How does Shelby’s positive test shape your view of BTC?

She received a 4-year ban as a result of these same prosecutorial quotes.

I know you think they are meaningless because they don’t have video evidence of her injecting herself with nandrolone, but, in the absence of being caught red handed, data and probabilistic assertions are all we have as justification.

Ending interpretation:

Can the panel say with 100% certainty she doped? No.

Can the panel say with 99.xx.% certainty she doped? Yes.

This is about you saying that she had and other raised androgen levels and then referenced designer drugs.

My comment about 107 and 109 was in that context and not the androgens found in her sample. Given Letsrun no longer links the various posts as they used to then I can see how someone would think I was referring to androgens that are detailed in 110 and 70.I have already provided this clarity but you have chosen to ignore it.

So having presented that clarity I ask again for your evidence of “and other androgens etc”.Thus saying there was more than Nandrolone there to the point of designer drugs.

You have not answered this after dozens of requests over many months.

You cheated by quoting the prosecution as if it was the panels.The panel ruled on the evidence and not what the prosecution said; read their decision

Ayotte said it was oral precursors and not injection.Do read prior to inventing stuff.

Comfortable satisfaction is not 99.xx% and a third of the panel disagreed. Why do you invent stuff.

Strict liability means that they have to have no evidence of her taking the drug via any route and indeed the panel never said if she took it.

Do learn the rules prior to posting.

What about 108? It's interesting to read 107, 108, and 109 together:

In 107, it looks like Prof. McGlone appears to chose "androgens" so he can include other studies about other steroids, and not nandrolone.

In 108, Dr. Strahm says these studies are not relevant, because this case is about nandrolone. That seems like a no-brainer.

In 109, the CAS says that the claims about various other steroids in 107 are "undisputed" and reminds us of the imbalance that Houlihan is obligated to meet a legal evidential burden, while the AIU can get away with introducing irrelevant studies about various other steroid hormones.

We see a similar pattern play out with soy, where the AIU concedes, but the CAS still sides with them:

Prof McGlone: US pigs are corn-fed ...

Houlihan's team's response: They were fed more soy during the pandemic.

Prof McGlone: Yeah you're right, but ...

CAS: Soy experiments are not relevant, because commercial pork is corn-fed.

We can see the imbalance of evidential burden in the juxtaposition of two statements in 40:
"the Athlete would effectively have to exclude intentional use based on specific and concrete elements. ... In this instance, the analytical result (including the Athlete’s carbon isotope signature) is entirely consistent with the use of oral nandrolone (prohormones) that are known to exist on the market."

The athlete is required to bring concrete and specific elements, while the AIU is at liberty to argue with general elements about the US and Canada pork market, and merely suggest that it is "consistent with" doping.

Any suggestion outside the CAS that Houlihan intentionally doped is not one that is "based on specific and concrete elements", precisely because the WADA process does not require it.

With the benefit of hindsight, and the time to dig deeper into various topics, there are other inconsistencies I would have liked to see explained by the experts, that appear to undermine or contradict the AIU experts, such as: 1) changes in US policy related to the USDA which allows trained workers to do the job of USDA inspectors (that McGlone assured us would weed out the boars); 2) how the USDA regulations permit intact boar to go to the market based on a sniff test; 3) with all his focus on cryptorchids, what Prof McGlone thinks about chemically castrated pigs; 4) besides scarcity of corn, how the pandemic impacted the age of slaughtered pigs, and any scarcity of the drugs used to keep intact boar hormones low; 5) some of Prof. Ayotte's own studies which appears to be in contradiction with her expert opinions, concerning both the amount of nandrolone (with one subject in her study having more than 20x Houlihan's level of nandrolone) and the CIR ranges (with -23.5 ‰ being average, between 19.8 and 26.8, in her experience, compared with her testimony that 21 ‰ was an upper maximum).

Given Prof. Ayotte's previous history of misleading anti-doping tribunals, it is particularly troubling that the CAS explicitly relied on her testimony that appears to contradict her own research.

But the lawyers for Houlihan were quite busy with their burden of establishing the source and "not intentional", under a very tight schedule, that they seem to have fallen short of disputing all of the various claims by the AIU experts.

Get real most of the top runners are/have been doping! Jamaica? come on .... Ethiopia, Russia, Kenya, etc.... everyone of them. We need to get real with this stuff everyone is doping every sport! Tennis, NBA, NFL, MLB, probs even WNBA. Getting on here and ripping runners or clubs over doping is myopic! ALMOST EVERYONE IS DOPING