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

The reason why you’re quoting Tucker and not the CAS report is that the witness against Houlihan (the only one without a proven history false testimony is clearly speculating, not based on scientific research, but on his own opinion:

“Prof McGlone concedes that there is a lack of data concerning androgen concentration in the pig’s stomach. …. Based on the above, Prof McGlone opines that Hog Maw has a significantly lower steroid concentration compared to a whole stomach and one of the lowest androgen levels of any organ.”

McGlone is free to admit there is no research and state his opinion as a witness against Houlihan. However, these statements were clearly disputed by Houlihan’s expert witness:

CAS summarized the testimony of Houlihan’s expert witness, Dr Emmanuel Strahm in relation to pig stomach:

”There is no study available on 19-norsteroids concentration n pig stomach. Because stomach is still offal the amount of 19-norsteroids remains unknown.”

”The report on androgens in pork produced by Prof McGlone is not relevant because while the report mentions estimated concentrations for various steroid hormones, the report does not mention concentration of 19-norsteroids or precursors, which is the focus of this case. It is important to note that 19-norsteroids are found in low amounts in the meat of intact boar, cryptorchid and even barrow.”

This is exactly as I said in a previous post. WADA showed no interest in conducting these studies, so were left with the witness against Houlihan speculating (“opining”) without data and then the witness for Houlihan disputes the testimony with their own speculation. Too bad Houlihan did not have the foresight to commission a study on pork stomach and 19-norsteroids back in 2018 or 2019!

The reason only pork stomach was debated in the CAS report is because Houlihan could not prove other pork ingredients may have been eaten from a meal months in the past.

As I mention , 1 of the 3 arbitors agreed with Houlihan’s team that the wrong testing procedure was used. 2 of the 3 disagreed. While the CAS report does not show the minority opinion, one can see in section 73 that the CAS relied solely on the opinions of the WADA witness with a history of false testimony. In one part of item 73, CAS seems to list uncorrected nandrolone metabolite concentrations. The other statements were largely speculation and disputed by Houlihan’s witnesses. But 2 of the 3 CAS arbiters accepted the opinions of this WADA witness.

Since athletes aren’t all biochemists with pop-up labs in their back pockets and WADA can ignore conducting experiments for decades, some of these hearings are based on competing speculations. WADA experts have access to all of their hidden data and and have a history of conducting some (usually tiny) studies. So, their speculation tends to win unless that athlete can absolutely prove contamination from an event that happened months in the past.

Great effort thank you. A great summation of the unfortunate situation. Indeed the anti-doping system needs to have iron clad standards, but I feel like we should inject some reasonability into the big picture to avoid the disastrous consequences of suspending athletes who inadvertently tested positive (for unknown reasons) and also clearly didn't gain a performance benefit

Where did I embellish? Although I've never tried offal, I probably consume more Mexican food in a year than you have in your lifetime. From my friends that eat offal, it is an acquired taste and would be instantly noticeable, especially for someone who hasn't tried it before. Carne Asada can be greasy, depends on the restaurant/food truck.

And, yes, I eat chorizo somewhat regularly. Probably a chorizo breakfast burrito at least once a month, plus I occasionally cook with it at home. Chorizo *might* have offal, usually if there are still casings, but the ground chorizo mostly likely used in a burrito would likely not have offal. A "stomach burrito" is NOT a chorizo burrito. Is there any evidence that casings alone would cause a positive nandrolone test?

The amount of time you've spent on here defending Shelby is immense. Strange, to be honest. And your defense is based on the remote chance she was given an stomach burrito instead of an asada burrito and the very, very remote chance the very unlikely offal burrito came from a non-castrated boar. She doped. She served her sentence. Move on with your life. #savetheburrito

Unless you and/or your friends have eaten the same pork (or beef) burrito from the same food truck, your personal experience at other restaurants or food trucks is irrelevant.

You think I'm spending time defending Shelby, but Shelby is just incidental. I'm being critical of a process with built-in shortcuts where the balance of justice has been heavily tipped against all accused athletes, that can railroad innocent athletes to full 4-year bans, when they don't know the source and/or cannot prove it with concrete and specific elements on the balance of probability (subjective assessment of some non-expert tribunal relying on expert witnesses to be both neutral and complete). Shelby would not be the first, nor the last victim of a process founded on the policies of "strict liability" and "guilty until proven innocent".

