Burritogate All Comes Down to Corn

casual obsever wrote:

twoggle wrote:

I know that Houlihan’s mother said that she was supposed to be tested seven days in a row to look at excretion pharmacokinetics

Did she really say that? The WADA protocol in place until April doesn't even mention pharmacokinetics, and her tests were analyzed in December/January.

She did say that, but I don’t agree. The rules for pharmacokinetics testing were not official until April, but they were published in December. It was also clear in 2020 that the GC/C/IRMS test was showing a 40% false positive rate. So the lab should have taken that into account for the B sample. But also the AIU should have taken the rules into account after April. That ‘s the way I look at it. Others obviously differ.

rojo wrote:

I have now made it so it impossible for this thread to be deleted by a moderator.

Is there anyway to provide a summary of what you've found?

his post is the summary

HIS POST IS THE SUMMARY

Before we move further into this discussion around boar meat which may "sow" doubt (lol I couldn't help myself) in Shelby's positive test, I would just like to remind everyone that uncastrated pig meat/protein is illegal in the US food supply and virtually non-existent here. The "pork burrito" defense is outlandish at face value, even without considering the fact she and Jerry have provide zero evidence she even ate a pork product.

twoggle wrote:

Here is an editorial I put together based primarily on various posts I have made (with help from ideas from others’ posts). Hope there aren’t to many typos!

https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html

That was amazing. Well done.

+1000

Yes. And it is also worth noticing that the pharmacokinetics "may be" (that's the exact wording in the April 2021 version) used IF the athlete claimed to have eaten uncastrated ("intact" in the document) boar. We do not know (yet) what she said to AIU, but we do know her well-crafted statement does not include that important qualifier:

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.

Keith,

Thank you for the details! I had never even heard of chorizo or the changes to the pork industry in Oregon.

twoggle wrote:

Keith,

Thank you for the details! I had never even heard of chorizo or the changes to the pork industry in Oregon.

FWIW I always feel unusually aggressive after a chorizo plate from the local mexican place... hehe

rojo wrote:

I have now made it so it impossible for this thread to be deleted by a moderator.

Is there anyway to provide a summary of what you've found?

I did not read the original study. Summarizing what he wrote here,

Oregon for a number of reasons raises pigs in a way consistent with borderline nandrolone false positives.

(feeding natural diets to avoid the carbon isotope signature of corn feed; uncastrated male pigs; more supply of these than usual given the latest political climate in the PNW and the coronavirus causing farm animal surplus)

FACT: Whearabouts requirements are a 60-minute time slot (between 05:00 and 23:00 hours).

FACT: Shelby was audited on Tuesday, December 15, 2020 during a given window.

FACT: Shelby failed the control.

FACT: A burrito consumed at 19:00 hours on Monday, December 14, 2020 would be the earliest available time frame during the 10 hours it would have taken for the a place in that window to the first available time slot the doping controllers would have access to Shelby the following morning.

FACT: Shelby was banned, as on the balance of probability, she was unable to establish the source of the prohibited substance.

NO RELEASED FACTS: What time the test was administered

NO RELEASED FACTS: What time Shelby purportedly ate the burrito

FACT: It was also a Total Solar Eclipse on December 14, 2020.

FANTASY: As far as conspiracies go, maybe the 19-norandrosterone seeped into her out on a run at 08:14:39 the morning leading up to the choice burrito when the moon passed between the Earth and Sun.

FICTION: The work of imagination Shelby and her team put into drumming up this fable is not only untenable, but objective reasoning dictates that these are extremely improbable events .

If enough athletes eat bad meat, there will be a failed doping control. To the person who fails the audit, it’s surprising and miraculous, but the fact that someone fails wouldn't surprise the rest of us. That's because with a large enough sample, any outrageous thing is likely to happen.

That it's never happened in the US where corn is apparently the thorn in the side of BurritoGate, is because corn isn't the culprit in this particular case.

In fact, it's not about the burrito. Shelby couldn't prove there wasn’t such a thing, neither was she able prove that there was. So she was left with … admonishment and a four-year forced hiatus.

Beyond the balance of probabilities, people. Shelby couldn't point to an actual causal mechanism for her test, because she'd have to know the burrito, the truck and the processes perfectly to be able to prove that.

Sorry but that's a very biased 'editorial' (as editorials often are). See formulations such as "they are being so overly-aggressive that they are persecuting some innocent athletes", the questionable "Fours Reasons That Shelby Houlihan Would Not Dope With Nandrolone" stated as facts, the usage of a flow chart NOT valid at the time in question, and the repeated little trick to omit the word "intact" or "uncastrated".

For example, this here is false:

"There is no question that once the Houlihan legal team invoked the WADA clause on January 19, 2021 that the nandrolone came from pork consumption, the GC/C/IRMS test should not have been performed on the B sample. Instead, the analysis should have focused on the “pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion.”"

