If being caught with a banned substance in your system, making up lies about how it got in your system (said she had an offal burrito, when her receipt showed something else), and having both WADA and CAS rule against you is baseless, then I don't know what constitutes a base.
2. She cannot, by her own admission, provide an explanation as to how it got there
3. Her, Jerry, and her lawyer knowingly lied about the burrito as the source of the drug
Everything else is bluster, half-baked opinion, and blind faith. And in the case of our LRC journos, a hefty dose of US-bias because there's no way they'd carry water for a foreign athletes who was in Houlihan's situation e.g. Asbel Kiprop or Mo Katir
4. Houlihan literally "ruled out" her supplements, both in her "timeline"* and in an interview with RW.
*She deleted that "timeline" document from her web page, for it shows quite a few damning facts (even though it was revised by her lawyer). But the internet doesn't forget.
extremely low iq, low resolution take. the world is not black and white
+1
Nope. Nothing to do with "black and white", not to mention "extremely low iq".
Note the statement was "There's nothing basless about condemning an athlete who failed a drug test." Naturally the failed drug test forms a base for the condemnation.
(That doesn't always mean the athlete doped intentionally, see Gretzmann - but it does here, especially when you read the whole CAS report.)
The reason people are making moral judgments is because science says Shelby is lying.
She didn’t have trace amounts.
Science says the amounts if her system had to be don’t intentionally.
We believe science not Shelby.
The moral judgements are based on beliefs and presumptions and prejudgements, and not on science.
The science completely supports Houlihan's explanation. It says eating "edible parts of intact boar" can produce amounts "in the low (less than 10 ng/ml) range", and that varied diets (i.e. C3 plants versus C4 plants) will produce "dissimilar delta-13 C values which may range between -15 ‰ and -25 ‰" -- entirely "consistent with" both Houlihan's level of nandrolone, and carbon isotope ratio.
Houlihan's challenge before the CAS wasn't a scientific one, but an evidentiary one.
Here is some of the science WADA relies on when explaining to the WADA Labs how nandrolone in amounts greater than 2 ng/ml can be "endogenous" (i.e. WADA legal):
Guay C et al. Excretion of norsteroids’ phase II metabolites of different origin in human. Steroids 74: 350-8, 2009.
Debruyckere G, de Sagher R, Van Peteghem C. Influence of the consumption of meat contaminated with anabolic steroids on doping tests. Anal Chim Acta 275: 49–56, 1993.
Le Bizec B et al. Consequence of boar edible tissue consumption on urinary profiles of nandrolone metabolites. I. Mass spectrometric detection and quantification of 19-norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone in human urine. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 14: 1058-65, 2000.
Le Bizec B et al. Consequence of boar edible tissue consumption on urinary profiles of nandrolone metabolites. II. Identification and quantification of 19-norsteroids responsible for 19- norandrosterone and 19-noretiocholanolone excretion in human urine. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 15: 1442-47, 2001.
Ayotte C. Significance of 19-norandrosterone in athletes’ urine samples. Br. J. Sports Med. 40: 25-29, 2006.
Hülsemann F et al. Case Study: Atypical 13C values of urinary norandrosterone. Drug Test Anal. 10(11-12):1728-1733, 2018.
Hülsemann F et al. Excretion of 19-norandrosterone after consumption of boar meat. Drug Test Anal. (accepted for publication, 2020).
2. She cannot, by her own admission, provide an explanation as to how it got there
3. Her, Jerry, and her lawyer knowingly lied about the burrito as the source of the drug
Everything else is bluster, half-baked opinion, and blind faith. And in the case of our LRC journos, a hefty dose of US-bias because there's no way they'd carry water for a foreign athletes who was in Houlihan's situation e.g. Asbel Kiprop or Mo Katir
Not only are these not indisputable, but they are not all facts in this case.
1. If the substance is of endogenous origin, it is not banned. According to WADA, "In the context of this TD, "endogenous" origins of 19-NA, at levels higher than 2 ng/mL, include i); pregnancy; ii) in-situ microbial degradation of androsterone (A) to 19-NA; and iii) consumption of edible parts of non-castrated male pigs".
