She did not make a mistake. No one accidentally takes Nando. Yes, some athletes have lied and said they accidentally injected it and idiots believed them but they were all lies.
It doesn't matter if CAS or WADA specifically stated she cheated, we k ow she cheated. They know it too but decided to leave it out of the report.
Here is the bottom line. She will miss 2 Olympics and that makes me very happy. I hope it depresses her because people that dope deserve bad things to happen to them.
You made a mistake.
Houlihan did not claim to accidentally "inject" nandrolone, but "ingest" it.
It would not be a mistake on her part to buy and eat a burrito containing meat fully approved for public consumption according to national standards.
"Cheating" isn't something you "know", but something you want to believe.
It speaks to your own character that this makes you so very happy.
I think some athletes have "made a statement" by leaving the team. I'm sure they were all friends or "friendly" with Shelby, so the last thing they want to do is smear her name. Instead they chose the quiet route and left BTC entirely. That's always kinda been my take on this.
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.
Hahaha, yes, CAS of course used WADA language and called it an intentional anti doping rule violation after she tested positive. Most people would see that as cheating, but then, there are hardcore fans and letsrun trolls.
Sadly, Flanagan didn't get her way, and this doper too got to keep her "accolades".
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.
Yes! Does anyone know the facts surrounding this official's history and how she handled Houlihan's testing?
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".
She did not make a mistake. No one accidentally takes Nando.
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.
She did not make a mistake. No one accidentally takes Nando. Yes, some athletes have lied and said they accidentally injected it and idiots believed them but they were all lies.
It doesn't matter if CAS or WADA specifically stated she cheated, we k ow she cheated. They know it too but decided to leave it out of the report.
Here is the bottom line. She will miss 2 Olympics and that makes me very happy. I hope it depresses her because people that dope deserve bad things to happen to them.
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.
Yes! Does anyone know the facts surrounding this official's history and how she handled Houlihan's testing?
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:
62. Nor was the Panel entirely persuaded by Professor's Ayotte's evidence. Before the Tribunal below, she testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low and therefore intentional cheaters could not be separated from athletes measured at levels of picograms consistent with food contaminated by hormones. 63. She said that athletes with high levels were rarely seen after the 1990s. But in fact, her lab records showed that some levels measured were large and that the Athlete's level was below 18 out of the 21 reported since 2013. Moreover, the data she produced for this appeal showed that, indeed, many urine samples in 2018/19 for athletes in America (where Trenbolone is legal as a muscle promoter in cattle) were positive for Trenbolone metabolities at low levels ( of less than 2 ng/ml).
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.
Yes! Does anyone know the facts surrounding this official's history and how she handled Houlihan's testing?
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:
62. Nor was the Panel entirely persuaded by Professor's Ayotte's evidence. Before the Tribunal below, she testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low and therefore intentional cheaters could not be separated from athletes measured at levels of picograms consistent with food contaminated by hormones. 63. She said that athletes with high levels were rarely seen after the 1990s. But in fact, her lab records showed that some levels measured were large and that the Athlete's level was below 18 out of the 21 reported since 2013. Moreover, the data she produced for this appeal showed that, indeed, many urine samples in 2018/19 for athletes in America (where Trenbolone is legal as a muscle promoter in cattle) were positive for Trenbolone metabolities at low levels ( of less than 2 ng/ml).
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.
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:
The studies by Guay and Hülsemann on which the Respondent relies are based on studies with older, non-castrated boars.
Failed obfuscation attempt from Dr. Jahren, see CAS 119:
The Panel notes that the study relied upon by Prof Jahren involving an experimental soy-based diet, in which the carbon isotope ratios of the 49 pigs varied between -21 and -25‰. In the Panel’s view, this study is not relevant to this case since a predominantly soy-based diet is not being fed to commercial pigs in the United States.
Selective hair analysis and a misleading statement if not outright lie by Dr. Kuntz, see CAS 127/128:
127. The Panel notes that Dr Kintz confirmed at the hearing that his hair test did not include an analysis for nor-DHEA. 128. While Dr Kintz indicated in his oral evidence that such products were hard to purchase, Prof Ayotte explains that oral precursors of nortestosterone (nandrolone), such as “19‐nor- DHEA” and “nor‐Andro” can be purchased from the internet, including from Amazon, and that a similar “pseudo‐endogenous” isotopic signature at ‐23.77‰ ± 0.13 was obtained when her laboratory tested a product purchased in 2016, “Nor‐Andro Max” labelled as containing 19‐norAndro (or 19‐nor dehydroepiandrosterone).
