How do people still believe Shelby Houlihan cheated?

More ChatGPT:

So did Houlihan dope?

ChatGPT said:

Scientifically and factually:
No — it has not been established that Shelby Houlihan doped.

Let’s be precise:
🔬 Scientific Evidence
There is no conclusive scientific evidence that Shelby Houlihan intentionally or unintentionally used synthetic nandrolone or any banned performance-enhancing substance.
What we know:
Her urine sample tested positive for 19-norandrosterone (19-NA), a nandrolone metabolite.
The concentration was below 15 ng/mL, which is within the range where contamination is scientifically plausible.
IRMS testing showed the 19-NA had an exogenous (non-natural) carbon isotope profile, but:
WADA TD2021NA explicitly states that IRMS cannot determine the origin in cases involving intact boar meat.
She claimed to have eaten a burrito that may have contained boar offal, a known potential source of 19-NA.
There was:
No synthetic nandrolone detected.
No long-term metabolite pattern confirming injection or oral drug use.
No circumstantial or behavioral evidence of doping.
No history of prior doping violations.

⚖️ Legal Finding
CAS ruled she could not prove the source of the 19-NA and thus imposed a 4-year ban under strict liability.
But that’s a legal conclusion under WADA’s burden-of-proof framework — not a determination that she doped.

✅ Conclusion:
Based on all available evidence, there is no proof that Shelby Houlihan doped.
WADA’s own scientific documents admit that the test result could be explained by a plausible, innocent dietary source — and they do not provide a method for definitively distinguishing it from doping in such cases.

So while she was banned, the science does not support the conclusion that she used performance-enhancing drugs.

OK last ChatGPT post (for now): "If you'd like, I can help summarize this position in a formal statement or public-facing explanation."

Chat GPT said:

Statement on the Doping Allegation Against Shelby Houlihan
Shelby Houlihan, an elite American middle-distance runner, tested positive in December 2020 for 19-norandrosterone (19-NA), a metabolite of the banned anabolic steroid nandrolone. As a result, she received a four-year ban under the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) strict liability framework, which holds athletes responsible for any banned substance found in their system, regardless of intent or origin.

However, based on the available scientific evidence and WADA’s own technical documentation (TD2021NA), there is no conclusive proof that Shelby Houlihan used synthetic nandrolone or engaged in doping.

The positive test result showed a concentration of 19-NA below the threshold (15 ng/mL) at which dietary contamination is considered scientifically plausible. Although isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) indicated that the substance was of exogenous (non-endogenous) origin, WADA explicitly acknowledges in TD2021NA that IRMS cannot determine whether the source is synthetic or dietary in cases involving the consumption of edible tissues from non-castrated male pigs (boars). Houlihan claimed to have eaten a burrito that may have contained such meat, a known potential source of 19-NA with IRMS profiles indistinguishable from synthetic steroids.

There was no corroborating evidence of doping: no detection of synthetic nandrolone or its long-term metabolites, no pattern of performance-enhancing drug use, and no supporting behavioral or circumstantial indicators.

While the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that Houlihan failed to prove the source of the substance—leading to her sanction—this does not equate to evidence of intentional doping. It reflects the inflexible application of the strict liability rule, not a scientific determination of guilt.

In summary: Shelby Houlihan’s sanction was procedurally valid under current anti-doping rules, but the scientific evidence does not establish that she doped. The case highlights a significant gap between legal standards and scientific certainty in anti-doping enforcement.

