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

Thank you for finally correcting yourself. To recap:

"false information" = "Nor was the Panel entirely persuaded by Professor's Ayotte's evidence"

"hearings" = one hearing

"The 40% false positive rate was in wild boars in Europe" - so it does not apply for this case with farm-fed pigs in America.

"Yes, Houlihan probably ate less than the 300grams of meat in the study." The point was actually approximate 140 g, of which she ate 2/3 or less. 2/3 * 140 = 93. OK, let's go with "less than the 300grams".

Not so bold when you know the full history.

It is a matter of public record that she misrepresented her lab results on trenbolone positives before Lawson's IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal:

Lawson asserted that: "The IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal was misled by Dr. Ayotte that, in her experience, every Trenbolone level she had ever reviewed was indeed as low as - or similarly low as - the Appellant's levels. However, in reality, the Appellant's Trenbolone levels in his A and B Samples were the lowest seen since 2013."

The CAS Panel agreed: "Before the Tribunal below, she testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low.... 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."

Similarly in Houlihan's case, she misled the CAS Panel by misrepresenting the applicable literature in a case involving a claim of pork offal ingestion.

In any case, it is a bad look for the Director of the WADA Lab who conducted the tests to also be an expert witness for the case, for both Lawson and Houlihan. The perceived conflict of interest is undeniable.

In Houlihan's case, the most important questions before the CAS is whether the WADA lab correctly followed the procedures when reporting the test results. Having the WADA Lab Director Prof. Ayotte whispering in the ears of all of the CAS panelists, that vote was split 2:1 in favor of the WADA Lab, that the AAF was properly reported, and that any ADRV was committed at all.

It's really not a good look.

History can be just one case in the past, not two. But speaking of history, Prof. Ayotte was involved in Mary Decker Slaney's case in the late '90s. At that time, she argued that the T/E test with a 6:1 cutoff was a valid test indicating testosterone use, despite having already produced papers showing confounders, including exceptions of women (from a small sample) with ratios greater T/E ratios greater than 6. Shortly after the IAAF committed double-jeopardy and relitigated Mary Slaney's case with a "guilty until proven innocent" approach litigating the validity of the tests, the T/E test was supplemented with CIR tests -- T/E testing alone was no longer sufficient to ban an athlete, because it was considered not valid.

Funny how you make up stuff again. And stay true to yourself - like all the other Shelby defenders - and keep ignoring all the damning facts.

Understandable, because otherwise you'd have to admit that she intentionally doped.

What you ignored with the 2.9 ng/ml:

1) It was from 410 g! Scaled to the 300 g from the study twoggle brought up: 2.9 / 410 * 300 = 2.1 ng/ml. Smaller than the 2,4 ng/ml from 300 g... why do you think your buddy went with the 2.4?

Scaled to the 93 g that Shelby ate: 2.9 / 410 * 93 = 0.66 ng/ml. 50% of 5.2 - 5.8???? 12%, if you want to be accurate.

2) The 2.9 ng/ml was after 6 hours. Shelby's claim was after 10 hours. After 10 hours, the 2.9 ng/ml decreased down to about 1.2 ng/ml.

Scaled to the 93 g that Shelby ate: 1.2 / 410 * 93 = 0.27 ng/ml. 50% of 5.2 - 5.8???? 5%, if you want to be accurate. And you said 50%.....

You were off by a factor of 10! If you were interested in the intellectual truth, you would not have pretended 50%. But for you, it's always pro-doper propaganda.

Last not least: the issue at hand is actually about more or less than 50% likelihood. The expert was overly generous comparing it to the maximum - the more relevant comparison is to the average, since we are talking about likelihood.

I guess maybe that is one of the differences between me and you. I didn't see it as racist comment against the food truck owners or workers, and I still can't see it as such, but rather as an indication that "authentic" foods would contain uncommon (for United States Americans) ingredients not used in a Taco Bell or El Torito. Can you name any popular American chain which offers burritos containing pork offal, like the food truck does?

This is not a matter of trusting the workers, or serving food that was not USDA approved, but a matter of what ingredients can be found in the burritos.

Some of you act as if mistakes in orders can never happen. Just last week, I ordered food from the McDonald's drive through, and they forgot a cheeseburger. How is that even possible if I have a receipt for it? Note I didn't eat the receipt.

Funny how you make up that I'm making things up.

Did you forget how many people argued that 43.6% was likely really much more than that, likely as much as "1 in 2" and likely more?

