Twoggle won our prediction contest and we did a Q&A with him

+1

In fact, what our in-house doper apologist called "the concession of increased soy during COVID supply issues" was a) a maybe and b) specifically called short-lived even if it occurred, without any consequences for the carbon isotope ratio, facts that this apologist keeps forgetting.

Recall that the doper's PI could not find a single farmer who confirmed "increased soy", not even for a single day.

Of course pigs eating soy in place of corn would have direct consequences for the carbon isotope ratio, shifting it into the range found in Houlihan's sample.

I don't know about the "doper's PI", but the AIU's expert conceded that it happened -- that's in the CAS report.

It's also amazing to me the magnitude of speculation, imagination, and misinformation among that exists among supposedly knowledgeable letsrun readers about things that cannot be found in the CAS report or elsewhere.

No one suggested the food truck slaughters its own pigs, and there is nothing illegal about plants slaughtering uncastrated boars. According to the USDA website (as well as Prof. McGlone's testimony), the USDA inspectors will approve boar carcasses for slaughter into the food chain based on a sniff test. The AIU expert estimated some figure less than 1 in 10,000 pigs will make it into the food supply, which means some number below 12,000 pigs per year in the USA could become nandrolone timebombs for all athletes across the nation. It also looks like Prof. McGlone didn't account for chemically castrated boars, and the consequences of delaying their slaughter by 2-3 months.

I suppose the original goalpost was your question "Really, are (sic) still doubting that she did dope?"

My response is what I said before your quote: "there is still doubt because the WADA Code, and the CAS adjudication process doesn't remove these doubts". You did not dispute this.

You seem to be hung up on the word "ignore", as if I used it improperly. In this case, as Houlihan was not able to meet her burden to disprove "intentional" to the CAS Panel, the WADA Code requires "ignoring" the doubt that remains, and the CAS is required to deem the violation intentional. Feel free to pick a more suitable verb, but the fact remains that the doubts remain.

Then, as an added bonus outside the WADA/AIU/CAS adjudication process, much of the rest of the world pretends these doubts no longer exist by virtue of the verdict, as if both the source of the nandrolone, and intent, were established beyond all reasonable doubts.

Now you tell me to read the decision (again?). There is little discussion in the CAS report about "intent", one way or another, beyond the AIU and the CAS stating Houlihan's burden to overcome the presumption of intent, and Houlihan and her team declaring that she would not intentionally dope, but were unfortunately unable to collect enough evidence that would establish the source of the nandrolone, a strong prerequisite to establising not intentional.

I think it is most telling that no athletes have condemned her for doping. It's as if they understand. Some were briefly concerned she was going to run trials as a banned athlete, and that the USATF would let her, and then one teammate was concerned about her own personal exposure by training "with" Houlihan. But otherwise, crickets from her competitors condemning her for intentional doping. All the hatred is coming from journalists and fans, with no skin in the game.

Not sure what Kiprop has to do with any of this. He was found with EPO in his urine, maybe, according to a test that some of the WADA labs seems to be getting wrong lately. But sure, let's pretend that there are also no doubts.

Of course you are wrong again. Read and weep, directly from the CAS report:

That should be enough for you to admit that you were either wrong or trolling along happily. The nandro could not have come from "commercial pork"!

Just in the unlikely (hahahaha!) case it is not:

Do you understand now? "this practice was not maintained for a sustained period of time" and "corn remained overall the main diet source for all pigs in the United States" - yet you keep going on and on and on.

In the case that the above is too hard for you to digest, read Tucker's explanations here on letsrun:

and (she = Houlihan)

Rojo and Twoggle, you might want to have a look too. The nandro was not in the burrito, over and out.

You are correct, but you can't reason people out of a position that they were never reasoned into in the first place. Their continued support of Doper Houlihan is based entirely on emotion, facts have nothing to do with it.

The isotope test that the WADA lab used has shown a 40% false positive rate in one published paper and 15% false positive rate in another published paper — for cases where pork is involved. These are small studies, but the only ones published. The high false positive rate and small studies is exactly why the alternate testing path should have been pursued.

The CAS panel did buy into the WADA witness about corn and soy. But had the panel searched online for published articles and farmers sharing their experiences during that time frame, they would have seen quite a variety of changes in diet from free range feeding practices, to different type of products and supplements (including the use of more soy) all of which can affect isotope ratios.

I’m hoping that WADA completely revises their techical document because of so many false positives in their studies and because they have an alternate testing path spelled out in their Technical Document and they testify against using it. It’s very important IMO because their are so many recent cases.

Ah, there it is. Trolling. That's what I've come to expect from the losing side.

So, are you right?

The CAS Panel, nor the AIU experts, did not say what you originally said, that pigs eating soy are "without any consequences for the carbon isotope ratio". Nor did they find that "The nandro was not in the burrito" -- these are your layman conclusions. Noted and filed.

So, am I wrong?

