Sports Scientist Ross Tucker breaks downs the Shelby Houlihan case for us

LarsL11 wrote:

Just checking in to this super interesting conversation to see if Shelby Houlihan still is convicted of doping. I read something interesting in a interview with a sports scientist:

It (the urine consentration of nandrolone) was almost three times higher than the highest levels measured in those two studies where people ate much larger pork meals. More tellingly, the isotope signature didn’t meet the requirements for an “ambiguous case” that might require further testing.

To much to have come from eating boar Wrong isotope to have come from boar. Interesting stuff!

LarsL11 wrote:

Just checking in to this super interesting conversation to see if Shelby Houlihan still is convicted of doping. I read something interesting in a interview with a sports scientist:

It (the urine consentration of nandrolone) was almost three times higher than the highest levels measured in those two studies where people ate much larger pork meals. More tellingly, the isotope signature didn’t meet the requirements for an “ambiguous case” that might require further testing.

To much to have come from eating boar
Wrong isotope to have come from boar.

Interesting stuff!

Link:www.letsrun.com/news/2022/04/sports-sc...

rekrunner wrote:

LarsL11 wrote:

Just checking in to this super interesting conversation to see if Shelby Houlihan still is convicted of doping. I read something interesting in a interview with a sports scientist:

It (the urine consentration of nandrolone) was almost three times higher than the highest levels measured in those two studies where people ate much larger pork meals. More tellingly, the isotope signature didn’t meet the requirements for an “ambiguous case” that might require further testing.

To much to have come from eating boar Wrong isotope to have come from boar. Interesting stuff!

As Ross was only paid to explain the CAS decision, based on the CAS report, he may have been unaware of certain omissions, e.g. several published papers from Prof. Ayotte with more than 20x higher levels than Houlihan's, and reporting Houlihan's isotopes as "endogenous".

LarsL11 wrote:

Just the same way we cannot know much without having observed it ourselves. I don't know if my GF took a shower this morning. She left bed, went into the bathroom, I heard the shower going and she had wet hair when she came out. But do I know? Nah.

Fedupityeyyezzeyqq wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

A tautology is saying the same thing twice. Clearly, I did not do that, as I said nothing about doping offences that do not include a positive test. There is a difference with a whereabouts failure. A positive test shows they are unequivocally a doper; a whereabouts failure leaves an element of doubt although it is safe to presume they were likely doping (as WADA does, by imposing the same penalty).

A tautology is not saying the same thing twice.

Fedupityeyyezzeyqq wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I said nothing about a no fault breach. But in such a situation it is likely the athlete would be exonerated because the breach wasn't intentional and they probably exercised due care. I also said nothing about breaching rules of association. You are merely shifting the goal posts.

It is enough that someone has tested positive for a banned drug for which they have no acceptable excuse for me to say they are a doper. What else are they?

You said that breaching the doping rules makes the a doper; now you run away from that.

Fedupityeyyezzeyqq wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

No. A doper is anyone convicted of an anti-doping offence who tests positive for a banned drug for which they have no accepted excuse. It also helps that it is deemed intentional because they cannot show otherwise. Regular use does not have to be proven to establish doping - to have doped once and been caught is enough.

Real world use of the words and not a Wada code breach.

Fedupityeyyezzeyqq wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I said nothing about a no fault breach. But in such a situation it is likely the athlete would be exonerated because the breach wasn't intentional and they probably exercised due care. I also said nothing about breaching rules of association. You are merely shifting the goal posts.

It is enough that someone has tested positive for a banned drug for which they have no acceptable excuse for me to say they are a doper. What else are they?

Again you show appalling lack of understanding of the WADA code you seek to justify.

No fault would not be exonerated.

rekrunner wrote:

FauxJo wrote:

That's pure imagination, but getting pork when you order beef is not????????????????

According to the evidence before the CAS.

rekrunner wrote:

FauxJo wrote:

Hey Rekrunner, this is what you sound like defending SH. LOLOL

I guess they sound similar if the listener is a fish in water.

For what it's worth, the Japenese took hi-res photos of dune buggy tracks on the moon, among other things.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Fedupityeyyezzeyqq wrote:

Again you show appalling lack of understanding of the WADA code you seek to justify.

No fault would not be exonerated.

No fault is what Houlihan was trying to argue as her defence. Of course it failed. She doped.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

According to the evidence before the CAS.

There was no "evidence"; only an unsubstantiated claim.

rekrunner wrote:

FauxJo wrote:

This whole thread is about the case, and her guilt therein. You flimsily clinging to some poster 100s of posts ago is pure obfuscation.

Shelby is home eating a burrito, knowing she cheated. She ya in 4 years, honey.

Armstronglivs didn't reply to the whole thread, but specifically to me. His response veered off-topic.

In response to "it's relevant what she ate", in a case where nandrolone ingestion was undisputed, Armstronglivs felt it important to re-summarize, to me specifically, the CAS findings not being discussed or disputed by me -- findings which incidentally were about "what she ate", and not "what she ordered".

Armstronglivs wrote:

WADA is not part of the "real world"? So what anti-doping agency is if WADA isnt?

Armstronglivs wrote:

Fedupityeyyezzeyqq wrote:

Again you show appalling lack of understanding of the WADA code you seek to justify.

No fault would not be exonerated.

No fault is what Houlihan was trying to argue as her defence. Of course it failed. She doped.