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

*Subway wrote:

I don't understand why people here think the Bowerman team is clean in the first place. This is professional sports, the home of doping.

Fedupityeyyezzeyqqzgjyz wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I thought we cleared up this misstatement -- he said "designer cocktail" many times, not "designer drugs". It is the combination of drugs (which drug when and how much) he suggests which is designed, rather than the drugs themselves.

He used the raised androgens in the pig study to jump to SH taking more drugs in a designed way; ie as a designer cocktail.

He said that such comment was an analogy and not what you suggest he meant at all.You are thus very clever to guess what he meant as he kept changing his mind.

rekrunner wrote:

Fedupityeyyezzeyqqzgjyz wrote:

He used the raised androgens in the pig study to jump to SH taking more drugs in a designed way; ie as a designer cocktail.

He said that such comment was an analogy and not what you suggest he meant at all.You are thus very clever to guess what he meant as he kept changing his mind.

Point is, he said "designer cocktail", not "designer drugs". This is why he is calling you a liar.

Fedupityeyyezzeyqqzgj wrote:

As Tucker has pointed out he thinks too much credence has been placed on what the food truck claimed for its audit trail for its meat.

This is the lowest lever of food provider; at the bottom of the food chain; yet it is believed.

Remember one part of the food chain refused to cooperate.

*Subway wrote:

I don't understand why people here think the Bowerman team is clean in the first place. This is professional sports, the home of doping.

casual obsever wrote:

Fedupityeyyezzeyqqzgj wrote:

As Tucker has pointed out he thinks too much credence has been placed on what the food truck claimed for its audit trail for its meat.

This is the lowest lever of food provider; at the bottom of the food chain; yet it is believed.

Remember one part of the food chain refused to cooperate.

Still no evidence for any of these claims. Are you now admitting that you made those up too?

casual obsever wrote:

*Subway wrote:

I don't understand why people here think the Bowerman team is clean in the first place. This is professional sports, the home of doping.

Those people are are tiny but loud minority who keep distorting the CAS decision. Look at the posts on the first 2 - 3 pages, including their up- and downvotes, to see what the minority thinks. And that's after lots of anti-doping posts were removed for PR reasons.

rekrunner wrote:

*Subway wrote:

I don't understand why people here think the Bowerman team is clean in the first place. This is professional sports, the home of doping.

I recall many people saying for its whole existence that NOP athletes were doped. But after an investigation and adjudication (including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts) which lasted 9 years, and was reviewed by USADA, an AAA Panel, a CAS Panel, and an independent WADA review on behalf of the IOC, they all came to the same explicity conclusion that there was no evidence of any NOP athlete doping, in or out of competition, in its entire existence.

Why did anyone think the NOP team was dirty, and has this non-finding changed anyone's mind?

Fedupityeyyezzeyqqzgjyzg wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Those people are are tiny but loud minority who keep distorting the CAS decision. Look at the posts on the first 2 - 3 pages, including their up- and downvotes, to see what the minority thinks. And that's after lots of anti-doping posts were removed for PR reasons.

The CAS decision is clear.

She was not found guilty of cheating.

To say such is the distortion of CAS and indeed the whole basis of the Wada Code.

Fedupityeyyezzeyqqzgjyzg wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

Still no evidence for any of these claims. Are you now admitting that you made those up too?

Read Tucker.

casual obsever wrote:

*Subway wrote:

I don't understand why people here think the Bowerman team is clean in the first place. This is professional sports, the home of doping.

Those people are are tiny but loud minority who keep distorting the CAS decision. Look at the posts on the first 2 - 3 pages, including their up- and downvotes, to see what the minority thinks. And that's after lots of anti-doping posts were removed for PR reasons.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The short answer - as supplied by David Howman formerly from WADA - is that doping is always ahead of anti-doping; it is "more sophisticated" than anti-doping, he says. We won't be able to see what we can't see. But as he makes clear, it is there nonetheless.

Fedupityeyyezzeyqqzgjyzg wrote:

Before Armstronglies gets banned again for vile insults could he explain why he keeps saying the standard of proof for convictions is on the balance of probabilities.

I suspect he is a fool or a liar. Only he can clarify.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The short answer - as supplied by David Howman formerly from WADA - is that doping is always ahead of anti-doping; it is "more sophisticated" than anti-doping, he says. We won't be able to see what we can't see. But as he makes clear, it is there nonetheless.

That is an easy answer which was not and cannot be proved, and gives no real insight into whether NOP athletes ever actually doped. WADA would be expected to take such a position as part of lobbying for more support of WADA, despite the already high expense of achieving its low 1-2% detection rates.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The short answer - as supplied by David Howman formerly from WADA - is that doping is always ahead of anti-doping; it is "more sophisticated" than anti-doping, he says. We won't be able to see what we can't see. But as he makes clear, it is there nonetheless.

That is an easy answer which was not and cannot be proved, and gives no real insight into whether NOP athletes ever actually doped. WADA would be expected to take such a position as part of lobbying for more support of WADA, despite the already high expense of achieving its low 1-2% detection rates.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I grasp that under the rules Houlihan has been found to have intentionally doped and been banned 4 years. None of your or rekrunner's semantic drivel changes that. So she has earned the stigma of being a doper and she cannot compete for 4 years.

For all this talk about this thread being about Shelby Houlihan's case, the CAS did not call her a doper, and the CAS did not find that she took any nandrolone product, or that it was likely. These findings cannot be found in the case -- only in the drivel of anonymous posts that have veered off-topic.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Fedupityeyyezzeyqqzgjyzg wrote:

Read Tucker.

Quote Tucker.