I agree it would not be consistent in the case of corn-fed commercial pigs, but is that applicable to this specific instance of Houlihan? I don't know. Prof. McGlone doesn't know. The CAS panel doesn't know. You don't know. Tucker doesn't know.

As you just proved, again, the CAS Panel had experts on both sides telling them that some of the pigs diets were changed to soy, for a short time during COVID, and that soy diets would produce the shifted carbon istope ratios found in Houlihan's samples.

Recall your original goal post was "doubt". Rulings and findings based on a standard of "more likely than not" are not "beyond reasonable doubt".

Putting all that aside, was a CIR finding proper or ripe?

I still disagree with the majority of the CAS Panel, and agree with the minority of the CAS Panel, that the sample results were correctly considered an AAF. An ATF would render the whole CIR discussion moot.

Even then, once the potential confounder of boar offal was "invoked", the TD2021NA says in a clarifying comment, that the GC/C/IRMS analysis may not establish the (exogenous) origin of the nandrolone. Nothing else established the exogenous origin.

Was Prof. Ayotte's "consistent" alternative of a pseudo-endogenous oral precursor established? Once again, the answer is no. The same TD2021NA comment says "The possible Use for doping purposes of 19-norsteroid preparations with a pseudo-endogenous carbon isotopic signature may be established on the basis of the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion, as determined from the analysis of previously collected and/or follow-up Samples". We all know that pharmocokinetics was not done.

Conclusion: the origin of the nandrolone was not established. That's one of the findings in the CAS report.

I have the impression the same poster is just posting to themselves under several different handles.

The unemotional conclusions from the CAS report are quite limited: 1) Houlihan's samples were considered an AAF with a non-unanimous majority/minority split of the CAS Panel, and 2) Houlihan was unable to establish the origin, and therefore could not benefit from a "not intentional" reduction. These findings are limited as the WADA Code does not require extensive fact-finding in order to decide an ADRV with a 4-year sanction.

Pure emotion void of facts include: suggestions she doped before burrito night in Dec. 2020; suggestions that doping helped her American records; suggestions she cheated anyone out of medals, places, money, etc.; all the hate and vitriol; calls for a lifetime ban; etc.

Houlihan was convicted on one (A+B) sample, in WADA's words, in the "low less than 10 ng/ml range", consistent with both pork ingestion and with oral norsteroid precursor ingestion (and other possible ingestion like contaminated supplements), none of which was established with facts, or further data -- and then a whole series of maybes and probably nots.

What most everyone fails to realize is that statistically "possible but unlikely" events will certainly occur with rare exceptions given enough opportunities. The question has never been how likely are nandrolone pork positives across the USA, but whether Houlihan, in this one instance, can be determined to be that rare exception -- something that is not easy to "prove", even on the "balance of probability", when put on notice 1-month after the fact, after the primary evidence (either pork or supplements) has been consumed and discarded. If she had had the burrito to test (or all her supplements), all this "presupposes a cascade of events" arguments about what usually happens across the USA would disappear.

The sole evidence of a one-time finding of a low value from ingestion is a weak factual basis for the magnitude of emotional hatred and vitriol.

LOL, yes, you clearly lost the argument as soon as the CAS report came out back in 2021, when everyone realized that the burrito press conference was nothing but propaganda. Since then, you've been trolling hard but predictable.

You lost again when the doper lost at the supreme court a year later, quite devastatingly so because not one of your troll "arguments" were brought up by the doper. Even for her, they were to outlandish.

When Tucker explained it to y'all here, you really should have stopped. Your trolling now simply looks quasi-comical if not desperate.

Coming up with new irrelevant straw arguments like she-doped-only-once and she-only-used-a-low-amount and the-origin-of-the-dope-was-not-established doesn't make you look less desperate let alone honest.

How long will you keep trolling with this? Serious question.

Hahahaha. We all know you are twoggle, by the way.

And lol, there it is again: awh poor drug cheat, it was only "a one-time finding of a low value".... Oh man, how frustrating that must be: she doped only once with a low amount, and yet got banned for intentional doping. Hahahahaha

What did I lose? Show me again where the CAS, or the Supreme Court, or Tucker says soy diets have no "consequences for the carbon isotope ratio" and "the nandro wasn't in the burrito"?

It is innocent athletes who lose to strict liability, when they unable to prove the source.

Supreme Courts don't look at arguments or retry the case, but look for procedural missteps, or fundamental rights issues.

Tucker explained nothing new, and he doesn't produce any evidence to support much of what is said above and beyond the CAS decision (e.g. soy has no consequence and the nandro wasn't in the burrito).

The evidence to convict her was a one time finding of a low amount -- something WADA said is usual after nandrolone ingestion from intact pork. These are not new straw arguments, but essentially the only facts specific to Houlihan.

How long will people keep saying things not supported by the CAS decision, or elsewhere?

Just another example that what you say you "know" is not reality.

I'm sure it is frustrating for innocent athletes when the source of the unintentional ingestion cannot be determined.