LOL, great post!
LOL, great post!
hurrikane wrote:
800 dude wrote:
But if we abandon that approach, and force anti-doping authorities to prove bad intent (rather than allowing athletes to prove lack of bad intent as an affirmative defense), then we are effectively giving up on anti-doping because proving intent will almost never be feasible.
EXACTLY. Anyone that's ever been caught doping will make up with some excuse that might sound reasonable. They deserve ZERO benefit of the doubt. Gatlin's excuse of sabotage by a massage therapist is 100x more likely to happen than Houlihan's excuse but nobody claims he was wrongly banned. And nobody should say he was wrongly banned.
She’s an elite white woman with friends who are Instagram influencers going to bat for her (albeit only briefly and initially). Look at the whole gabby petito thing compared to nonwhite women abducted from the same area. Shelby trends well, which is why whenever there’s a thread on it - no matter the measured post frequency or volume - said thread makes it to the “general interest” and “on the boards” sections.
Athletes accused, especially those who have actually doped, are obligated by professional self interest to present the most allowably-reasonable-story possible. That is to say, it’s rare to see someone like Sha’Carri Richardson come forward and say “yeah I broke the rules, and I’ll be back after taking it on the chin.” I honestly can’t think of anyone doing it outside of sprints, but I could be/probably am just uninformed.
Point being - this story being the only possible excuse and only possible explanation puts the verdict solely on these shoulders, and it’s not a good story. You got a guy - the article in question for this thread - trying to break down the contamination in the broader American food supply in order to prove her innocence. At this point, the only reasonable way to say that Shelby Hooligan is clean is so buried in contrivance that I don’t think I’d be capable of believing it even if it was the objective truth. The evidence is so strong and irrefutable when compared against her testimony and statements.
ecoAnPac wrote:
Athletes accused, especially those who have actually doped, are obligated by professional self interest to present the most allowably-reasonable-story possible. That is to say, it’s rare to see someone like Sha’Carri Richardson come forward and say “yeah I broke the rules, and I’ll be back after taking it on the chin.” I honestly can’t think of anyone doing it outside of sprints, but I could be/probably am just uninformed.
Agreed, but for the record, there are exceptions such as Kisorio and Driouch (to a lesser extent).
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/oct/30/kenya-athletics-doping-matthews-kisoriohttps://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/02/hamza-driouch-retracts-claim-coach-jama-aden-whose-athletes-broke-3-world-records-yesterday-doped/When you try to prove someone is innocent by trying to discredit drug testing. You're reaffirming to me that the "guilty" person is indeed guilty. BTW when you have a gallbladder removed. You avoid fatty foods because it causes complications. There was no complaints from Shelby about any digestive problems or occurrences reported. No medical attention sought. If in fact she ate a greasy burrito. And to this day. She still hasn't made any complaints about any complications after eating a greasy burrito that was so out of the ordinary it gives her a 3x over the limit positive result of nandroline.
hobbyjogger1 wrote:
When you try to prove someone is innocent by trying to discredit drug testing. You're reaffirming to me that the "guilty" person is indeed guilty. BTW when you have a gallbladder removed. You avoid fatty foods because it causes complications. There was no complaints from Shelby about any digestive problems or occurrences reported. No medical attention sought. If in fact she ate a greasy burrito. And to this day. She still hasn't made any complaints about any complications after eating a greasy burrito that was so out of the ordinary it gives her a 3x over the limit positive result of nandroline.
You’re a fax machine, good catch. This is another really solid nail in the coffin of her testimony.
Hey Americans also dope .. just coz she's white doesn't mean she's clean
This line should throw up red flags for everyone:
"Arbitration does not mean both sides have necessarily consented to arbitrate the dispute. "
If you're an athlete in an Olympic sport, or any other sport that had decided to adopt the World Anti-Doping Code, then you've consented to this sort of arbitration (you may not know it, but that's a different matter).
Well obviously, he has some skin in the game, like twoggle.
no interest in this next wonky reubuttle.
where are these reubuttles for others?