Selective questions in the lie detector test by Dr. Fritz, see CAS 134:
As for the polygraph test, the Panel finds that the questions posed were rather restrictive. This is all the more true considering that the Athlete stated that, before receiving the charge letter, she was not aware of what nandrolone is. It would have made more sense to ask the Athlete whether she had taken doping substances at the material time.
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:
The studies by Guay and Hülsemann on which the Respondent relies are based on studies with older, non-castrated boars.
Failed obfuscation attempt from Dr. Jahren, see CAS 119:
The Panel notes that the study relied upon by Prof Jahren involving an experimental soy-based diet, in which the carbon isotope ratios of the 49 pigs varied between -21 and -25‰. In the Panel’s view, this study is not relevant to this case since a predominantly soy-based diet is not being fed to commercial pigs in the United States.
Selective hair analysis and a misleading statement if not outright lie by Dr. Kuntz, see CAS 127/128:
127. The Panel notes that Dr Kintz confirmed at the hearing that his hair test did not include an analysis for nor-DHEA. 128. While Dr Kintz indicated in his oral evidence that such products were hard to purchase, Prof Ayotte explains that oral precursors of nortestosterone (nandrolone), such as “19‐nor- DHEA” and “nor‐Andro” can be purchased from the internet, including from Amazon, and that a similar “pseudo‐endogenous” isotopic signature at ‐23.77‰ ± 0.13 was obtained when her laboratory tested a product purchased in 2016, “Nor‐Andro Max” labelled as containing 19‐norAndro (or 19‐nor dehydroepiandrosterone).
Selective questions in the lie detector test by Dr. Fritz, see CAS 134:
As for the polygraph test, the Panel finds that the questions posed were rather restrictive. This is all the more true considering that the Athlete stated that, before receiving the charge letter, she was not aware of what nandrolone is. It would have made more sense to ask the Athlete whether she had taken doping substances at the material time.
Yes ; I would have found her guilty of breaking the rules but that does not make her a cheat.
127. The Panel notes that Dr Kintz confirmed at the hearing that his hair test did not include an analysis for nor-DHEA. 128. While Dr Kintz indicated in his oral evidence that such products were hard to purchase, Prof Ayotte explains that oral precursors of nortestosterone (nandrolone), such as “19‐nor- DHEA” and “nor‐Andro” can be purchased from the internet, including from Amazon, and that a similar “pseudo‐endogenous” isotopic signature at ‐23.77‰ ± 0.13 was obtained when her laboratory tested a product purchased in 2016, “Nor‐Andro Max” labelled as containing 19‐norAndro (or 19‐nor dehydroepiandrosterone).
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.
Why single out Bowerman TC runners (and coaches and assistant coaches)? Have any athletes come forward and outright condemned Houlihan as a rotten lying cheat, for not explaining the presence of the banned substance? Who is the model athlete that represents the kind of condemnation you are looking for? Maybe I missed it, but most all of the condemnation comes from what appears to be a zero-tolerance mentality from sceptical pundits and outraged "fans".
This question is open to everyone -- why single out BTC runners/coaches? Which athlete/coach has come forward to condemn Houlihan as expected by the anonymous huddled masses here? Who is the model that BTC should follow?
I suspect that most athletes/coaches do not condemn Houlihan, because this is not their idea of what deliberate doping looks like. To athletes/coaches, this is not comparable to Lance Armstrong, or Marion Jones, or Regina Jacobs. To the AIU, and WADA lab directors, and the CAS, it is a different story. By refined design, the codified presumptions that form the WADA anti-doping "due process" does not even attempt to make any distinction between unprovable accidental ingestion, and deliberate injection of a banned substance. But the athletes/coaches can. As USADA anti-doping chief has told us repeatedly, there is a wide range of athletes across the guilt spectrum who will be caught by this same net, and receive the same 4-year ban.
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.
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.