My Essay on Shelby Houlihan, Strict Liability and the Moral Atrocity of Baselessly Condemning Her :)

None of those probabilities mentioned in Houlihan’s case are backed by any published science. It’s simply speculation by WADA witnesses … and one of their main witnesses has a proven history of providing false information at an anti-doping hearing.

While there are obviously many people who support Shelby Houlihan, there are some who think she’s a doper and base much of their opinion on the CAS report (or other analysis using information from the CAS report). People who base their information on the CAS report know almost nothing about the case for the following reasons:

1. One of WADA’s two witnesses has a history of providing false information at doping hearings. In this case, the lawyer/arbitrators at CAS accepted false/deceptive and irrelevant information from this witness.

2. Houlihan’s main defense against had to do with the incorrect testing procedure being used. CAS voted 2-1 against her in this case. But the minority opinion is not presented in the CAS report. Since that time, more evidence has come out that the wrong test were relied on or at the very least, lab directors and pick and choose tests based on some unknown criteria.

3. Many statements from WADA witnesses (and from Houlihan’s witnesses) are based on speculation, although they are presented as though there is scientific backing to these statements.

It’s been years since I’ve seen much discussion on this board as to Houlihan’s actual case or whether it is appropriate to allow WADA lab directors/witnesses who have proven to provide false information or what the research actually shows (versus speculation). I believe that probably every person on this board has been exposed to something in their life that would have caused a positive test, whether it be through a contaminated drug (prescription or OTC), supplement, contaminated meat, a topical product, etc. Probably, almost everyone is a “doper” and likely cannot prove otherwise.

Two bold statements in two sentences. What is your evidence for those two statements? Highly unlikely to be true, especially the second, considering the history of this case.

on Shelby's return

1. Kara Goucher and Des Linden had great things to say about this on their podcast. I agree with basically everything Kara has said. To date I think Kara's the only truly prominent runner to actually speak out on this case and do so with honesty. Des sort of backed up Kara but didn't add much herself IMO.

2. Shelby is ALLOWED to return. Anyone who doesn't think so isn't really getting it. She's back she's staying accept it.

3. The media DOES NOT have to treat her like a victim or a comeback kid. Of course her sister and friends will. But the media does not have to comply with that. I've never seen a doper treated this way. It's lunacy to watch it all happen.

4. Shelby is probably a doper. It's pretty clear from the report. The report that the media refuses to bring up, so I'm just hoping that someone will ask her about: her levels being on par with the nandrolone precursor, if she says she wants to make changes in the system why hasn't she, why does she keep lying about it being a trace amount when it clearly isn't?

5. MY PREDICTION: Once Shelby starts making teams and taking away prize money from others, that is when you'll see a bunch of pros finally speaking up. It was never about the sport for them, it was always about their own career prospects. Not looking forward to that.

Why does a pork burrito keep being brought up? Did Shelby say she ordered one? Does her receipt show she ordered one? Do her friends who are with her say she ate a pork burrito? As beef burritos are as greasy if not moreso than pork burritos, why are LRC posters arguing the pig defense when Shelby isn't?

Or is a pork burrito the only way to muddy the waters?

This is actually the only weird thing about the CAS decision. They voted 3 : 0 that it was more likely than not, i.e. over 50%, that she received a pork offal burrito.

But the direct evidence was for a beef burrito, and the indirect evidence from the witnesses (who allegedly looked at Houlihan's burrito) was that it was greasy. At no point was there any evidence that the pork offal burrito was the only greasy one on the menu. Typically, as you said, lots of burritos are greasy.

Even if there were only three greasy burritos on the menu, the chance to get pork offal would be only 33.3%.

Yes the rules are that harsh. This was explicitly discussed in detail in the Gatlin case using the same numbers (1 out of 3 cannot be more than 50%). It would of course be extremely sad if an athlete would get condemned based on such a 1 : 3 chance - but obviously that is not the case here.