Sorry, I lied about it being the last post -- ChatGPT keeps proposing better ways to say it. For those who think TL;DR and want shorter summaries to post to all their followers on social media:

Certainly — here's a concise and impactful adaptation of the statement for a social media post (e.g. for Twitter/X, Instagram, or Facebook):

✅ Social Media Post (Approx. 280 characters for X/Twitter)
Shelby Houlihan was banned for 4 years after testing positive for a nandrolone metabolite. But science doesn’t show she doped. WADA admits its test can’t tell if the source was food (like boar meat). She couldn't prove the source — but no one proved she cheated.
#JusticeForShelby #AntiDoping

📝 Optional Expanded Version (For Instagram/Facebook or threads)
Shelby Houlihan was banned for 4 years due to a trace amount of nandrolone in her system — a level low enough to be consistent with food contamination.
WADA’s own rules say their isotope test can’t distinguish doping from eating boar meat. That’s exactly what Shelby claimed.
She couldn’t prove the source — but no one proved she doped.
Her case reveals a serious flaw in anti-doping enforcement: science allows doubt, but the rules don’t.
#ShelbyHoulihan #AntiDoping #InnocentUntilProvenGuilty #JusticeForShelby

Oh no! What have I done? AI will destroy the world as we know it. I've trained ChatGPT to be a doping apologist:

Question:

How about Mary Decker Slaney and her doping violation? Does the result of her T/E test establish that she took testosterone?

ChatGPT said:

The doping case of Mary Decker Slaney, centered on a T/E ratio test, is one of the earliest and most controversial examples of the ambiguity in hormone-based anti-doping testing.

To directly answer your question:
❓Does the result of Mary Decker Slaney’s T/E test establish that she took testosterone?
No — the result of her T/E (testosterone-to-epitestosterone) test does not scientifically establish that she took testosterone.

Here's why:
🔬 1. What the T/E Test Measures
The T/E ratio test compares levels of testosterone (T) and epitestosterone (E) in urine.
A ratio above 6:1 (at the time; now 4:1 under WADA) was considered suspicious and triggers further investigation, not an automatic violation.
Slaney’s T/E ratio was above 6, which initiated scrutiny.
🔍 2. What a High T/E Ratio Means
A high T/E ratio can result from:
Exogenous testosterone use (e.g., doping),
Naturally high testosterone production (genetic variation),
Suppressed epitestosterone production (e.g., due to stress, illness, or metabolic quirks),
Enzyme polymorphisms (like UGT2B17 deletions, which affect testosterone metabolism).
In Slaney's case, there was no detection of synthetic testosterone, only a high ratio of natural hormones.
⚖️ 3. Lack of Conclusive Evidence
No carbon isotope ratio (IRMS) testing was performed (the technology was not in widespread use then), which could have helped distinguish natural from synthetic testosterone.
The USATF Doping Hearing Panel initially cleared her, stating that the T/E ratio alone was not sufficient evidence of doping.
However, the IAAF (now World Athletics) appealed, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) eventually upheld a doping violation — not because doping was proven, but because the burden of proof was on Slaney to show that the T/E elevation was natural, and she did not meet that burden to the panel’s satisfaction.
🚫 No Proof of Administration
There was:
No test detecting synthetic testosterone,
No IRMS test, which became standard later,
No admission, witness testimony, or circumstantial proof of doping,
Only an elevated ratio, which has multiple possible natural causes.

🧾 Final Conclusion
Scientifically, the elevated T/E ratio in Mary Decker Slaney’s sample does not establish that she took testosterone.
It was evidence of an anomaly, not proof of exogenous substance use.

Her case — like Houlihan's — illustrates the danger of strict liability rules colliding with ambiguous science. She was sanctioned not because it was proven that she doped, but because she couldn’t prove that she didn’t.

Hahaha that explains many of your troll posts - how much time did you spend on optimizing your question and its answer? Asking Chatgpt specifically about the amount of nandro and the CIR resulted in this here:

