Houlihan Dominates 24km Trail Race

Sorry but that is grasping at straws:

1) low level: obviously a must, otherwise the doper would get caught right away

2) 1st offence: lol, there is always a first, that cannot be a serious argument

3) no test misses: a) no evidence for that; b) even if true, microdosers don't need to hide from the testers

4) expert witness with previous for lying: often claimed by Team Houlihan, but not in her case, allegedly for a previous case, and CAS never said that; plus the other key expert was much more damning so that's all a classic deflection from Team Houlihan

5) ignoring key evidence: huh? which key evidence?? She didn't even mention that in her appeal!

Don’t get me wrong I’m not defending her just quoting some of her comments. Perhaps I should read more about the case rather than accept her word as gospel?
I think I do believe her she had no previous missed tests.

Another thing she mentioned which I thought bizarre was that she hadn’t thought about her diet when going to China for a forthcoming race? So she might buy some street food then?

It depends on the doping -- WADA's umbrella of what they consider to be doping is pretty broad.

Some doping could arguably be considered cheating, especially if it gives the athlete any unfair advantage over their competitors, and assuming they doped in the first place.

Clearly you didn't run anywhere near 4:04 or you wouldn't be trying to find something to hate on the guy about!

Damn it!!!

That's why I never won a spelling bee!

:)

I complained for the reason I gave -- "I always find it stupid to speak in terms of PEDs, when WADA bans many non-PEDs and doesn't ban all PEDs (e.g. caffeine)."

It's also questionable whether low amounts of orally ingested nandrolone is even performance enhancing.

I know all of the basic facts and most of the non-basic facts, if not all, but you seem to be confusing opinions of the CAS -- even unanimous ones -- as facts. Opinions are not facts.

It also appears that "consistent with" were Prof. Ayotte's words, or the Claimants' words. In any case, determining values are not "consistent with" corn-fed boar meat doesn't establish that the source was exogenous with any certainty. The words "only possible/alleged endogenous source" are your words, and is demonstrably false, as it is entirely consistent with the alleged soy-fed boar offal -- all experts seem to agree on that point.

The CAS expressed the required standard of proof as "more probable than their non-occurrence", and ruled the athlete "failed to establish the source" "to the applicable standard of proof" -- effectively ruling "not more probable than not". There was no alternative finding that any party established the source to any standard beyond "suggestion".

There are better reasons to doubt:

- the WADA Code makes no distinction between intentional doping, and non-intentional doping an athlete cannot prove to the required standard (subjective assessment of arbiters); a finding of intentional doping could be either

- the AIU used a test known to be confounded by intact boar ingestion, to circularly rule out intact boar ingestion

- testimony of the AIU experts: Prof. Ayotte's testimony is contradicted by her own research; Prof. McGlone conceded increased soy added to corn; both Profs. Ayotte and McGlone (and the WADA TD) confirmed that ingestion of organs can produce much higher concentrations of nandrolone than Houlihan's levels

- Houlihan's conviction would not be possible without several presumptions in the Code stacked against the accused athlete

Despite all the squawking, it's obvious the running community and fans did not fully accept her back.

Does anyone know what happened to her sketchy sponsor, Easyday? It is quite a statement that she's been back for over a year, made it clear multiple times that she wants a sponsor and a training group and has neither.

Oval or trail, forever a cheat

Yep, Foolagain cheated. Anywho... congrats on the 24k, she must be proud

That is what some fans think.

If only that were true of you. You'd spare yourself considerable embarrassment.

Why do you lie so much, while falsely accusing others, when the truth so easy to see?

Contrary to your falsehoods:

- "consistent with" was one of the CAS decisions, not just "Prof. Ayotte's words" and

- it wasn't ""consistent with" corn-fed boar meat" but with "commercial pork", which was Houlihan's claim. Therefore Houlihan's alleged endogenous source was indeed ruled out, with high "certainty".

Proof is in the CAS report, under 119:

Note: "the panel", not Ayotte, and "commercial pork", not "corn-fed boar meat". This demonstrates that you lied several times in just one paragraph, as you usually do.

Yes, that is what "CAS said in their own words"- you should try that for a change, instead of demanding it from others. But apparently, your own guideline is (using your own words):

"Certainly everyone has the ability to use language to express many things which are not correct."

Dang I fell for your trolling again.

Forgot to comment on this non-sequitur aka deflection: that the standard of proof is only "
more probable than their non-occurrence" does not mean that all dopers have a 49% chance of being clean. That is obviously dependent on the case - even you should be smart enough to understand that. In Houlihan's specific case, it's basically zero, as pointed out several times by several experts, for example by Dr. Skiba:

runnersworld.com

Report Details Why Panel Ruled Against Shelby Houlihan in Doping Case

Three judges for the Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected the tainted burrito defense.

Open link

“There’s an extraordinarily small chance, basically zero, that this a false positive.”

And weaker stance on burritos

Houlihan claimed pork offal in a burrito, not "commercial pork".

It appears that the CAS just parroted Prof. Ayotte's and the Claimants' opinions. These opinions missed the mark by artificially and invalidly narrowing and limiting Houlihan's claim to corn-fed pork meat from a six month old cryptorchid.

None of these opinions speaks to any factual finding of an exogenous source with any certainty stronger than "suggestion" of an alternate "pseudo-endogenous" source.

Deflection non-sequitor? You are the one who wanted CAS's words rather than my accurately paraphrased "effectively not more probably than not".

Contrary to Dr. Skiba's opinion, the CAS Panel was split on the question of whether Houlihan's test results constitute a positive adverse analytical finding (roughly suggesting 33% chance of a false positive, with a wide margin of error).

Don't fall for the bait-and-switch. Considering everything before the CAS in its totality, nothing permits us to calculate the chance of Houlihan being clean. To truly assess the chance of being clean requires accurately assessing and comparing the chance of an endogenous source with the chance of an exogenous source, adjusting for the exceptional circumstances and specific facts in Houlihan's specific case. This exercise was not attempted. For example, she theoretically could be 100% clean, but only 33% able to prove it, and the CAS would hand her the same 4-year ban.

Sorry to double reply, but all of my statements are true.

My choice of using the word "also" doesn't mean the CAS didn't say it, but it means the CAS and Prof. Ayotte and the Claimant also used the phrase. It did not originate with the CAS. Corn-fed boar meat is all over the report, starting at 40, points 6 and 7, so you can't truthfully argue that that wasn't what the WA/AIU and experts argued and concluded, and that the CAS basically echoed the experts for WA/AIU, e.g. in 114 "boar meat" and 119 "commercial pig feed ... is predominantly corn-based".

The fallacy that fails to convince me is that a failure to establish an endogenous source, in the subjective opinion of the panel, does not even begin to establish the alternative. After the findings, we are still left with two options that either the source was exogenous, or it was endogenous and Houlihan simply failed to sway the subjective opinion of the panel.

The chick missed two Olympic cycles for a first offense. I don't know if she doped or not, but she did her time. I've seen athletes, who seem to be a lot less likeable than Houlihan comes off as to me, get way less ostracized on here than she seems to be from the majority of posters. I will say, let's say she didn't knowingly dope: She trained four years basically in purgatory and is now back and racing any chance she gets. It's clear, in the very least, she loves the sport, which I don't think is likely the case with most dopers.