Shelby Houlihan GoFundMe goes home DEVASTATED!!!

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Sorry — that was just you changing the subject, once again seeking my approval for your interpretation of a clearly worded verdict.

The subject is Shelby Houlihan. She has been banned for 4 years for a doping violation - or is that just my "interpretation"? Is she a doper? Yes or no.

The subject was your insecurity about your strongly held beliefs, because you can’t really answer what you know.

This explains why you cannot debate, and why you never bring knowledge to the discussion.

The first 20 times you asked me if she was a doper, I asked you to clarify if you were using the definition of doping we can find in an everyday English dictionary, or the much broader definition of doping from WADA.

In one of my answers, I said that the criteria in the definition I found in Merriam-Webster was not met.

WADA’s definition of doping includes unknowing unintentional ingestion of a small quantity of a banned substance commonly found in meat, which is much less interesting to me than the case of the athlete who knowingly, intentionally dopes motivated by potential performance enhancement.

if there was anything, ANYTHING about this case to hang on to....

If she had actually ordered a pig offal burrito (even though it still would not have produced enough nandrolone that was in her system)

If the nandrolone in her system indicated endogenous instead of exogenous

If it was ACTUALLY a trace amount

If nandrolone was actually a drug no one had ever heard of and it didn't help middle distance runners at all

If her career wasn't suspect. If she didn't have a quick ascent after 3 years of professional running where she was mid-pack. There are so many runners that if this happened to them I might have doubts because there was nothing in their career that indicated doping. But with Shelby it absolutely indicated doping.

But because there is no real evidence people just point to BTC reputations, Shelby's personality, and just disbelief that a likable white American girl would do something like this.

And it doesn't necessarily make her a bad person (though I do think doping is weak). But she should serve a ban, she should be labeled a doper and she really shouldn't have a place in the sport.

The running community doesn't owe her anything and it certainly doesn't owe her their money.

^^^^ This ^^^^^

Plus her androgen levels were too high, consistent with ingesting a designer cocktail, not a young boar.

SayWut? wrote:

She is a cheater and a liar. Good riddance

Not sue why folks always say that. The lying is part and parcel to the doping? Lance Armstrong couldnt dope and admit to it every time someone asked? Thats how it works really. If you dope you also have to lie.

bigmig19 wrote:

SayWut? wrote:

She is a cheater and a liar. Good riddance

Not sue why folks always say that. The lying is part and parcel to the doping? Lance Armstrong couldnt dope and admit to it every time someone asked? Thats how it works really. If you dope you also have to lie.

She didn’t get clean once caught. She doubled down, made up lies, attempted to blame an innocent food truck, and asked teammates to lie for her.

jfjdhrhrhrj wrote:

bigmig19 wrote:

Not sue why folks always say that. The lying is part and parcel to the doping? Lance Armstrong couldnt dope and admit to it every time someone asked? Thats how it works really. If you dope you also have to lie.

She didn’t get clean once caught. She doubled down, made up lies, attempted to blame an innocent food truck, and asked teammates to lie for her.

Exactly. Remember Shelby *could* come clean. Coming clean would actually be beneficial to the sport. For one we would all quit focusing on a doper. For another, if she was doping during the time of her US titles and American records (she absolutely was) she can admit to that and the records could go to their rightful owners. She can also help explain how she doped which would further help to clean up the sport. She can also stop forcing her friends and teammates to stand behind her when she is clearly lying, straddling the world of clean sport and a world that includes her friendship. There are so many things that dopers can do. I just don't trust the women or men at BTC anymore. Their reputations are tarnished because they choose to stand by her. Courtney's silver and 8:57 is wild. How did she do that, really.

But it sucks to see Kate Grace in the situation that she has been put in. It sucks to see other runners remain mum on the topic entirely because they don't want to sacrifice a friendship or feel Nike's wrath. The responsibility is on Shelby and she is shirking it. That makes her a liar AND a cheater.

Exactly, aovnei. But bigmig19 is also correct:

bigmig19 wrote:

Thats how it works really. If you dope you also have to lie.

aovnei wrote:

I just don't trust the women or men at BTC anymore. Their reputations are tarnished because they choose to stand by her. Courtney's silver and 8:57 is wild. How did she do that, really.