Shelby cheated. I don't know what that is so hard for people to acknowledge. She either mistakenly took a supplement or she purposefully cheated. The deca was in her system and it shouldn't have been there.
Hope she enjoys her road trip and the next phase of her life.
DouchebagsAnonymous wrote:
In case you haven't heard yet, it's no longer appropriate to beat a dead horse anymore.
Correction. I think that should "beat a DOPED dead horse".
There, I feel better now.
griles17 wrote:
https://keithmoulton.com/the-cas-report-on-shelby-houlihan-a-case-of-misleading-analysis-false-statements-bogus-evidence/The report by twoggle was, too. If you think Shelby actually doped, you lack the capacity to reason and are probably, well, not very bright.
"An absolute annihilation of Dieter's CAS decision." If you think Dieter's toothpaste wasn't actually tampered with you're probably pretty stupid.
Little Dicky Pound wrote:
This line should throw up red flags for everyone:
"Arbitration does not mean both sides have necessarily consented to arbitrate the dispute. "
If you're an athlete in an Olympic sport, or any other sport that had decided to adopt the World Anti-Doping Code, then you've consented to this sort of arbitration (you may not know it, but that's a different matter).
This doesn’t mean what you think it means. This means all drug cases can be subject to external / additional review whether the athlete requests it or not.
Kind of like a referee reviewing a play call whether the team asked for it or not.
It’s a good thing; not a bad thing.
How can they not respect the decision? They can't forcefully compete. If you are banned, you are banned. Shelby already disrespected the system though, she doped and was consequentially banned. Get over it, Shelby has accepted it by spending her time traveling.
Seems to me that nothing has been annihilated.
ecoAnPac wrote:
hurrikane wrote:
EXACTLY. Anyone that's ever been caught doping will make up with some excuse that might sound reasonable. They deserve ZERO benefit of the doubt. Gatlin's excuse of sabotage by a massage therapist is 100x more likely to happen than Houlihan's excuse but nobody claims he was wrongly banned. And nobody should say he was wrongly banned.
She’s an elite white woman with friends who are Instagram influencers going to bat for her (albeit only briefly and initially). Look at the whole gabby petito thing compared to nonwhite women abducted from the same area. Shelby trends well, which is why whenever there’s a thread on it - no matter the measured post frequency or volume - said thread makes it to the “general interest” and “on the boards” sections.
Athletes accused, especially those who have actually doped, are obligated by professional self interest to present the most allowably-reasonable-story possible. That is to say, it’s rare to see someone like Sha’Carri Richardson come forward and say “yeah I broke the rules, and I’ll be back after taking it on the chin.” I honestly can’t think of anyone doing it outside of sprints, but I could be/probably am just uninformed.
Point being - this story being the only possible excuse and only possible explanation puts the verdict solely on these shoulders, and it’s not a good story. You got a guy - the article in question for this thread - trying to break down the contamination in the broader American food supply in order to prove her innocence. At this point, the only reasonable way to say that Shelby Hooligan is clean is so buried in contrivance that I don’t think I’d be capable of believing it even if it was the objective truth. The evidence is so strong and irrefutable when compared against her testimony and statements.
🤣🤣🤣🤣 she's a hooligan alright
fake fake fake everything's fake wrote:
First sentence of that article:
"First, there can be no longer any reason to doubt Houlihan ordered food from a Mexican food truck on that fateful night, a story which many observers had described as being fabricated."
Absolutetly no one is claiming this. What people are pointing out is that Shelby produced a receipt for a steak burrito, not a pork burrito or an offal burrito.
Second sentence:
Second, the manager of the truck was revealed, along with information about the source of the pork in question, and that pig stomach (buche) and sausage (chorizo) burritos had been on the menu.
I can't even make sense of that word salad.
At this point, I decided it wasn't worth wasting my time with the rest of the garbage article. I did see a picture of some snails that seemed out of place. Apparently one time the police caught some guys in New Jersey illegally clamming, and, I sh!t you not, this is evidence of Shelby's innocence.