The first statement is agreed to by everyone familiar with the case. Letsrun wrote a detailed article about this lab director and witness providing false information at a doping hearing:
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2020/04/the-amazing-story-of-how-jarrion-lawson-cleared-his-name-he-showed-that-the-head-of-a-wada-lab-provided-false-testimony-against-him/
What is particularly ridiculous is that WADA allowed someone who provided false information to continue to be the lab director and an "expert" witness. It is especially absurd that this person was both the the lab director WADA witness in the Houlihan case against the same legal team that proved she had provided false testimony in a previous case. You can also read the CAS reversal of the case against Jarrion Lawson where part of the evidence exonerating him was the uncovered accurate information.
Now this lab director claims that she did not deliberately provide false testimony. Some on this board would probably claim that she had been providing little bits of false testimony for years until she finally got caught ("microdosing false information" so to speak). I would not go that far. I believe that she should have had a hearing (as any athlete would) to show physical evidence that providing the false information was not deliberate. Maybe she would have only gotten a 2-year or 3-year ban instead of a full 4-year ban. On the other hand, even if the false information was accidental, how to we know that she didn't forget to conduct a THNE test (for example) in Houlihan's case or to conduct it correctly? How to we know that anything she claimed at Houlihan's hearing was correct? Outside of WADA if a lab director provides false information, they typically don't make a very believable witness and often times, their past cases are reviewed. Unfortunately, it seems that CAS wasn't aware of the history of providing false information. WADA doesn't appear to care.
An example of her providing irrelevent information was the statement accepted by the CAS that there was a product on Amazon with a similar carbon isotope ratio as what was found for Houlihan. It is irrelevent because even if it isn't false information, the test she claimed to conduct was from 2016 and no one knows if that product is even on Amazon or if the manufacturer changed the sourcing of the ingredients so there was a different carbon isotope ratio in 2020. Also, there are two reasons it is deceptive to even bring it up: 1) actual research on products show that many products on the market have different isotope ratios than what was found for Houlihan; and 2) there was no evidence that AIU or WADA asked Houlihan to submit a copy of past Amazon orders.
Other deceptive information was to refer to GC-C-IRMS test and not discuss the 40% false positive findings in one small study (and later a 15% false positive finding in a later small study) as it relates to boar ingestion. Now, she could have testified that these false positives showed differences from Houlihan, but an objective researcher would have started by talking about the high false positive rate and then discuss it further.
She implied Houlihan could not have had the nandrolone metabolite levels in her urine. But her speculation is based on a study with only three people. With the test of the offal, the results were as high as 20+ times what Houlihan had in her urine. With the meat without any organs or fat, the results were as much as just under half of what Houlihan had in her urine. However, the results showed as much as a 600% difference from person to person. Anyone who claims to know how high nandrolone metabolites can be from boar based on a study of 3 people (especially when the results vary so much from person to person) is just a speculator and not a scientist.
I will admit that the WADA witness speculations were more convincing to the CAS arbitors than the Houlihan witness speculations. On the other hand, Houlihan's main argument were about whether the correct testing procedures were used and 2 of the 3 arbitors agreed with WADA, one did not. It is clear to me that WADA, WADA witnesses and lab directors are more interested in winning their case than they are with uncovering the truth ... and in my opinion, the truth could be one of many possibilities in this case.

Twoggle- you seem like you’ve put in a lot of time into this.

Why do you (and others) still discuss the boar scenario when it could simply be a farmer used nandrolone illegally. A tennis player in 2023 had nandrolone levels of 105 ng/mL and got her ban overturned because apparently nandrolone use is relatively common in Columbia (where she ate beef and was tested). She also tested positive for another steroid and so did two other athletes in the tournament so there’s more complexity in that case. But anyways, the point is that people use nandrolone is livestock (and the tennis player’s isotope signature was -23.7… similar to Shelby’s.)

We can debate the accuracy of boar studies, but it really doesn’t matter. Shelby ordered a carne asada burrito. It’s very unlikely a carne asada burrito order resulted in a uncastrated boar meal with higher than normal endogenous nandrolone levels and an isotope of -23.

Interestingly, it doesn’t appear the USDA tests for nandrolone residue in beef. You can see what’s tested at the bottom of the USDA document. Also, I read Tyson was the meat supplier. They don’t raise their own cattle (from their document I read from 2020) and instead just purchase beef from different farmers… so we don’t really know where the beef came from, it wouldn't have been tested for nandrolone so there’s not much stopping a farmer from using it, and we know farmers in at least Colombia admit to using it (there’s studies cited in the tennis case indicating the prevalence and use in the final days leading up to slaughter).

FWIW, it really doesn’t matter at this point. And we’ll never 100% know. But it’s always surprised me I’ve never heard her supporters say it could’ve been as simple as nandrolone use in cattle (beef, carne asada.. you know, the meal she ordered).

https://www.itia.tennis/media/2yvab3yj/231221-itia-v-moore-gatica-decision-amended-redacted.pdf

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/fy2019-red-book.pdf

It is so strange.

She didn't even have a pork burrito.

She had a beef burrito (a difference which anyone could tell in one bite).

After drugs turned up in her urine, she and her handlers came out with 'Mayyyybe the beef burrito wasn't beef!'

Just embarrassing. To her, to BTC, and to the USA.

I disagree. This point keeps coming up on letsrun, and so far no one - Gault included - has actually provided that allegedly "false" statement of hers, let alone evidence that that statement (which one?) was indeed false. Definitely the Lawson CAS report never mentioned a "false information". Please provide the evidence, or admit that there is none.

Plus, if you say "has a history of providing false information at doping hearings", I would expect at least two such cases.

Then you come up with lots of text, but no quote, and no evidence of any "false information" in the Houlihan case whatsoever.