Likewise, the "The 40% False Positive GC/C/IRMS Test" only applies IF *uncastrated boar* has been consumed, not boar (or beef). Not to mention that that was based on just two false positive tests, so using 40% is misleading. Plus, "false positive" is at minimum misleading, because nothing wrong was measured. Delta values of 3.2 and 5.8 0/00 were determined after eating uncastrated German boar. So what that work shows, is that such small delta values are unreliable. Interestingly neither the banned doper nor her lawyer have stated her delta value - maybe because it was huge?

Another huge issue with that editorial is that statements of the banned doper and her lawyers are presented as facts instead of as claims.

Finally, CAS decided, after hearing both sides, that the correct protocols were used. Writing an editorial trying to show the opposite based on one side's story is quite questionable.

You make some interesting points. Here are my thoughts:

1) The second sentence of the editorial sounds more biased by itself, but the first two sentences together are a bit more balance and could refer to Jarrion Lawson or Shelby Houlihan in my opinion:

“I believe that anti-doping organizations are working hard to reduce the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. But they are being so overly-aggressive that they are persecuting some innocent athletes. “

2) I do believe that the four reasons Houlihan wouldn’t dope contain accurate information, but I do admit that it doesn’t prove she didn’t dope.

3) I still stand by my contention that the GC/C/IRMS test should not have been performed once the Houlihan team invoked the uncastrated pig clause. I realize that you are of the opinion that the April 2021 WADA document wasn’t in effect in January. I contend, however, that the April 2021 WADA document had been published already and that the lab already knew how unreliable the GC/C/IRMS test was for uncastrated pork ingestion. By the June hearing, there were already two new WADA documents on nandrolone that the AIU should have considered as opposed to using the 2019 WADA document on nandrolone.

4) I will stand by the 40% false positive rate for the GC/C/IRMS. I agree that the inaccuracy only happens in the case of uncastrated pig. However, once that clause is invoked by the athlete, deciding on whether the nandrolone is endogenous (including uncastrated pig) or exogenous has to be done by some test. There are two ways available presented by WADA and the GC/C/IRMS test has been shown to be unreliable in this case.

In Part 2 of the editorial, I was critical of these types of tiny anti-doping studies. To be fair, funding for larger studies may not be available. But from the limited data we have, 2 of the 5 subjects, who ate uncastrated pig, have delta carbon-13 values that WADA would consider an exogenous source and those subjects would receive a 4-year ban. Anything > 3.0 would result in a ban.

5) I admit that I presented some of Houlihan’s team statements are facts, but tried to limit that to a) the case timeline; b) what they claimed to have argued at the CAS hearing; and 3) some laboratory results such as 19-NA concentration and delta carbon-13 measurements. I’d like to get the lab results for the A and B samples, but I can’t get it from the Houlihan team and usually the CAS reports don’t have that information.

6) If the CAS relied on the GC/C/IRMS test results and/or the 2019 WADA technical document on nandrolone, then I believe that the two of three arbitors who voted to accept the lab procedure made a mistake. The only thing I have to rely on from Houlihan’s team for that opinion is: a) that the concentration of 19-NA was < 15ng/ml b) that the GC/C/IRMS test was used rather than the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion; and c) that the Houlihan team claim the source was uncastrated pig meat.

Basilisk wrote:

Interesting take. Do I have this tldr; right:

Basically saying that free-range boars (even if castrated?) have a unique chemical profile as a result of lower corn intake that could be mistaken as exogenous nandrolone taken by the athlete, and that Oregon and Washington have a uniquely high % of free-range pork available to food trucks (?).

Not quite. It's the factory-farmed pigs which have a unique chemical signature as a result of high corn intake; whereas free-range pigs have chemical signatures that vary according to the season according to whatever food they can find. The lab looks at the difference between the Carbon-13 isotope levels in the athlete's body (using "endogenous reference compounds") and the Carbon-13 level of the 19-NA found in the urine. Since even humans can excrete small amounts of 19-NA, it's worthwhile to see if the Carbon-13 in the 19-NA matches the Carbon-13 in the person's reference compounds. If the athlete eats a lot of corn-based food, their Carbon-13 levels will be high, similar to the factory-fed pig. If the Carbon-13 level of the 19-NA is really low, on the other hand, it suggests it is of a synthetic origin. If the Carbon-13 of the 19-NA is kind of in the middle, it could be a free-range pig or of synthetic origin. By itself, the chemical signature may not be enough to go on to make a determination, but it can provide clues.

Although uncastrated male pig can be found in the food supply at any time, in the fall of 2020 in Oregon and Washington, conditions were particularly ripe to have even more locally farmed pork in the system than usual.

tooloong wrote:

I didn't read all that. Too long. This is LRC. Bulletpoint it at least.