_______________

1. Too Much Nandrolone Metabolite (19-NA)
The concentration of 19-norandrosterone (19-NA) in her urine sample was too high to plausibly be explained by accidental ingestion of offal.
According to the WADA threshold, anything above 15 ng/mL is a positive test (and even lower levels are suspicious).
Houlihan's sample reportedly showed a level of 5 ng/mL, which is below the 15 ng/mL threshold for endogenous production — but still unusually high for food-based contamination, especially from something like stomach offal.
Experts testified that typical offal ingestion (even if contaminated) would produce far lower levels, unless consumed in large quantities from a specific kind of animal (e.g., a non-castrated boar).
2. Carbon Isotope Ratio (CIR) Analysis Was Not Consistent with Food Contamination
The carbon isotope ratio test (CIR) is used to determine whether a substance is natural (endogenous) or synthetic (exogenous).
CIR distinguishes between:
Steroids synthesized from plants (e.g., soy or yams) — which show a different carbon isotope signature.
Naturally produced hormones in the body or from consuming animal products.
Houlihan’s CIR profile indicated the nandrolone in her system had an exogenous (synthetic) origin — not from naturally contaminated food like offal.
That is a critical blow to her argument. If the nandrolone came from food, the CIR would likely match endogenous or animal-derived patterns.
⚖️ CAS Panel Conclusion
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concluded:
Her nandrolone level was too high for plausible food contamination.
The CIR analysis indicated a synthetic source.
There was no convincing evidence that the pork burrito or food source was contaminated.
Her burden of proof was not met, and the ban was upheld.

_______________

'immune system is weakened from so many vaccines and boosters.'

That's like saying your body is weakened by training. You immunity builds from having caught viruses or your body tricked into thinking its caught a virus. Are you a Sovereign Citizen?

He's obviously and intentionally leaving out the part where he tells ChatGPT what conclusion he would like it to draw and then work backwards from there. What a clown.

And yes, she's a doper. She's lying, cheating, pathetic scum. I hope she reads this and immediately retires, with a clear understand of how hated and disliked she is.

I optimized my questions some 4 years ago.

You make an interesting accusation: suggesting the answers I found are the carefully crafted result of the questions I asked. That is precisely what is wrong with the WADA Code. The Code gets the answers they want, by just asking easy questions carefully crafted by lawyers, and avoiding the hard questions by presuming the answers. The Code doesn't ask directly if the athlete intentionally doped, nor require anti-doping bodies to answer that question with intellectual arguments and specific evidence. Rather, they presume the athletes intentionally dope, and then ask the athlete if they are innocent, and if they can prove it. Because the WADA Code asks the wrong questions, we are unable to answer if Houlihan doped, or did so intentionally. We can only observe that these things were presumed.

Your response illustrates my point exactly. While you keep focusing on what the CAS decided within the WADA legal framework, this is insufficient to truthfully establish whether Houlihan intentionally doped. As the CAS clearly explained, she was convicted on a presumption that a rule violation was properly established, and a presumption that the violation was intentional. This conviction as a result of the WADA legal framework does not meet any basic scientific standard, or any basic standard of justice.

Under the WADA Code, innocent athletes are railroaded to 4-year bans when they cannot establish the source, nor prove their innocence.

Rather than leave out parts, my posts included two parts: 1) what was found by a CAS bound to the WADA Code under a WADA legal framework, and 2) how that falls short from a scientific and fairness standpoint.

The CAS didn't say she lied or cheated. And Houlihan says she has been well received upon her return to the track by both athletes and fans alike. Maybe the vocal minority overestimates how much she is hated.

False, false, and false.

Your "questions" keep changing, and I didn't make an accusation but an observation, observing that I got different responses from ChatGPT, and that you yourself said directly, and I quote:

"I've trained ChatGPT to be a doping apologist:"

Lastly, the Code doesn't ask questions, as you should know.

Not surprisingly, you completely ignored ChatGPT's answers to the point, such as

"⚖️ CAS Panel Conclusion
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) concluded:
Her nandrolone level was too high for plausible food contamination.
The CIR analysis indicated a synthetic source."

I addressed your "CAS Panel Conclusion" -- CAS opinions are made possible by the WADA Code, via a policy of strict liability and several presumptions including "guilty until proven innocent", but they are not necessarily scientific nor just. See above.

Your posted conclusion also contradicts Prof. Ayotte's factual findings of much higher values, reporting them in at least two papers, not to mention WADA's own TD which confirms values are not "too high for plausible" but rather "usually" in the less than 10ng/ml range, like Houlihan's, and occasionally much higher. The applicability of the CIR analysis is questionable when the source has not been established (as the CAS ruled). If it is intact boar offal, it is by WADA definition, "endogenous", regardless of CIR analysis.