Exactly the OP is completely idiotic. Shelby was liar on a Hillary Clinton scale.
a0if4n wrote:
no interest in this next wonky reubuttle.
where are these reubuttles for others?
Shelby cheated. I don't know what that is so hard for people to acknowledge. She either mistakenly took a supplement or she purposefully cheated. The deca was in her system and it shouldn't have been there.
Hope she enjoys her road trip and the next phase of her life.
But why would you say she cheated? That isn’t in the CAS report.
bye bye bye wrote:
She. Ordered. A. Steak. Burrito. Not. Offal.
My wife who is also a runner kept saying the same thing. I kept telling her when I get the wrong order I usually still eat it. we went out with some friends later on during the same week Shelby got banned and one of them got the completely wrong order and ate it. This happens much more than you think.
westsouthrunner wrote:
My wife who is also a runner kept saying the same thing. I kept telling her when I get the wrong order I usually still eat it. we went out with some friends later on during the same week Shelby got banned and one of them got the completely wrong order and ate it. This happens much more than you think.
How often? 2% of the time? 5%? And then there is an equal chance for any other burrito.
And then:
- the pork offal would have to be from an uncastrated boar (far less than 1 in 10,000): "possible but improbable"
- the uncastrated boar would have to be a lot more mature than at their normal 6 months: "possible but highly improbable"
- the pork offal would have to include substantial amounts of kidney or liver, but the food truck only sells stomach offal: "possible but improbable"
- the nandro found was not "consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork", and the food truck used commercial pork.
Game over. This beef burrito excuse is right up there with the running through Epo-infested puddles or the vanishing twin theories.
I enjoyed the read and found his last point to be interesting.Is it true that based on how much you urinated, you'd get drastically different levels of nandrolene in your system?
Keith wrote:
Inapplicability of Past Research
The truth is, the measured value of orally consumed nandrolone metabolites, if present, will depend primarily on the TIMING of the test, according to how well a particular urine sample happens to capture the peak of excretion that occurs after nandrolone ingestion. More importantly, all previous research studies on detecting nandrolone after consuming pork cannot be applied to Houlihan’s case because the sampling methodology differed in one very important aspect: their subjects were permitted to urinate (and drink) MULTIPLE times before the 10th hour, whereas Houlihan presumably urinated only once shortly after consuming the pork, and then slept a full night before being tested in the morning. That is to say, if previous research subjects had been tested in the same way as a dehydrated Houlihan was, they would likely have exhibited much higher levels of nandrolone metabolites than they actually did.
Illustrating this effect was WADA’s sampling of 800 meter runner, Gomathi Marimuthu, who in 2019 provided two separate In-Competition samples that later tested positive for nandrolone. The reason for two collections was that, according to the World Athletics Disciplinary Tribunal decision, she hadn’t quite filled the second of two bottles to the top and the WADA agent demanded it be redone. According to the Decision (Paragraph 94), the first sample that day, taken at 19:15, was found to have a concentration of 187 ng/ml. (Again, compare these values to the Panel’s misleading assertion that 5 ng/ml represented suspiciously high amounts.) The second sample, taken at 19:50, had a concentration of 16.2 ng/ml. Why the vast difference of 187 vs. 16 ng/ml if the test had been taken only 35 minutes apart? The obvious reason was that she was starting from an empty bladder after the first urine sample after having consumed fresh fluids, and the peak phase of excretion, which the first sample captured, had already passed. So, to reiterate, all past research on nandrolone ingestion via pork allowed participants to urinate multiple times before testing at the 10-hour mark, whereas the timing of Houlihan’s urination and test would have maximized the amount of metabolites found. Expressing the measurement in nanograms per milliliter and adjusting it for specific gravity would not get around this basic fact.
For all the above reasons and more, it is my hope the CAS decision will eventually be overturned and that the approach to testing athletes for forbidden substances will be reformed.