2. This is more true for innocent athletes, than for guilty ones.
3. The burrito still can be the source. It was neither proven nor disproven. It was just argued to be rare across all pork eating athletes the USA.
Fans and journalists and armchair pundits alike should also reconsider how they prejudge African athletes. A "nandrolone from pork" carries way more water in countries, e.g. African countries, that do no routinely castrate their pigs (although maybe not so much in the case of the devout who do not eat pork).
4. Houlihan literally "ruled out" her supplements, both in her "timeline"* and in an interview with RW.
*She deleted that "timeline" document from her web page, for it shows quite a few damning facts (even though it was revised by her lawyer). But the internet doesn't forget.
Do you have an exact quote?
My recollection is that they tested the supplements and vitamins that she had available, and different batches when they were not, but could not test all of them from the same batch as December, as she had already consumed them. This seems more like she couldn't rule it in, lacking positive confirmation, rather than "literally ruled (supplements) out".
This is an evidentiary problem.
In her timeline (still visible from "wayback"), "January 20th: -Follow up email to AIU stating we believe the source of nandrolone was from pig offal."
Team Houlihan's position from the first few days was that they did not know with 100% certainty what the source was, but "believed" that pig offal was the most likely source.
Her problem during arbitration is not one of lying, or of any alleged "damning facts", but one of finding sufficient evidence to establish the most likely source, overcoming the general probability of such a rare event occuring in the USA.
4. Houlihan literally "ruled out" her supplements, both in her "timeline"* and in an interview with RW.
*She deleted that "timeline" document from her web page, for it shows quite a few damning facts (even though it was revised by her lawyer). But the internet doesn't forget.
Do you have an exact quote?
"But she [Houlihan] told me they'd ruled out supplement contamination early"
What you forgot to add is that the supplement(s?) she emptied in the meantime didn't result in a positive test in late November.
The science completely supports Houlihan's explanation. It says eating "edible parts of intact boar" can produce amounts "in the low (less than 10 ng/ml) range", and that varied diets (i.e. C3 plants versus C4 plants) will produce "dissimilar delta-13 C values which may range between -15 ‰ and -25 ‰" -- entirely "consistent with" both Houlihan's level of nandrolone, and carbon isotope ratio.
Come on. While you are correct with your citations, you are talking about a general case, not hers specifically. And you know that, so you are obfuscating on purpose.
Remember that a) the identified pork source was stomach for the offal (and butt for the chorizo) (not kidney and testicles like in the studies you cited) and b) both came from farm-fed boar with apparently only minor variations in diet (not wild boar like in the studies you cited). And that doesn't even consider that uncastrated boar is extremely unlikely in the supply chain here ("far less than 1 in 10000").
So yes, science - when looking closely - indeed says the nandro did not come from the burrito.
This is also supported not just by CAS, but also by is the independent expert's conclusion, Prof. Tucker, consulted by letsrun:
Yes, based on what’s presented in the CAS Reasoned Decision of the case, it’s difficult to argue for any decision other than the one CAS reached.
and, in conclusion:
With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion."
Did I mention that Houlihan herself ruled out supplements?
"But she [Houlihan] told me they'd ruled out supplement contamination early"
What you forgot to add is that the supplement(s?) she emptied in the meantime didn't result in a positive test in late November.
OK -- the quote comes from Matt Hart of Runnersworld.
Testing positive for oral ingestion of nandrolone depends on the timing of the tests. As we know, negative tests does not mean the supplements are clean.
Come on. While you are correct with your citations, you are talking about a general case, not hers specifically. And you know that, so you are obfuscating on purpose.
Remember that a) the identified pork source was stomach for the offal (and butt for the chorizo) (not kidney and testicles like in the studies you cited) and b) both came from farm-fed boar with apparently only minor variations in diet (not wild boar like in the studies you cited). And that doesn't even consider that uncastrated boar is extremely unlikely in the supply chain here ("far less than 1 in 10000").
So yes, science - when looking closely - indeed says the nandro did not come from the burrito.
This is also supported not just by CAS, but also by is the independent expert's conclusion, Prof. Tucker, consulted by letsrun:
and, in conclusion:
Did I mention that Houlihan herself ruled out supplements?
