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.
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She has a record over the decades of being allowed to give expert testimony on her own Wada labs unpublished work and even when her lab did the original analysis of the athletes sample.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?
I suspect it was because their legal defence was focused on showing that the correct process wasn’t followed (but they only convinced 1 of 3 arbitors). Also, they did not have the initial hearing. In hindsight, they could have taken their time to prove some statements as erroneous (and the prosecution could have done the same).
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She has a record over the decades of being allowed to give expert testimony on her own Wada labs unpublished work and even when her lab did the original analysis of the athletes sample.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?
I suspect it was because their legal defence was focused on showing that the correct process wasn’t followed (but they only convinced 1 of 3 arbitors). Also, they did not have the initial hearing. In hindsight, they could have taken their time to prove some statements as erroneous (and the prosecution could have done the same).
I still wonder why SH did not use a top notch mass spectrometrist to see off Ayotte; she is not a research scientist of any note rather a lab manager.
This one has Prof. Ayotte's name on it, but I think she is just a messenger, and not sure where the pigs came from or what they ate, but their measured result was -23.6 per mille:
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.
Right, Rekrunner, it doesn't tell us about American pork generally, but that last sentence of the first paragraph on page 19 is a stunner. In SH's arbitration, Ayotte wants us to believe -23 is way too low a value for any American pork to have, but here she is saying it was the average value in the specimens she collected at the Montreal lab:
Although preliminary, the results obtained in the more concentrated specimens collected further to the ingestion of un-castrated pork offal indicate that the 13C content was not distinguishable from the normal values found in humans, being measured at around -23.6.
And Figure 3 of the study that Twoggle has pointed out, shows very clearly that the 13C ERC and NA-19 content found in SH's sample was nothing unusual, and that -23 is a typical value. And in the second study, I guess Twoggle's talking about Figure 8 (instead of Figure 5), which shows basically the same thing.
Ayotte's thinking today seems to be based on the theory that synthetic nandrolone in the -23 range is now available as such, which was does not seem to have even been considered a possibility when these studies were written up, when synthetic nandrolone was closer to -30.
As a "generalist", I'm not saying you should stay in your lane, but I am saying that I give a lot more credence to the claims of people who have spent their careers researching and writing about these subjects. A few weeks of internet sleuthing doesn't give you the foundational knowledge or comprehension of complex issues that comes from decades of dedication.
And if the AIUs array of experts and Ross Tucker have somehow misinterpreted something, how has this also been missed by Houlihan's experts and lawyer, who was experienced in defending doping athletes? It goes back to that old meme, honey, you haven't found something on the internet that the whole world has overlooked.
I think what you're missing is that this is a complex multi-disciplinary problem. It has biological and chemical aspects, yes, but also questions of jurisprudence, psychology, running, and how institutions like WADA and CAS operate. It's also worthwhile, I think, to have at least one voice in the debate that is not anonymous and lacks ties to any athletic organization or other interest.
I would also say that for this particular assignment Tucker is not the expert I would have chosen. He is not, strictly speaking, a biochemist, and unlike a typical university faculty member, he tends to take strong editorial positions in favor of a strict interpretation of rules and has a distinct conservative outlook. And given my belief that the WADA regulatory regime is set up in part to disadvantage athletes from countries that are not as economically developed (or exploited, depending on your way of thinking), particularly African countries, I would rather WADA's work not be judged by someone who has undertaken work on sensitive issues such as the genetic basis for the success of East African and other black runners. It's valuable work and worth exploring, but I'm just afraid it might come with some baggage that is not helpful in this instance.
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.
That was not an "argument", but a "simple scenario (to) help understand why I think the AIU's "near zero" argument is fundamentally flawed, and the wrong probability to measure "intent"."
You made a fair point, and improved the scenario, and yet the initial point still stands. Feel free to refuse to understand why 1 in 10,000 is the wrong metric, even though you still illustrate the same point.
I could reasonably complicate the simple scenario further and argue detection probabilities will not be the same as you assumed, as athletes will actively attempt to hide their doping, but there is no point haggling with imaginary numbers when accepting your scenario still proves the point.