Then you are muddling the waters with your "With the meat without any organs or fat, the results were as much as just under half of what Houlihan had in her urine".

As for the "just under half" - more proof that you are twisting the facts:

1) That was 2.4 vs. Houlihan's 5.2 - 5.8 ng/ml. Under 44%.

2) It was from 300 g vs. Houlihan's estimated < 100 g. So, under 15%.

[3) It was from mature boar not from young ones (6ish months). Factor unknown. ]

At best, your "just under half" turns into under 1 in 6. But you aren't interested in facts, just propaganda.

Then you complain that those numbers come from just 3 people, but "forget" that the larger study - which you evidently also read - had the same range of numbers.

Then you come with "40% false positive findings". The 40% (2 out of 5) come from a study on wild boar (in Europe!), and are therefore irrelevant for the American farm-fed pigs. Shame on you for even bringing it up, trying to deflect and deflect. Not even Shelby's lawyer went down that route.

Am I the only one that thinks in half these doping cases, the athletes' coach has been sneaking banned substances into their "recovery smoothies", "massage creams", or some other method. Certainly there's some coaches that know you have to dope to win, and that many athletes are too moral to willingly take a banned substance.

Thank you for the links. In another recent thread, I gave examples of nandrolone contamination of meat in Europe based on recent tests (Spain at 14.29% non-compliant, Ireland at 10% non-compliant for pigs and similar findings for other meat.) So, I certainly wouldn't rule that out. Also, as I point out in my original editorial, more than 10% of male pigs in France are uncastrated and ~49% in Kenya. Since there's no testing of any of this stuff in the U.S. (and we don't know the nandrolone effects of U.S.-based, drug castration), I'm not ruling that out even though it may be less likely.

But there's so many possibilities including the possibility of cheating. All of the original batches of supplements could not be tested. It could have been a contaminated drug. I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of that particular lab after the Lawson case. Given that another athlete stated that his sample was stored for a while in a freezer in a private home, I wonder about the chain of custody and storage of the sample taken thousands of miles extra and across an international border to this lab rather than a much closer lab. I think there are a number of other possibilities.

There was no discussion at all by the CAS about how reckless it would be to ingest or inject nandrolone regularly given Houlihan's medical conditions.

The Letsrun article spelled out the false information. However, it was also noted in the Lawson CAS report:
"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 his 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)."

The 40% false positive rate was in wild boars in Europe, but that is all we had for false positive rate at the time of the hearing. It shows that WADA was not really interested in conducting a large study on male, uncastrated pigs to determine the false positive rate. I also mentioned a small followup study with a ~15% false positive rate. As I pointed out, it is crucial to study and mention at hearings the false positive rates of tests, otherwise it's deceptive in my opinion.

Yes, Houlihan probably ate less than the 300grams of meat in the study. However, since we don't know all of the exact ingredients that went into the offal product, we can't be sure if we're talking about just the stomach or the fat too. I freely admit that a study of three people with a difference of up to 600% in the result per person cannot possibly tell what the maximum level of nandrolone metabolite would be. On the other hand, a scientist not intent on deceiving would have admitted to CAS that results of tests on a few people can't be extrapolated to the general population.

Fuuckeeng A! That's what i've been saying all along. The two morans that think Foolagain is innocent are somehow convinced she ate a 100% Wild-Big-Balled-Boar Burrito. It's insanity.

And yet it is. Little Mexican food truck owner can't understand english . Gives her a 100% nandro-rich wild boar nuts burrito instead of "beef !". Or that or you just can't trust them mexicans, order a beef burrito and they give you their crap-meat so they can profit a few more pesos off the white chica.

Pasting s 500-word essay into an LRC message board form is a moral atrocity.

That's funny, I've seen some argue that under 44% is likely more than 50%.

Note that in the study that twoggle referred to, one subject had 2.9 ng/ml -- or 50%.

Note also that studies with small sample sizes are not designed to find maximum levels.

No.

According to Houlihan's detailed timeline:

"The pork stomach was from IBP and the pork butts boneless are from Farmland Foodservices."

IBP (source of stomach) is owned by Tyson, while Farmland Foodservices is also known as Smithfield.

Finding the source of the meat was a dead-end:

"The office manager was not aware if the pork meat he receives are from castrated or intact pigs. He stated the only way to know this was probably to communicate with the meatpacking facility where the meats are cut and packaged. He did not know where these were located. He said that where the animals are actually slaughtered can be almost anywhere."

The claim was that she didn't get what she ordered, supported by multiple witness testimony of being served an uncharacteristically greasy burrito, and photos confirming that the pork burritos are particularly greasy.

Also see above where "AnotherLens" says a beef eating "tennis player in 2023 had nandrolone levels of 105 ng/mL and got her ban overturned.... (and the tennis player’s isotope signature was -23.7… similar to Shelby’s.)"

You may be on to something that nandrolone from eating beef is another possibility that was unexplored.