Ayotte did claim at one time that Houlihan’s delta value of ~ -23 was normal. But even if she changed her views since then, she still presented a false picture of the research in order create a narritive that since 2018 (as new research on oral supplements showed many values around -23) her lab noticed nandrolone results in two groups around -23 and around -29. Then she proceeded to try and link Houlihan to Amazon.com supplements. The whole time she knew that research since 2002 has shown similar groupings and that measurements of supplements around -23 was rare at that time. I think the CAS and Ross Tucker should have examined the accuracy of these and other statements (e.g., 2.4 ng/mL after pork meat ingestion) after what happened in the Lawson case.
As a long time sceptic looking for stronger evidence to support often repeated and strongly believed claims with weak to no basis, what I have observed in this domain of doping in sports, including among people who would seem to be otherwise smarter than that, there is a recurring pattern of attempting to draw strong conclusions on a partial set of facts, filling in gaps with speculation, and downplaying, if not ignoring, any inconvenient facts that don't stand with such conclusions, often resorting to feable name-calling and personal attacks for the intellectual crime of making unpleasant facts public.
To attempt to be fair to Prof. Ayotte, the previous figures of ~ -23 might not come from American corn-fed pigs -- there might yet be some recent measures specific to American pigs in a paper that hasn't been found yet. But that generosity cannot extend to her arguing 2.4 ng/ml as representative of a maximum, based on two studies with a small sample sizes based solely on meat ingestion (irrelevant to the case at hand which claims pork offal ingestion), when she herself has published several pork offal studies producing levels more than 50x higher. This looks like intentional deception to a CAS Panel which relied heavily on the AIU experts opinions and estimates. Seems like an area worth further examination -- maybe Ross didn't have the stomach for it.
It's almost like the CAS needs its own independent panel of scientific experts, to challenge and neutralize the opinions of dueling conflicting experts.
In previous cases the arbitration process has used “ independent “ experts from other Wada labs to help them saying only these can help with the Wada rules.
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.
smh
Dude, you really should employ Occam's Razor. You are really silly now.
I thought I'd check back in on this thread after becoming bored with it a few days ago and I see it's still going around in circles.
At this point, my advice to Houlihan is this: You need your legal team to get in touch with MoultonK, Twoggle, and rekrunner as soon as possible. These three have found gaping holes in your defense team's case, yes, even your lawyer (and his team) who is experienced at getting athletes off on a tainted meat defense has overlooked this evidence. Now, I'm sure your lawyer has not thoroughly investigated all of these potential avenues and then chosen to omit them from his defense case because there was nothing to them. Nope, instead, he and his team have simply done a poor job in defending you. Good luck, and I hope that Twoggle can get to Switzerland in time to present his expert testimony on your behalf.
Too funny, High hopes. I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal, and CAS will have to decide again. To watch the defense trying the here presented "arguments" would be hilarious!
Too funny, High hopes. I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal, and CAS will have to decide again. To watch the defense trying the here presented "arguments" would be hilarious!
I thought I'd check back in on this thread after becoming bored with it a few days ago and I see it's still going around in circles.
At this point, my advice to Houlihan is this: You need your legal team to get in touch with MoultonK, Twoggle, and rekrunner as soon as possible. These three have found gaping holes in your defense team's case, yes, even your lawyer (and his team) who is experienced at getting athletes off on a tainted meat defense has overlooked this evidence. Now, I'm sure your lawyer has not thoroughly investigated all of these potential avenues and then chosen to omit them from his defense case because there was nothing to them. Nope, instead, he and his team have simply done a poor job in defending you. Good luck, and I hope that Twoggle can get to Switzerland in time to present his expert testimony on your behalf.
My legal advice:
After having waived one round of appeal, without immediate and retro-active WADA Code reform, overturning the ADRV, or reducing the sanction, doesn't seem possible.
My future recommendation for athletes in a similar situation is to plead "no contest" and qualify for a 1-year reduction for not fighting it.
Then join forces with long-time USADA chief Travis Tygart to bring about necessary reform the WADA Code in order to reduce the future risk of innocent athletes being railroaded into a 4-year ban, and treated like intentional dopers.
The only remaining unanswered question here is whether a strong argument exists that Shebly actually doped. Unfortunately neither the CAS nor the AIU asked or answered that question.
I thought I'd check back in on this thread after becoming bored with it a few days ago and I see it's still going around in circles.
At this point, my advice to Houlihan is this: You need your legal team to get in touch with MoultonK, Twoggle, and rekrunner as soon as possible. These three have found gaping holes in your defense team's case, yes, even your lawyer (and his team) who is experienced at getting athletes off on a tainted meat defense has overlooked this evidence. Now, I'm sure your lawyer has not thoroughly investigated all of these potential avenues and then chosen to omit them from his defense case because there was nothing to them. Nope, instead, he and his team have simply done a poor job in defending you. Good luck, and I hope that Twoggle can get to Switzerland in time to present his expert testimony on your behalf.
My legal advice:
After having waived one round of appeal, without immediate and retro-active WADA Code reform, overturning the ADRV, or reducing the sanction, doesn't seem possible.
My future recommendation for athletes in a similar situation is to plead "no contest" and qualify for a 1-year reduction for not fighting it.
Then join forces with long-time USADA chief Travis Tygart to bring about necessary reform the WADA Code in order to reduce the future risk of innocent athletes being railroaded into a 4-year ban, and treated like intentional dopers.
The only remaining unanswered question here is whether a strong argument exists that Shebly actually doped. Unfortunately neither the CAS nor the AIU asked or answered that question.
Very well put.
Tucker also does not know if she is a doper or not.
Too funny, High hopes. I almost wish now that Houlihan wins her appeal, and CAS will have to decide again. To watch the defense trying the here presented "arguments" would be hilarious!
We better notify WADA and CAS that the case needs an entire do-over. 2 Message Board Warriors on LRC have doubts, enhanced by a lack of logic and an inability to understand facts.
Wada and CAS know exactly the the problem of non dopers being convicted.
But they are have their snouts too deep into the money trough to care.