Such a process that does not separate robustly separate innocent athletes who cannot prove it from the guilty ones is bad for the sport, not only because it punishes innocent athletes, but because it hurts the reputation of the sport to an unnecessary degree by confirming to fans that the problem is far worse than what has been proven.

Anti-doping seems to be an important topic for many fans, but it is surprising to me to what extent it relies on bad science (to the extent it relies on science at all), bad law, and bad journalism, and even more surprising that so many fans are unable to see or accept how much they have been pre-biased to believe things which have never been proven to any standard.

I'm not saying the burrito excuse has been proven -- as it is a difficult proof for the athlete to provide -- but saying it has not been disproven or ruled out (because this is also a difficult proof to provide). Furthermore, it cannot be disproven by arguments about national distributions and probabilities (especially when these are based on unsupported or unproven assumptions). We need specific and concrete elements both to prove it and to disprove it, in this single specific instance.

WADA created this problem in 2015, by defining "intent" as something the athletes had to disprove. Before 2015, athletes were banned without any discussion of intent.

But I'm with you about stopping talking about burritos. What is the more likely alternative, and who has established that to any standard? Where can I find those arguments? In the CAS report, the bases of an "oral norsteroid precursor" is "suggestion", "consistent with", and "presumption". This doesn't seem like a very high quality argument from the pinnacle scientific experts and legal professionals in anti-doping. Many fans may be persuaded by it, because of the titles of the persons involved, but I remain skeptical of such weak arguments from experts who should be held to much higher standards (than the athletes).

Yet that is the current process -- Houlihan was railroaded to a full 4-year ban based on the strength of a suggestion propped up by presumptions, and many fans fell for it because they want to believe it is likely that distance athletes orally would ingest low amounts of nandrolone on purpose, and that ingestion of such low amounts would lead to national world records.

You don't think so? Hilarious.

Note that there is no evidence whatsoever that "Houlihan was railroaded to a full 4-year ban" - only innocent athletes can get, however theoretically, "railroaded". On the contrary.

Note also that a) Gatlin got pretty much the same procedure, also resulting in the standard ban (considering his first offense), well before 2015, and b) Houlihan was banned under the 2021 code, no? Your focus on 2015 is weird, to say the least.

Yes -- Shelby is merely incidental to my often stated concern about the anti-doping process that railroads innocent athletes to 4-year bans.

Note that there is also no evidence that she wasn't "railroaded to a full 4-year ban" -- that's the whole point. The public can't tell from the collective evidence whether Shelby is innocent or guilty of intentional doping, as it was determined based on presumptions. A process based on strict liability and a presumption of guilt is one that doesn't require a whole lot of evidence, and a lack of evidence works against the athlete regardless of guilt or innocence. Note again that it is well known to both WADA and the CAS that "Such proof (how the substance entered the body) is difficult to provide".

My focus on 2015 for Shelby is easily explained, as that is when WADA introduced a new problem and burden for the accused athlete to establish non-intent in order to qualify for a reduced sanction. This doesn't mean that innocent athletes weren't railroaded to full bans before 2015 through other clauses -- it's just not applicable to Shelby's case. Note USOC Ombudsman John Rugers estimated that 40-60% of positive test results are inadvertent.

Justin Gatlin is also a good example of an athlete unjustly railroaded by an anti-doping process tilted against accused athletes. His first "offense" was in 2001, predating WADA's first code in 2003, before harmonization. He was subject to IAAF rules at the time, despite testing positive at a USATF competition. The Panel went out of its way to state that Gatlin "certainly is not a doper" and he "neither cheated nor intended to cheat". However, because of the IAAF rules, the Panel's hands were tied -- only the IAAF Council could reduce or eliminate the minimum 2-year ban. The IAAF Council agreed and re-instated Gatllin.

Considering the goal of anti-doping rules is to catch "dopers" and "cheaters", his first offense should never have happened according to the Panel, and would not have happened, but for IAAF rules.

