Why have no Bowerman TC runners come out to condemn the cheater Shelby H? Do they not want a clean sport?

This makes a lot of sense on the surface but becomes less convincing when when get into the nitty gritty of when the women left and under what circumstances.

Grace and Quigley left before Houlihan had been notified by the AIU about the positive test so that was not a factor there.

Jorgensen was dropped/not even sponsored by Nike in 2021 (she was sponsored by another clothing brand).

It looks like Infeld was dropped by Nike at the end of last year (not one of the sponsored mentioned in her bio). Houlihan was also at Infeld's wedding and they ran together in Mexico so strange to leave a group based off a banned athlete but feel comfortable having that person at the most important day of your life/literally go running with them.

That leaves Hall and Johnson as possible people leaving under this logic. Hall definitely would want a scenery change regardless of Houlihan after a strangely disappointing season by her standards.

With Johnson if you were leaving a group to take a moral stand for clean sport it would be strange to find joining NOP to be a solution to that moral quandary. More likely it's what she's said in podcasts since she left; she didn't fully buy into the training as being the best thing for her. I could see the Houlihan situation making it easier for both to leave, but not necessarily being those two "voting with their feet" so to speak on this issue.

She was never found guilty of cheating.

Why will you not read the rules and the decision. You have been told about every word in them yet you continue to mislead and contort.

The facts regarding Ayotte's testimony were discussed in the CAS report on Jarrion Lawson (link to PDF at bottom).

No one says Prof. Ayotte's lab mishandled Houlihan's testing (although how the result was reported was one issue raised), but it doesn't take the the critical sceptic long to find inconsistencies in her testimony before the CAS. For example Ayotte testified to the CAS, and the CAS explicitly relied on this testimony, that Houlihan's levels were 2-3x higher than a Cologne study. But it doesn't take that long to find other studies, including one that the WADA TD document points to, where the participants exceeded Houlihan's levels, and Prof. Ayotte herself authored a study where one women exceeded Houlihan's levels by more than a factor of 20.

Another example is that Prof. Ayotte wrote that the test results were "consistent with" pseudo-endogonous norsteroid product, which satisfies the language in the TD. But the CAS also heard testimony that it is "consistent with" the consumption of edible intact boar, if they were fed a diet of soy.

Similarly, it doesn't take long to raise more question about apparent inconsistencies with Prof. McClone's testimony, and some of the CAS's decisions seemingly disregarding these inconsistencies.

You might think it is the defendent's duty to point out all of these inconsistencies, and in some cases, they did, but much of that was immaterial. The defendent's duty was to affirmatively identify the source of the banned substance, in order to demonstrate non-negligence and not intentional. In the Lawson case, that CAS panel called such a burden "effectively impossible".

Before you claim that *no one* accidentally "ingests" Nando (sic), the source of nandrolone from intact pork consumption, and the potential for false conclusions for athletes, has been studied for decades, including several studies authored by Prof. Ayotte. And WADA's own TD2021NA specifically and explicitly singles out intact pork consumption as a confounding factor that must be treated differently, as it invalidates the standard methods used by the WADA labs.

When looking at other nandrolone busts around the world, it's also to important to understand that while such pork consumption would still be possible, but rare, in the USA and Canada, the circumstances are much different in some European and African countries, which have different national standards and do not routinely castrate their male pigs for human consumption.

If "no one" could do this accidentally, then WADA wouldn't include it in their TD, and accidental ingestion and the impact on athletes wouldn't be studied.

Why do Wada have specific publications based on dealings with accidental use?

These have been published on this site as well as being two clicks away.

And how do you “know” she cheated?

Your thinking would get you a fail in a school essay.

There is nothing dirty about Ayotte (that we know of). The doper apologists here make a big deal out of her statement in the Larrion case, that CAS then decided to discard. Contrary to rojo et al., CAS did not let Larrion get away because of her, just some of her evidence was dismissed.

See points 62 + 63 from that CAS decision:

A misunderstanding based on vague words like “low” and "high" and "large"? A poor memory? A lie?
Definitely not a perjury.
But I agree that that reflects poorly on her.

In Houlihan's case, CAS was well advised to accept her correct statements. Nothing to see there.

In that case, it was Shelby's experts who embarrassed themselves with misleading statements and little tricks, like not testing the hair for the right prohormones etc.

Anyway, Houlihan's nandro doping was a slam dunk case. Didn't matter who was called as experts.

Are you an expert in the Nandolone TD do say it was slam dunk?

Anyway CAS never found her guilty of intent to cheat.

Given the comments in the Lawson case I am astonished she was allowed to be an expert of opinion.

LOL - what?

1) Even you admitted, several times actually, that you would have found her guilty, had you been on the CAS panel.

2) Anyway - I didn't claim otherwise.

3) Really? Because CAS was not "entirely persuaded by Professor's Ayotte's evidence"?

Would you say the same about Houlihan's experts? They were a lot worse, see for example:

Failed obfuscation attempt from Dr. Strahm, see CAS 113:

Failed obfuscation attempt from Dr. Jahren, see CAS 119:

Selective hair analysis and a misleading statement if not outright lie by Dr. Kuntz, see CAS 127/128:

Selective questions in the lie detector test by Dr. Fritz, see CAS 134:

Yes ; I would have found her guilty of breaking the rules but that does not make her a cheat.

In 116, she says "Over the years, her own studies’ results from the consumption of uncastrated pork meat by several volunteers produced urinary 19-norandrosterone at delta-delta 13C values around -18.5 to -21‰".

But in an earlier paper, explicitly written to separate half-truths vs. facts, she says "the mean delta 13C ‰ value of endogenous urinary steriods measured in our laboratory is found at around -23.5 (ranging from -19.8 to -26.8)" and "the results obtained in the more concentrated specimens collected further to the ingestion of un-castrated pork offal ... was not distinguishable from the normal values found in humans, being measured at around -23.6."

This difference is consistent with her testimony to the Larrion tribunal when contrasted with real data from her own lab. I think it was this kind of "mis-remembering" of what actually happens in her own laboratory that caused the Larrion CAS panel to devalue Prof. Ayotte's expert opinion.

Just popping in to say Houlihan is a drug cheat and not allowed to compete in the sport.

Funny CAS never convicted her for cheating.That makes you look a fool.

how dare you? she got that ban for being a clean and honest athlete.

Correct.

+1

Never mind her intentional doping with synthetic steroids - which she of course did only once, watching Bacherolette.

In any case, it's evidently AIU's + WA's + WADA's + CAS's fault, railroading the doper. Nothing to see here.

It’s all in the CAS report if you squint your eyes in just the right way. It’s like one of those Magic Eye things…not my fault if you can’t see it.

You forgot the AIU experts prone to "misremembering" what happens in their own lab, and misleading anti-doping tribunals who rely on the expertise.

It seems that no one here can point to any athlete/coach, in or out of BTC, that has come forward to condemn Houlihan the way a few outraged and disgusted "fans" of the sport expect.

I suspect this small vocal minority of zero-tolerance mentality fans are simply out of touch with the real world of athletes, coaches, and athletics.

Her team mates believe her.