I'm off by a factor of 10? You computed 44%, but 3rd grade math (ask any 8-year old) shows that 2.9/5.8 is 1/2, or 50%. Note I was "overly generous" by picking the maximum value of 5.8. The same simple math says 2.0/5.2 is 55.77% -- in legal terms, more likely than not on the balance of probability.

I don't ignore any damning facts -- it is just that there aren't any such facts, alone or combined, that rise to the level of "damning". Recall that both the CAS finding of "doping" and the CAS finding of "deemed intent", as explained to us by the CAS, are based on presumptions to be rebutted, rather than supporting themselves on standalone "damning" facts. In this altered customized framework, the guilt of an athlete isn't based on damning facts, but rather on the ability of the athlete to rebut the baseless presumptions.

Not sure how bodyweight factors into anything, since the drug filtered out at first pass never entered the body. Is urine content and concentration a function of bodyweight? Do you have a scholarly reference that shows urine concentrations are linear with bodyweight?

I haven't seen anywhere that 6 hours narrowly represents a peak. Note that Shelby likely didn't pee after 6 hours, like the test subject, so the high concentration of nandrolone not previously excreted would still be in the bladder when the testers arrived at her door.

If we really want to be accurate about amounts relevant to a claim of "offal", we cannot look at the deceptively argued meat studies, but need to look at higher values in the literature from "offal", like the 130ng/ml and 160 ng/ml, that Prof. Ayotte published in her own papers, where as little as 14g -- far far lower than 410g or 300g or 100g -- would be sufficient to produce the "low" amounts found in Houlihan's samples.

Last but not least: two studies on meat with small sample sizes are not "overly generous comparing it to the maximum". And who says we were ever talking about general population likelihoods? That was one of the many "bait-and-switch" techniques applied in this case.

To correct the recap:

The lab director / WADA witness testified to something that was false, refused to release lab records, was caught when the records had to be released for the CAS hearing and finally the CAS report spelled out her false original testimony and then the truth (which you hid in your summary).

That was one hearing that she was caught giving false information. So, I’ll correct my “s” at the end of the word and say she had a proven record of providing false information at a doping hearing. She was caught once prior to the Houlihan hearing.

Unlike you, I posted the false positive rates of both small studies: 40% and 15%. It’s not my fault or the fault of athletes that WADA can’t trouble itself to investigate the false positive rates of their tests in a case that they spell out in their technical document. The lab director could have simply mentioned the false positive rates findings and then explain why she didn’t think it applied in this case and explain why they don’t need to know the false positive rates in situations that are spelled out in their technical document.

The key aspect of the experiment relied upon by WADA in their technical document and not emphasized to CAS was that there were only 3 subjects (maximum) for each type of meal and as much as a 600% difference between results. Any honest scientist would know that it’s impossible to guess at the maximum urine levels based on this research. It could be another 600% higher or 1000% higher or perhaps the study happened upon the maximum amongst the three people studied. It was deceptive testimony and it is why there are some people claiming that Houlihan would have had to have eaten 3 burritos or 10 burritos, etc. when the real answer is that no one knows how many burritos she would have had to have eaten (1/10th?, 1/2?, 1?, 3?, 10?). It is not only important in the Houlihan case, but for possible future cases as well.

This thread has been largely the same Houlihan defenders and doping deniers saying the same things again and again that they have said on such threads for the last 4 years. They have added nothing to the sum of knowledge on this subject, are essentially talking to themselves and persuade no one to their delusions. Best of all, they succeed in changing nothing of the CAS outcome. A doper remains convicted and has served a 4 year ban. A cause for celebration.

Ummmm - you keep saying her testimony was false, but CAS never said so. You quoted:

"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."

I do not see a false statement there. Do you see a contradiction between "high levels were rarely seen" and "some levels measured were large"? Is "some" more than "rarely"? Is "high" lower or higher than "large"?

And I do not see her saying that the athlete's level was higher than 18 out of the 21.

TO THE GILLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!

Where in the world do you see 43.6% in the CAS report? Or is that an unsubstantiated claim somewhere in a Shelburrito podcast?

"I don't ignore any damning facts" hahahaha. You just deleted actively the damning fact of the 410 g from your quote, over four times higher than Shelburrito's 93 g, to try to make a point about 2.9/5.8.

And the 44% were from 2.4/5.5 (the first study mentioned here, and using the average from the A and B sample) - stop obfuscating. Which was only the first step, not the end result. That also needs to be corrected by the higher mass of the study, as done above. But of course you also ignored that fact.

And your 2.0/5.2 = 55.77%, legal or otherwise, is not only yet another obfuscation, but plainly wrong. 2.0/5.2 = 38.5%.