With real data, we could refine the model further, plugging in better numbers, but nothing will alter the point that 1 in 10,000 is the wrong metric, unless both nandrolone use and detection is 100%.
In all cases, because I am an anonymous uncredentialed nobody, you should give imaginary data in a simple model expressly created for illustration purposes the weight it deserves, and give more weight to statements that have real data and observations behind them.
That is only one weakness of the AIU "near zero" argument. It is also weak because it is "general" data across the USA, and not "specific" to this instance of Houlihan who ate a burrito in Oregon. General trends are bad at explaining specific instances, because important exceptions can be averaged out of existence. What is missing is "specific" "concrete" evidence, e.g. the actual sample of a the burrito to test. Without that, it is simply not possible to make a case "on the balance of probability" for a low "1 in 10,000" probability event, unless you are lucky enough, like Lawson, to get a CAS Panel sympathetic to the athlete's lengthy efforts to prove guilt by accidental ingestion, and who realized the expert Prof. Ayotte gave wrong information about her own lab's results which materially led to the verdict that that CAS panel overturned.
To illustrate that weakness, I have often given the real-world example of Simon Getzmann. The difference between his "guilt" and "innocence" was by luck that he did not take all of his prescribed pain-killer. He was able to test the remaining tablet and it was found contaminated with a banned substance not on the ingredient list.
Without that painkiller to test, we could write exactly the same CAS report for Getzmann, and make the same "near zero" argument that the AIU made, and start the same threads in "letshandball" and call him all the same names as Houlihan, and point more fingers at his teammates and his club, etc.
To illustrate just how broken the WADA system is, recall that Simon Getzmann, through absolutely no-fault of his own, despite proving his innocence, 1) was suspended for more than 1 year, unable to compete, impacting his earnings; 2) spent more than 10,000 Euros for legal fees and scientific tests; and 3) under the WADA code, he is STILL GUILTY of an ADRV. Proving his innocence only earned him the right to lift the remaining sanction. He can never recover that lost year, his 10,000 Euros, and he has used up his "first strike". The next offense risks 8 years to life.
Now go back to Ross' Q&A where he describes the kind of investigation he would launch to help Houlihan prove her innonence: "I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up in the mid- six figure range." And he still acknowledges a low probability of success for this low probability event of boar entering the food market.
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.
Right, Rekrunner, it doesn't tell us about American pork generally, but that last sentence of the first paragraph on page 19 is a stunner. In SH's arbitration, Ayotte wants us to believe -23 is way too low a value for any American pork to have, but here she is saying it was the average value in the specimens she collected at the Montreal lab:
Although preliminary, the results obtained in the more concentrated specimens collected further to the ingestion of un-castrated pork offal indicate that the 13C content was not distinguishable from the normal values found in humans, being measured at around -23.6.
And Figure 3 of the study that Twoggle has pointed out, shows very clearly that the 13C ERC and NA-19 content found in SH's sample was nothing unusual, and that -23 is a typical value. And in the second study, I guess Twoggle's talking about Figure 8 (instead of Figure 5), which shows basically the same thing.
Ayotte's thinking today seems to be based on the theory that synthetic nandrolone in the -23 range is now available as such, which was does not seem to have even been considered a possibility when these studies were written up, when synthetic nandrolone was closer to -30.
Problem with these drug cases is that experts are from the laboratories concerned and as such are in pay of Wada indirectly by Wada funding.
Tucker makes the point that CAS is only CAS’s summary to explain their decision and as such we don’t really know what was argued or cross examined.Where is the transcript?
Further we have no idea what the pre trial submissions where and argued.This is often where the case is won or lost.
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.
Right, Rekrunner, it doesn't tell us about American pork generally, but that last sentence of the first paragraph on page 19 is a stunner. In SH's arbitration, Ayotte wants us to believe -23 is way too low a value for any American pork to have, but here she is saying it was the average value in the specimens she collected at the Montreal lab:
Although preliminary, the results obtained in the more concentrated specimens collected further to the ingestion of un-castrated pork offal indicate that the 13C content was not distinguishable from the normal values found in humans, being measured at around -23.6.
And Figure 3 of the study that Twoggle has pointed out, shows very clearly that the 13C ERC and NA-19 content found in SH's sample was nothing unusual, and that -23 is a typical value. And in the second study, I guess Twoggle's talking about Figure 8 (instead of Figure 5), which shows basically the same thing.
