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.
That’s a good point about the 2.4ng/mL “maximum.” The real maximum could easily be 5 times that measurement when you test only a few people and the lowest to highest amongst just those three differs by a factor of 4 or more.
I believe that the nandrolone WADA Technical Document is such a mess that there are at least three reasons to appeal to the Swiss high court that the CAS decision “disregards of fundamental principles of law” and that it is abusive to athletes. But I wish I knew on what grounds Houlihan’s lawyers appealed to the Swiss Court.
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.
So "legal advice" from one without legal qualifications or training. Don't be surprised if Houlihan's legal team doesn't call you.
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.
That’s a good point about the 2.4ng/mL “maximum.” The real maximum could easily be 5 times that measurement when you test only a few people and the lowest to highest amongst just those three differs by a factor of 4 or more.
I believe that the nandrolone WADA Technical Document is such a mess that there are at least three reasons to appeal to the Swiss high court that the CAS decision “disregards of fundamental principles of law” and that it is abusive to athletes. But I wish I knew on what grounds Houlihan’s lawyers appealed to the Swiss Court.
Replying to myself :-) on a separate issue that I believe Keith raised at one point. I think it’s very important to examine what use (if any) is the GC/C/IRMS test on the nandrolone metabolites. More specifically, other than for pregnant women, what does it mean exactly if a person passes the GC/C/IRMS test and why did they pass when the test is conducted on athletes with 2.5ng/ml to 15ng/ml of nandrolone metabolites in their urine?
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.
As I said on another thread, Travis Tygart hasn't said a single word about Houlihan's case (only to say that she couldn't run in the trials). A vocal critic of the system and how it can result in innocent athletes testing positive hasn't said one word in support of Houlihan - keep in mind that he did voice support for Shayna Jack. I don't think he's joining the Houlihan defense team any time soon.
Still, cool that you're now offering legal advice. Is this available to anyone on Letsrun or just dopers? Where did you do your law degree?
Replying to myself :-) on a separate issue that I believe Keith raised at one point. I think it’s very important to examine what use (if any) is the GC/C/IRMS test on the nandrolone metabolites. More specifically, other than for pregnant women, what does it mean exactly if a person passes the GC/C/IRMS test and why did they pass when the test is conducted on athletes with 2.5ng/ml to 15ng/ml of nandrolone metabolites in their urine?
pretending you and Keith aren’t the same person…cute.
As I said on another thread, Travis Tygart hasn't said a single word about Houlihan's case (only to say that she couldn't run in the trials). A vocal critic of the system and how it can result in innocent athletes testing positive hasn't said one word in support of Houlihan - keep in mind that he did voice support for Shayna Jack. I don't think he's joining the Houlihan defense team any time soon.
Still, cool that you're now offering legal advice. Is this available to anyone on Letsrun or just dopers? Where did you do your law degree?
You were the one who seemed to think I could offer insight and value to Houlihan's legal team, and said so without requiring my credentials before.
My advice was specifically directed towards innocent athletes unlucky enough to unknowingly ingest a banned substance, in a position lacking concrete evidence to prove it -- but everyone is free to consider what they think may apply to them, at their own risk.
Tygart may have his reasons to withhold his comments on Houlihan specifically.
I could see that commenting on the case of an Australian swimmer wouldn't raise the same questions about his neutrality, as commenting on an American athlete subject to USADA, on a case not adjudicated by USADA. Such comments may lead some to question his bias and motivation and calls of national protectionism.
Replying to myself :-) on a separate issue that I believe Keith raised at one point. I think it’s very important to examine what use (if any) is the GC/C/IRMS test on the nandrolone metabolites. More specifically, other than for pregnant women, what does it mean exactly if a person passes the GC/C/IRMS test and why did they pass when the test is conducted on athletes with 2.5ng/ml to 15ng/ml of nandrolone metabolites in their urine?
What I can't get past is the footnote comment that says "The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis ...".
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!
Why will CAS have to do that again. You do invent stuff.
Why do you lie so much?
1) They don't have to do that again.
2) I never said they do have to do that again.
3) I said that I almost wish that they do have that again - as you cited.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.