You don't need to read it. Shelby is guilty.

Still waiting on why you think Shelburrito couldn’t find a single instance of meat with this problem in the 6 months she had?

This is the first thing she has to prove if wada was going to buy her story at all. It is not good enough that somewhere in the world this might be possible.

twoggle wrote:

You make some interesting points. Here are my thoughts:

6) If the CAS relied on the GC/C/IRMS test results and/or the 2019 WADA technical document on nandrolone, then I believe that the two of three arbitors who voted to accept the lab procedure made a mistake. The only thing I have to rely on from Houlihan’s team for that opinion is: a) that the concentration of 19-NA was < 15ng/ml b) that the GC/C/IRMS test was used rather than the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion; and c) that the Houlihan team claim the source was uncastrated pig meat.

Thanks twoggle. Did they actually claim "the source was uncastrated pig meat"? Again, that was actually not included in Shelby's published statement.

Also, again, if the GC/C/IRMS results included a larger delta value, then it's highly unlikely to be "a false positive", and the arbiters' decision is very reasonable. Have you seen that value mentioned anywhere?

As a side note, I disagree with each and everyone of your "four reasons", as discussed in some of the other threads. But then, I am biased too, as I have long suspected BTC as a whole, and Shelby in particular because of her progression as well as her times. In any case, if you wanted to appear less biased, that discussion shouldn't be in this editorial.

burritogate wrote:

You sure did a lot of research.

Too bad Houlihan hasn’t produced any publicly facing evidence that she ate anywhere that serves boar meat. She says she has a receipt. Let’s see the receipt. Until then, this is just speculation.

Once I realized the pork processing situation in Oregon was relevant to many other athletes and food systems in countries with smaller-scale farming and processing, it was hard to stop researching! Getting to understand the USDA regulations for pork ingredients and labeling was a particularly deep dive...

I'd like to see the receipt, too, but I don't think it's paper. Given pandemic habits, I suspect it's a credit card or other electronic transaction record that doesn't include her order information but would show without a doubt that she ordered that night from a truck that serves pork meat and pork offal. It would severely undermine their case in the future if her attorney's office reported such a record existed, along with GPS data, and then have it turn out they had made it up out of thin air. In any case, as long as a legal matter is ongoing, I do not believe it would be wise for an attorney to share evidence with the public directly.

Seems this answer is a lot more concise:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10718630

The value of the lengthy editorial is that there is plenty of fact-filled research for the neutral observer to help weigh many of the factors, and facts, and claims and presumptions— a pleasant change from the “zero tolerance” mentality.

For examle, your false example, and adherence to dates of validity would disappear under the principle of “Lex Mitior”. WADA made changes to the process for very good reasons. Maybe the AIU and CAS can ignore these reasons and get away with it, but WADA found them valid enough to change the procedures. Due to evolving WADA procedures, if the positive tests were 4 years earlier, or 4 months later, we might not even be having this discussion, and Houlihan would be packing for Tokyo.

The main question isn’t whether the CAS and the AIU followed the letters of the rules in effect on the dates in question, but whether the whole adjudication system is just for the athlete. Keep in mind, the only thing that the AIU had to prove was the presence of low levels of nandrolone metabolites in her urine. From that point forward, it becomes “the presumption that the AAF was properly reported” and the presumption of “guilty until proven innocent”. Contrary to your claim, the CAS didn’t decide that the correct protocols were followed, because that was not the question before them. The AIU was presumed to have followed protocols correctly, and what the CAS decided, by majority, was that the athlete did not rebut these presumptions.

Much has been made of Houlihan not meeting the standard of balance of probability for proving the source of the nandrolone. Again, no other alternatives were proven to any standard, not by the AIU, not by the WADA lab, and not determined by CAS. Even the finding of “intentional” is a consequence of a redefinition of the term, combined with a presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

Since we are speaking of probabilities, the probability that a sophisticated Nike sponsored athlete on the remaining flagship USA team would intentionally dope with nandrolone, 20 years after the Sydney Olympics doesn’t meet the balance of probability standard.

If you want to move away from facts to a possible narrative: 1) Corn has nothing to do with it; 2) U.S. pork supply &/or wild boar have nothing to do with Houlihan case; 3) The rational most likely narrative is that Houlihan screwed up the micro-dosing. Houlihan, maybe while drinking beer or wine screwed up micro-dosing by accident or Houlihan got greedy and more than micro-dosed thinking she would not get caught.

You do know prosecutors in County Courthouses do not have to prove how alcohol got into the system of a drunk driver. If D.U.I. case does go to trial it is helpful for prosecutor to put together a timeline of drinking but never necessary and alcohol convictions, as I stated previously have a much greater degree of proof than Houlihan and her PED usage.