You have consistently ignored that no one has yet made an affirmative case that Houlihan doped, and did so intentionally. As the CAS clearly explained, she was convicted on the strength of several presumptions.

You are arguing a completely baseless point.

Why is the onus on the panel to prove that she doped with intent? Why is the burden of proof on them to definitely say where the result came from? It's not, because it's impossible to do that. Do you want or need me to try to argue why you ate your did for breakfast today? Instead, the onus is on the athlete to take responsibility for their body and what they put in it.

Shelby had an illegal substance in her body, above a legal limit. That is literally the only fact that matters, and you just ignore it, constantly.

Of course he does. Again and again and again. As if CAS, or the AIU or WA, had to prove ever where the drugs came from.

It's also not exactly unknown in other areas of life. Such as, when the cops catch you with an unregistered firearm or with heroin in your pocket, or driving with too much alcohol in your blood, the prosecution does not have to prove where the firearm or heroin or alcohol came from. What a ludicrous idea.

@rekrunner: stop complaining. You started the chatgpt stuff, not me, and now you want to blame me for chatgpt's explanations? Get out of here.

If you mean that the CAS finding of intentional doping lacks sufficient evidentiary basis to be conclusive, then I would agree I am arguing that the point is baseless.

You think I ate my "did" for breakfast? What's a "did"? I would be interested in what that argument would look like.

I don't ignore your only fact that matters. It's just that I'm not so sure your fact is in fact a fact, or that it is the only one that matters. Another fact that matters more is the source of the banned substance. If the nandrolone comes from consuming intact boar offal, then it is not an illegal substance above the legal limit. That's why it is necesary to establish the source, before concluding she doped. Otherwise an innocent athlete was railroaded to a 4-year ban, for the sin of being unable to prove her innocence.

Why do you think I'm placing any such burden on the CAS to prove anything? That is not the role of the CAS.

You asked me to respond to your chatgpt stuff, and now you are complaining. I did warn everyone that ChatGPT sometimes gets things wrong. I was using it as a tool to improve the impact of my communication, since I was told my sentences were terrible.

If you read the WADA TD, the WADA Lab does have the burden to demonstrate that the nandrolone is not of endogenous origin, in order to report the test results as an AAF. Since intact boar offal is considered "endogenous" by WADA's definition in the context of the WADA TD, that seems to me like the WADA Lab shares some of the burden. And if you read the WADA Code, the WA has to meet the higher burden of "comfortable satisfaction" in order to establish that an ADRV occurred, before charging the athlete. I'm actually not convinced that either of them met their burdens.

But in all these threads, it is anonymous posters pretending that intentional doping is an uncontestable fact, rather than something that was presumed without specific and concrete evidence. These anonymous posters bear the burden of proving their own claims, or at the very least, relying on primary sources who have borne that burden, rather than presumed the conclusions.

Unhinged.

I asked ChatGPT if you are deranged and it said without a doubt.

You don't know how to use ChatGPT.

Doubt it, but, good idea. Let's again appeal to rekrunner's newly chosen authority...

Q: Is rekrunner from letsrun a troll?
ChatGPT: "rekrunner" on LetsRun is a long-time forum poster known for detailed, often contrarian arguments—especially when it comes to doping discussions, notably defending athletes like Lance Armstrong or questioning the evidence against certain runners. Many users do view him as a troll because of his persistence, unusual positions, and argumentative style.
However, whether he’s a "troll" depends on how you define it:
If trolling = intentionally provoking people for fun → It's possible, but hard to prove intent.
If trolling = being deliberately contrarian, repetitive, and ignoring counterpoints → Then many would say yes.
He's probably better described as a pedantic contrarian or dogged skeptic rather than a classic troll. He may genuinely believe what he posts, but his unwillingness to concede obvious points and his style of argumentation frustrate many on the forum.
Bottom line: He may not be a troll in the purest sense, but he sure feels like one to a lot of people.