Ayotte's thinking today seems to be based on the theory that synthetic nandrolone in the -23 range is now available as such, which was does not seem to have even been considered a possibility when these studies were written up, when synthetic nandrolone was closer to -30.
Thanks, your right about the Figure number. I wouldn’t be happy as a CAS arbitor to find out that a WADA lab director was *again* presenting internal lab data in a way that might be considered deceptive.
And in the second study, I guess Twoggle's talking about Figure 8 (instead of Figure 5), which shows basically the same thing.
Thanks, your right about the Figure number. I wouldn’t be happy as a CAS arbitor to find out that a WADA lab director was *again* presenting internal lab data in a way that might be considered deceptive.
I found two documents with the same title -- a paper with a Figure 8, and a one page summary with a Figure 5, which look like the same graph.
I found nothing publicly documenting her apparent shift in personal experience and research since then that supports the testimony she gave to this CAS Panel.
For those who want another glimpse of Prof. Ayotte -- she appears in Brian Fogel's "Icarus" around 1:37 into the film, as Brian Fogel hands over the information Russian information to WADA and IOC representatives.
For those still wondering how a male/other pig could have had low C13 (corn) numbers and got sent to the wrong slaughterhouse, this April 2020 piece is a great example showing what it was like for producers like him during the height of the pandemic, running out of space and desperate to get their livestock off the farm. It doesn't take an expert to interpret the line about "salad for pigs".
With his usual buyer off the market, Patterson’s cooperative has shipped some pigs to an Illinois plant and found local butchers willing to take a small number of hogs. But thousands others are still at his farm, outgrowing barns and occupying space needed by younger pigs. “It really gets to the point where there’s only so much physical space we can have to house the hogs,” Patterson said.
Since local butchers and some plants will take boars, and he's shipping to both types, it's easy to see how a mixup would occur under these circumstances. Maybe a truck comes unexpectedly early and loads the wrong batch. Anyway, no one would care because there's no harm done by the meat and everyone in the industry is just trying to get the supply chain moving again.
For several weeks, farmers have been slowing down pig growth to conserve space. Patterson said he’s been feeding hogs a high fiber diet that has less calories, which he called “salad for pigs.”
In Minnesota, droves of hog farmers have nowhere left to sell their pigs as plants shutter, forcing some farmers to consider an unfortunate last resort to ease their backlog of hogs: putting them down.
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.
Right, Rekrunner, it doesn't tell us about American pork generally, but that last sentence of the first paragraph on page 19 is a stunner. In SH's arbitration, Ayotte wants us to believe -23 is way too low a value for any American pork to have, but here she is saying it was the average value in the specimens she collected at the Montreal lab:
Although preliminary, the results obtained in the more concentrated specimens collected further to the ingestion of un-castrated pork offal indicate that the 13C content was not distinguishable from the normal values found in humans, being measured at around -23.6.
And Figure 3 of the study that Twoggle has pointed out, shows very clearly that the 13C ERC and NA-19 content found in SH's sample was nothing unusual, and that -23 is a typical value. And in the second study, I guess Twoggle's talking about Figure 8 (instead of Figure 5), which shows basically the same thing.
Ayotte's thinking today seems to be based on the theory that synthetic nandrolone in the -23 range is now available as such, which was does not seem to have even been considered a possibility when these studies were written up, when synthetic nandrolone was closer to -30.
It’s irrelevant about pork stomach,she ordered a beef burrito..
The counter view is that it’s actually somewhat unlikely Houlihan had a receipt from a place that serves pork the night before the test. People get the wrong order all the time, especially during Covid 19. The supply chain was messed up during Covid 19. More research is needed to establish the extent that elite athletes (with substantially different body types from the normal people in the studies) are susceptible to contaminated meat.
Thanks, your right about the Figure number. I wouldn’t be happy as a CAS arbitor to find out that a WADA lab director was *again* presenting internal lab data in a way that might be considered deceptive.
I found two documents with the same title -- a paper with a Figure 8, and a one page summary with a Figure 5, which look like the same graph.