And sure, keep musing about Houlihan's unsubstantiated washroom habits.

Again with the three suspect from study 1. You are incorrigible like the rekbot. The other study had 12 participants, and an even lower max per 100 g meat.

So when all is said and done, 15 people all had concentrations of 0 - 0.8 ng/ml per 100 g meat. Houlihan had 5.2 - 5.8 ng/ml. No "deceptive testimony".

CAS correctly concluded that is was "possible but improbable" that Houlihan could have gotten her 5.2 - 5.8 ng/ml from her < 100 g stomach burrito.

FFS, enough with the burrito excuse. It's over the top ridiculous. First, the most common "pork" burritos (adobada, al pastor) do not have offal in them. Second, IF she were to have been mistakenly given an offal burrito, it would not have been the grease she noticed, but the f*ckin' taste! There is almost zero chance that she would have consumed half the burrito and only noticed the "uncharacteristically greasy burrito." She would have likely been disgusted by the first bite unless she already tried offal. Finally, asada burritos can also be very greasy, so it's very likely she was eating exactly what she ordered.

I suggest working on something more worthwhile and better suited to your talents, whatever they may be.

I didn't say 43.6% was in the CAS report. I said "That's funny, I've seen some argue that under 44% is likely more than 50%." without specifying where I've seen it -- but it has been argued frequently in these forums in another context. The closeness to "under 44%" struck me as funny.

410g of meat isn't a damning fact in a case that was never about meat, but about offal, which has resulted in confirmed laboratory values as high as 130 ng/ml and 160 ng/ml, if we are to believe Prof. Ayotte. Now that is a damning fact, in favor of Houlihan.

Is it a fact that nandrolone has to be corrected for higher mass? I'd like to take your word for it, but I need to be cautious. I asked you for a scholarly reference demonstrating the linear relation to body mass, but apparently you don't have one.

Sorry for the typo -- 2.9/5.2 = 0.5577.

Study 1 had results with as much as 40ng/ml per 100g. You’re just picking a subset of the data. There isn’t data on the amount of nandrolone or precursors in pig stomach and we don’t know if fat was part of the offal product offered. It is true that WADA witnesses speculated that only stomach would have been eaten and speculated that it has that the amount of nandrolone is very low. Houlihan witness speculated that the levels may be higher.

The second study was broken up into tiny groups of 3, each having different sources and types of meat.

To be more honest, the lab director simply could have said something like this: “My speculation is that the offal meals offerred only included pig stomach and that pig stomach has low levels of nandrolone. We have no data on this despite knowing about this issue for decades, so it’s really up to the athlete to fund a lab and experiment to prove our speculation wrong. To fully protect the athlete in these specific cases, we put an alternate testing protocol in our Technical Document … which we don’t follow. Well, sometimes we follow it. It’s all just random.”

I guess you are entitled to your own opinion. In my opinion, it is over the top ridiculous to suggest distance runners would likely take small amounts of oral nandrolone on purpose. Note the burrito excuse is the only one presented so far with substantial evidence. Any suggested alternative is baseless speculation.

This case isn't about the most common "pork" burritos.

Who said the stomach burritos tastes bad? Have you eaten one? The chorizo one sounds good.

The testimony was that her burrito was "uncharacteristically greasy" -- meaning the beef carne asada is characteristically not greasy.

If the case against the burrito is so strong, why do posters like you feel the need to embellish it with fan-fiction? I am not persuaded by baseless opinions or fiction.

"she testified that Trenbolone and metabolite levels measured in her laboratory were always low" =/= "But in fact, her lab records showed that some levels measured were large ..."

What we do know is that Houlihan, or more precisely her PI pro, came up with exactly two pork sources from the food truck, namely stomach and butt. CAS as a whole, including all sides, focused on stomach presumably because the butt is for the Chorizo, and the claim was for the offal.

Houlihan claimed no other pork source, no other pork source was discussed. This is just a new obfuscation trick, that not even Houlihan's team attempted. See for example Tucker here on letsrun:

Note that McGlone's - who is not your lovely lab director and also not a WADA witness - evidence remained "not disputed". Well, until you "two" came along.

Last but not least, the whole sentence from the TD2021 that you and rek typically "coincidentally" only quote half is:

Yes, the bolded part is from Tucker. No, Houlihan did not claim "migrating wild boars". Yet here we are.

excuse me if this is too forward

but to me it comes down to this?

did shelby do it? or did she not do it?

only she and God and Christ know.