If there was no first offense, his offense in 2006 would have been considered his first, and he would have been facing a 2-year ban. Instead, he was facing a lifetime ban, which was reduced to 8-years for cooperating with federal authorities (he was the only athlete to do so, and wore a wire to collect evidence), and then reduced on appeal to 4-years. One of the CAS Panelists was persuaded that Gatlin had 33 1/3% proved "sabotage", noting that if sabotage had occurred, it would be "more than likely impossible" for Gatlin, or any athlete, to prove sabotage.

All these details are in a link I provided previously.

But what is Ross really saying there? Ross gives a rather guarded response to the "Final Verdict" question: "Gut feeling: is Houlihan innocent or guilty?" After 1-month of studying this case in-depth, his instant reflex is not to say "Guilty" and he certainly doesn't say "guilty on the basis of proven exogenous norsteroid precursor." He also acknowledges that "There is much unknowable in between". He does follow up with "Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty", recognizing that "doping cases" are unique, and not like other domains (e.g. science and law which require more direct proofs).

His reponse is consistent with the CAS findings, and their explanation: Houlihan was found unable to establish her "innoncence" "on the basis of pork burrito ingestion" (after all, it is a difficult proof to provide), and, as doping cases are judged differently than scientific and legal domains, the direct consequence of this, and the implied presumptions in the WADA Code, she was sanctioned as if she were guilty of intentional doping.

As valuable as it is to have Ross's opinion, the most important opinion missing from the CAS report, is the minority panel opinion explaining how they were persuaded that the WADA Lab departed from the ISL when reporting the test results as an AAF. It is clear the WADA Lab used the GC/C/IRMS analysis to determine the origin, contrary to the guideline that "The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis" "if the consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete". Note at this early stage, long before the charge of the ADRV, the burden is not yet on Houlihan, but on the WADA Lab to demonstrate "that the 19-NA is not of endogenous origin". And then the burden is on the WA/AIU to establish to the standard of "comfortable satisfaction" (i.e. more than "balance of probabilities" but less than "beyond reasonable doubt") that an ADRV occurred. Also missing from the report is an explicit CAS finding that the AIU met this higher burden before charging Houlihan with an ADRV. Rather, the CAS explains that is also presumed, and the real burden is on Houlihan to show that they did not.

I forgot to mention that a 4-year ban for intentional doping, based on presumption rather than evidence or proof, is evidence she was railroaded.

Still lying your head off. She ingested a banned substance that was found in her urine sample. She claimed she ingested a contaminated burrito, that she couldn't produce, that CAS rejected on the evidence as against the balance of probabilities. So she doped - which had to be intentional because the banned substance was ingested, but not accidentally. None of your nauseating excuses changes the outcome.

For someone who claims he passed the bar, you don't seem to know what evidence or a proof is. Presuming intent is not evidence or proof of intent. Have another drink.

He seems to be passing (and entering) many bars on a daily basis.

Presuming intent from testing positive when a drug has been ingested but not accidentally is both logically and legally consistent. I don't drink but you clearly do.

The bar I passed is the one that you would fail - your IQ absolutely shows that.

You have continued to bring up the "greasy burrito" as proof that Shelby likely ate a offal burrito. My experience is relevant in that asada burritos can be greasy. One place I frequent I almost always order the same asada burrito and sometimes it is much more greasy than other times. Again, the chance that she consumed half an offal burrito without noticing the taste is infinitely unlikely.

suno.com

Shelby's Redemption by @fluidcodecs1792 | Suno

pop, heart wrenching, melodramatic song. Listen and make your own with Suno.

Open link

This song about Shelby is all you need to know.

I prefer the Jimmy Reed song, "Shame, Shame, Shame".

I prefer my own song, as well as:

Eye of the Tiger Survivor
Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You) Kelly Clarkson
Boulevard of Broken Dreams Green Day
My Own Worst Enemy Lit
The Man Taylor Swift
Not Afraid Eminem
Fight Song Rachel Platten
Lose Yourself Eminem
Survivor Destiny's Child
We Are the Champions Queen
The Climb Miley Cyrus
Hall of Fame The Script ft. will.i.am
Break Free Ariana Grande
Unstoppable Sia
Defying Gravity Wicked (Idina Menzel)

Which bar teaches "guilty until proven innocent" is legally consistent?

Note in anti-doping, the presumed intent comes directly from the Code, and in this case, no one established (i.e. by arguments with evidence and proof) that ingestion was not accidental.