I found nothing publicly documenting her apparent shift in personal experience and research since then that supports the testimony she gave to this CAS Panel.
For those who want another glimpse of Prof. Ayotte -- she appears in Brian Fogel's "Icarus" around 1:37 into the film, as Brian Fogel hands over the information Russian information to WADA and IOC representatives.
Ayotte get her living as head of a Wada lab from the efforts of the same organisation that funds both WADA and CAS.
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.
That was not an "argument", but a "simple scenario (to) help understand why I think the AIU's "near zero" argument is fundamentally flawed, and the wrong probability to measure "intent"."
You made a fair point, and improved the scenario, and yet the initial point still stands. Feel free to refuse to understand why 1 in 10,000 is the wrong metric, even though you still illustrate the same point.
I could reasonably complicate the simple scenario further and argue detection probabilities will not be the same as you assumed, as athletes will actively attempt to hide their doping, but there is no point haggling with imaginary numbers when accepting your scenario still proves the point.
With real data, we could refine the model further, plugging in better numbers, but nothing will alter the point that 1 in 10,000 is the wrong metric, unless both nandrolone use and detection is 100%.
In all cases, because I am an anonymous uncredentialed nobody, you should give imaginary data in a simple model expressly created for illustration purposes the weight it deserves, and give more weight to statements that have real data and observations behind them.
That is only one weakness of the AIU "near zero" argument. It is also weak because it is "general" data across the USA, and not "specific" to this instance of Houlihan who ate a burrito in Oregon. General trends are bad at explaining specific instances, because important exceptions can be averaged out of existence. What is missing is "specific" "concrete" evidence, e.g. the actual sample of a the burrito to test. Without that, it is simply not possible to make a case "on the balance of probability" for a low "1 in 10,000" probability event, unless you are lucky enough, like Lawson, to get a CAS Panel sympathetic to the athlete's lengthy efforts to prove guilt by accidental ingestion, and who realized the expert Prof. Ayotte gave wrong information about her own lab's results which materially led to the verdict that that CAS panel overturned.
To illustrate that weakness, I have often given the real-world example of Simon Getzmann. The difference between his "guilt" and "innocence" was by luck that he did not take all of his prescribed pain-killer. He was able to test the remaining tablet and it was found contaminated with a banned substance not on the ingredient list.
Without that painkiller to test, we could write exactly the same CAS report for Getzmann, and make the same "near zero" argument that the AIU made, and start the same threads in "letshandball" and call him all the same names as Houlihan, and point more fingers at his teammates and his club, etc.
To illustrate just how broken the WADA system is, recall that Simon Getzmann, through absolutely no-fault of his own, despite proving his innocence, 1) was suspended for more than 1 year, unable to compete, impacting his earnings; 2) spent more than 10,000 Euros for legal fees and scientific tests; and 3) under the WADA code, he is STILL GUILTY of an ADRV. Proving his innocence only earned him the right to lift the remaining sanction. He can never recover that lost year, his 10,000 Euros, and he has used up his "first strike". The next offense risks 8 years to life.
Now go back to Ross' Q&A where he describes the kind of investigation he would launch to help Houlihan prove her innonence: "I wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up in the mid- six figure range." And he still acknowledges a low probability of success for this low probability event of boar entering the food market.
Amazing how long winded you are . All this , and nothing relates to Shelby's case . All these sad stories , the name calling , putting words in capitals to show "you mean it" . lol
Amazing how long winded you are . All this , and nothing relates to Shelby's case . All these sad stories , the name calling , putting words in capitals to show "you mean it" . lol
Long-winded? -- Ross initially wrote 9000 words. Can that be discussed with sound bites?
Speaking of "nothing relates", the rest of your post looks wholly unrelated to anything I wrote:
- Doesn't the AIU's "near-zero" probability argument to the CAS "relate to Shelby's case"?
- What story is sad? Getzmann's? It did have a happy, yet bittersweet, ending.
- Where did I name-call? I called Ayotte by her real name, and Getzmann, and Lawson. I even name-called Prof. Ayotte with "expert" and "Prof."
- The only thing I capitalized was that Getzmann is "STILL GUILTY" according to the WADA Code, despite actually proving his innocence.