Recall the context I responded to was "Science says the amounts if (sic) her system had to be don’t (sic) intentionally."
The science doesn't say which amounts are to be considered intentional. Intent is a "legal" interpretation.
The science applies to all cases, including Houlihan's.
Recall my response was "Houlihan's challenge before the CAS wasn't a scientific one, but an evidentiary one."
Your points are about the evidence, which is incomplete, and not the science.
If being caught with a banned substance in your system, making up lies about how it got in your system (said she had an offal burrito, when her receipt showed something else), and having both WADA and CAS rule against you is baseless, then I don't know what constitutes a base.
it's not baseless, she failed a test. there is an objective reason she's in trouble. she doesn't challenge that the reason exists. she concedes its existence but has an excuse. or two it now sounds like.
it's not strict liability, we're not throwing the book at her based on the test then ignoring her explanations. she got to talk. she simply did not convince.
and while some might feel she was done wrong on "burrito" or whatever the new explanation is, "moral atrocity" is exaggerated hyperbole worthy of the Trump Age. she failed a drug test when doing so gets you banned. she has theories on how it happened but they are lacking in much basis and apparently only convincing to some, and particularly not the authorities. it would be sad if she's being honest but to most of us she couldn't really substantiate "burrito." there is no other burrito or food truck test showing everything from there would trigger a failed test.
really, she has a hypothesis to try and explain what otherwise gets you banned, that she can't prove. getting banned at that point is not a moral atrocity.
2. She cannot, by her own admission, provide an explanation as to how it got there
3. Her, Jerry, and her lawyer knowingly lied about the burrito as the source of the drug
Everything else is bluster, half-baked opinion, and blind faith. And in the case of our LRC journos, a hefty dose of US-bias because there's no way they'd carry water for a foreign athletes who was in Houlihan's situation e.g. Asbel Kiprop or Mo Katir
Not only are these not indisputable, but they are not all facts in this case.
1. If the substance is of endogenous origin, it is not banned. According to WADA, "In the context of this TD, "endogenous" origins of 19-NA, at levels higher than 2 ng/mL, include i); pregnancy; ii) in-situ microbial degradation of androsterone (A) to 19-NA; and iii) consumption of edible parts of non-castrated male pigs".
2. This is more true for innocent athletes, than for guilty ones.
3. The burrito still can be the source. It was neither proven nor disproven. It was just argued to be rare across all pork eating athletes the USA.
Fans and journalists and armchair pundits alike should also reconsider how they prejudge African athletes. A "nandrolone from pork" carries way more water in countries, e.g. African countries, that do no routinely castrate their pigs (although maybe not so much in the case of the devout who do not eat pork).
They are facts. That's why she was banned for four years and her appeal rejected. As Jonathan Gault memorably said at the time, the facts are against her (and you, since you want to go into bat for her)
The smoking gun evidence in this case is really the isotope analysis of the nandrolone in her sample. It is much more probable that the nandrolone in her system came from supplements than from offal. She never had a plausible case for offal ingestion, and it was casually racist to think that people would be more accepting of her story if she blamed the unintentional ingestion on Mexicans -i.e., it's supposed to be more plausible somehow that the taco truck was serving mystery meat.
They are facts. That's why she was banned for four years and her appeal rejected. As Jonathan Gault memorably said at the time, the facts are against her (and you, since you want to go into bat for her)
It is not so much that the facts were against her, but that the 2015 WADA Code has tipped the balance further against accused athletes.
There was nandrolone in her system. The fact is, according to WADA (and the science) this low amount of nandrolone in the endogenous range may or may not be an AAF, or an ADRV.
"She cannot, by her own admission, provide an explanation as to how it got there" is a fact, but that doesn't mean she is guilty. On the contrary, such a fact often exists for the innocent athletes, as the guilty ones can provide an explanation. According to the CAS, and WADA, and the expert opinion of Judge Jean-Paul Cost, such an explanation "is difficult to provide".
The CAS did not decide, nor any courts, nor anyone else, that "Her, Jerry, and her lawyer knowingly lied about the burrito as the source of the drug". That is pure fan-fiction.
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.