refers to statements of fact. Whether a particular statement

should be regarded as one of fact can depend on the circumstances.

Under generally accepted conventions in negotiation, certain types of

statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of material fact.

Estimates of price or value placed on the subject of a transaction and a

party’s intentions as to an acceptable settlement of a claim are ordinarily in

this category, and so is the existence of an undisclosed principal except

where nondisclosure of the principal would constitute fraud. Lawyers

should be mindful of their obligations under applicable law to avoid criminal

and tortious misrepresentation.

jackamo wrote:

PED that 'doesnt help' her event -- you're joking right?

Of course not. Look at the Marion Jones case. No sprinter would ever take EPO!

“'It is not a substance any runner would take,” said Houlihan’s lawyer, Paul Greene, who has extensive experience representing athletes accused of doping.'"

So from what I'm reading here, it sounds like disbarment is in the offing for Paul Greene. When should we expect proceedings to begin?

Hardloper wrote:

razorback3 wrote:

And then do what?

Find out where they get their pigs

I can’t tell if you’re trolling or an idiot.

Why don’t you get the Rudy or the pillow guy on the case, no doubt the results will be overturned.

You’re remarkably guillible.

you earned your EAGLE Award today.

I’m not a lawyer, but this goes against everything I’ve ever thought about lawyers and lawyer-client relations. If this is true, why don’t judges just ask the defendants lawyers whether the client did it or not. If they lose the case then the lawyers get disbarred? I personally know lawyers who have defended clients who they knew were guilty, they were not committing a crime when they did that. What am I missing?

you tell it so well wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Find out where they get their pigs

I can’t tell if you’re trolling or an idiot.

Why don’t you get the Rudy or the pillow guy on the case, no doubt the results will be overturned.

You’re remarkably guillible.

What? Bro if the shop exists then someone needs to find it and ask where they get their meat from. That is a perfectly reasonable and easy first step in investigating her defense. If it doesn’t exist we know she’s lying, if it does exist then there are people there who can confirm or refute her story by revealing where they get their meat from. Boom, then we have a clear cut answer. It’s not that hard, this isn’t mission impossible.

The 2020 election was investigated, we counted multiple states twice, over 60 court cases were heard, this is a matter of locating a taco shop and calling the owner. It’s not unreasonable to expect that the taco shop be found and asked.

I think there is a distinction between not lying and being affirmatively obligated to tell the truth that you aren't fully appreciating.

If my client is accused of a crime, I cannot offer evidence in a formal legal setting that I know to be false and I cannot make false statements. But I can remain silent, raise questions as to whether it is possible that someone else could have committed the crime, etc.

Further, judges aren't fact finders or investigators, so they don't, and cannot, ask whether a defendant is innocent or guilty as part of a fact finding exercise (although they can in connection with a plea by the defendant); that is the role of the prosecutor. On top of that, a lawyer is typically not allowed to be called to testify as a witness as to a client's acts as communications between a lawyer and a client are protected by the attorney client privilege.

This is why criminal lawyers will typically never actually ask their clients if they are innocent or guilty. Once they know they are guilty, it may limit the ability of the lawyer to introduce certain evidence (whereas ignorance as to innocence or guilt leaves open a broader array of options).

*I am a transactional lawyer, not a criminal lawyer, so I may have misstated some of the nuances, but am confident in the overall points made above.

Counselor, an attorney at press conference sans biologist(s), bio-chemist(s) or medical doctor(s) says a lot without saying a word. Houlihan's attorney had appeal process to hire private detective and prove Houlihan bought tainted meat from a particular food truck. Burden of proof counselor was an WADA to prove Houlihan tested positive; burden of proof during appeals process was on Houlihan to prove she ate tainted meat at a licensed restaurant/food truck. Where were the private investigators at new conference to prove Houlihan bought tainted meat in Oregon? Where were the medical doctors and natural scientists to prove Houlihan's consumption of tainted meat from a licensed food truck made Houlihan test positive? If I were an attorney, I would not argue that my client is innocent, I would attempt to negotiate only a one year ban from T&F. Attorneys look foolish when they try to argue there is no such thing as gravity. This is a case screaming for a negotiated deal not stating Houlihan is innocent.