Grant Fisher/Shelby Houlihan disconnect?

You make it sound like it was a close call. It was not in this case, but it can be. Example Lawson, where the first panel (DT) decided against him, and the second (CAS) in favor. There they only had to rule whether or not the beef could have had more tren than usual.
For Houlihan, read the actual problems starting at 101. The keyword is “improbable”, or worse.
101 (that the burrito could have contained pork) was the only one judged to be "possible".
106 (that the pork, if present, could have come from an uncastrated boar) was judged to be "possible but improbable".
109 (that the pork, if present and from an uncastrated boar, had elevated androgens) was judged to be "possible but highly improbable".
114 (that the pork, even if...., contained that much nandrolone) was judged to be "possible but improbable".
115 ( the carbon isotope found in her nandrolone) was judged to be "neither consistent with the carbon isotope signature of commercial pork in the United States nor her own signature" - and here is your smoking gun: it was synthetic nandro, not natural.
Also one needs to realize that all the above decisions were made unanimously, and that only one of them would need to be "possible but improbable" to ban Houlihan for intentional doping. Evidently Houlihan didn't even come close that. Finally, even if CAS would have found 101 + 106 + 109 + 114 all "possible" and 115 "consistent", they might still have found her guilty of intentional doping. Because in that case, one needs to consider the likelihood of all those "possible" scenarios to have occurred simultaneously.
For example if you assign each of them a 60% probability, then the combination of that would be 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 = 7.8%, well below the required 50%.
Or in turn, to bring this to the required 51%, each of the above scenarios would need to have a likelihood of over 87%! E.g., 87% chance that it was uncastrated boar, while it was reported to be far less than 1 in 10,000 by that boar expert.

Correction: 119, not 115 (115 is the beginning of the carbon isotope discussion; 119 the ruling).

I live in So Cal and those Mexican food trucks are so dusgusting, unsanitary. The food is nasty!! You could be eating chopped up dog. Why would a world class athlete buy a burrito with meat in it from a gross food truck? Don't these athletes eat very healthy?. The explanation about the "tainted" meat was so bizarre.

CORRECT SIR!!!!!! I love your insight, it's the first good insight I've read all year in 2024!!!!! Shelby is a high performance athlete who would be having her own chef like Josh and Jakob respectively, why would she severely let down her guard and eat from a wandering food truck she clearly knew was unregulated with suspicious ingredients?????????? Could she be so darn daft?????? She knows about antidoping law, she knows she is responsible for drugs in her body.

The answer is of course not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She knowingly consumed the drug rather and not the meat to gain one up over her competitors!!!!!!!!! Shelby and Jerry Schumacher and the whole past and present BTC club team are corrupt cheaters!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fisher exiting the BTC doesn't make him clean btw!!!!! It just means he knows enough about doping to now be quite independent about it and require less supervision from Jerry!!!!!!

Jerry Schumacher and his entire BTC team is Alberto Salazar and NOP 2.0 alright!!!!!!

+1

Just look at the personnel overlap.

And NOP is AW 2.0.

so the overwhelming consensus is she intentionally doped, with a 60/40 split on whether it was team wide or limited to just Houlihan.

The team wide/institutional argument is more interesting to look at, so here are my questions:

1) Why has there been zero substantive accusations of a team culture of doping at BTC? with NOP it was everywhere, from other coaches/athletes and even coaches/athletes of the NOP program itself (Kara Goucher, Adam Goucher, Amy Begley, Dan Pfaff, Mary Cain, Steve Magness, the massage therapist John Stiner, Rohatinsky, Rupp's high school teammate, etc).

2) Track in the grand scheme is a very minor sport, the stakes are fairly low. What is the incentive for Nike to facilitate and maintain a doping conspiracy with many people involved on the team/company? More importantly why have none of those people who have left BTC or out of the sport said anything to implicate Houlihan/Nike? A conspiracy with this many people involved not getting out seems unlikely.

When Houlihan returns I would like Gault to ask the countless people who have left BTC and trained with Houlihan their opinions, maybe things have changed with 4 years gone by.

Yeah man, all the personnel administration at BTC is also the ones at NOP. They are working for their employers at NIKE!!!!!

I don't know how rekrunner find Shelby not guilty of doping????????? Oh I know why it's because his job on LRC is to exonerate all dopers and doping with every reasoning trick in the trick book!!!!!

Did you guys read rekrunner's previous treatise on Shelby yet????? I did and I nearly threw up over my blouse!!!!!!! It was the most deceptive piece I ever read.

Administration, yes, + coaches + athletes + doctors

Rekrunner, yes, he pretends no one is doping, WA and AIU are corrupt when they catch someone, but otherwise trustworthy, and even if someone would be doping, it wouldn't help them. 😉

It's not possible to give meaningful likelihoods with no information.

Out of all the possible sources, this was the only alternative proposed and evaluated with evidence.

"sex to menopause"? I can't recall ever falling for the excuse of "sex". And athletes are not "drug cheats" if the convictions were unjust.

Seems to me the gullible ones are the ones jumping to conclusions with insufficient evidence, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Many doping convictions are not so clear cut, and are only made possible with aggressive policies like "strict liability" and "presumed intent".

Goodness gracious, here we go again, our pro-doping champion rekrunner!!!!!!!! Shaking my head in disgust!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rekrunner likes to hijack Shelby threads to turn them to nonsense.

But what's good about this thread is that most of the pertinent information is on the first page and people have already read the first page. So they failed here.

Can you point to any statement that is objectively incorrect? I would be more than happy to correct any self-deception on my part.

It helps to understand the process. WADA permits presuming athletes intentionally dope. I do not make any such presumptions, preferring to err on the side of innocent until proven guilty, and then make my own independent assessment of all the available objective facts, data, and evidence. It is not possible to remove the presumption of intent, and still arrive at an intentional finding based on the case before the CAS.

When you know the facts of this case, you will also know that the CAS Panel was split (2-1) about whether the positive test was correctly treated as an AAF, or whether that determination deviated from the WADA guidelines. My reading of the WADA Lab guidelines leads me to side with that minority panelist, which would render the question of the source of the nandrolone moot.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating.

This post here wrongly interprets the question that needed to be established on the balance of probability (i.e. more than 50%). It is highly deceptive to count the number of burritos across the country, and calculate how likely it is that one greasy burrito could cause the measured nandrolone and carbon isotope values, as the measure of her intentional guilt. The calculation of the "balance of probabilty" does not require counting how many "nandrolone" burritos exist out of all burritos generally across the USA, hoping to show with a product of probabilities that more than half could contain "endogenous" nandrolone, but rather performing a specific evidence-based weighted (subjective) assessement in Houlihan's specific case, that the burrito was the more likely source of the bad test results, versus all other possible sources combined (e.g. contaminated supplements, or banned nandrolone products available on Amazon). Her challenge was to collect sufficient evidence to persuade the panel, as the combined policy of "strict liability" and "presumed intent" removes any and all benefit of the doubt for the charged athlete.

I don't know where you come up with this nonsense.

I might have said my favorite terms are "scientific method" and "objective facts, evidence, and data".

This means I disfavor conclusions based on presumptions, such as "presumed intent", lacking such objective facts, evidence, and data.

"Strict liability" will both burden and fault the athlete, even if the guilty party is the coach, manager, husband, the pharmaceutical industry, the supplement industry, or the meat industry. A lack of objective facts, evidence, and data will work against both guilty and innocent athletes alike.