+1

How did she do that? Well for the most part, she improved parallel to Shelburrito at BTC - but more believably so, imho:

Frerichs, born January 1993, 3000 m steeple progression

2013 9:55.02 age 20

2014 9:43.07 age 21

2015 9:31.36 age 22

2016 9:20.92 age 23, moved to BTC

2017 9:03.77 age 24

2018 9:00.85 age 25 American Record

2019 9:09.75 age 26

2020 …

2021 8:57.77 age 28 American Record

Houlihan, born February 19993, 1500 and 5000 m progression

2013 4:13.64 16:15.85 age 20

2014 4:10.89 16:11.63 age 21

2015 4:09.62 15:49.72 age 22, moved to BTC

2016 4:03.39 15:06.14 age 23

2017 4:06.22 15:00.37 age 24

2018 3:57.34 14:34.45 age 25 5000 m American Record

2019 3:54.99 15:15.50 age 26 1500 m American Record

2020 4:02.37 14:23.92 age 27 5000 m American Record, popped for roids

(and banned from January 2021 - 2025)

After her first year at BTC, Courtney improved only 6 seconds in the 3000 steeple within four years.

After her first year at BTC, Shelby improved over 8 seconds in the 1500 and 42 seconds in the 5000 within three to four years.

Here are some things to hang on to:

- according to a study conducted by the AIU-expert Prof. Ayotte, as little as 14 grams, or 1/2 an ounce, is enough to produce the amount of nandrolone that was in her urine. These studies with small sample sizes likely do not find the maximum concentrations possible. It was estimated Shelby consumed 140-180g of meat. Was Prof. Ayotte being completely honest when she said 2.4 ng/ml was “most favorable”? It wouldn’t be the first time she was selective in the truth. Her deception in the Lawson case about her own lab results was material enough to have it overturned on appeal by that CAS panel.

- The nandrolone wasn’t found in her system, but in her urine. All parties agreed that it was ingested, not injected. Because of filtering on “first pass”, much less would have actually been in her system.

- Was it exogenous? Looks like that was decided by GC/C/IRMS analysis, while the TD2021 NA says “The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis”.

- why this unusual emphasis on “trace”? “Trace” is not well defined, and the claim of “trace amount” doesn’t appear in the CAS report. CJ Hunter had 2000 ng/ml. AIU expert Prof. Ayotte conducted a study with one subject producing 130 ng/ml. By comparison 5.2 ng/ml and 5.8 ng/ml are quite small amounts. Before 2004, the threshold for women was 5 ng/ml, and even then, had to be considered on a case by case basis. In a 1998 study in Nagano on 621 Olympic athletes, only 5 athletes exceeded the threshold — all women.

- so many people have heard of it, and its ease of detection, that no sophisticated athlete after the Sydney Olympics in 2000 would take it. While large amounts would will likely help women, especially in middle distance, she had a small amount in her urine, and only a smaller fraction of that would have got in her system.

- is her career suspect? This sounds like something some people want to believe is a sign of drugs. It’s certain that a Dec. 2020 positive for a small amount would not have influenced her American record performances 6 months earlier.

- There is equally no real evidence of “the use of oral nandrolone”, as speculated by the AIU-expert Prof. Ayotte. Since it is so hard to get real evidence, WADA makes it easy to prosecute without such evidence, by inserting language like “consistent with”, and “strict liability” and permitting the presumption of intent.

- In my case, it is not just about a likeable white girl — 49 Kenyans have been busted for nandrolone between 2004 and 2018 in a country with no USDA inspectors filtering out cryptorchids, no separate boar supply chain, and where farmers do not routinely castrate their pigs, and the athletes may not know enough French or English nor have the funds to mount a robust legal defense. The fact that Kenyans were busted for nandrolone has been used as “evidence” that nandrolone is an interesting drug for distance runners.

The TD2021NA foresees declaring possible intact boar ingestion as an ATF, requiring more testing to remove the uncertainty, before declaring a violation, rather than presuming there is none.

The possibility remains that the burrito story is true, and she just couldn’t prove it one month after the fact, to the legal standard required.

This wasn’t disproved, and nothing else was proved.

In that case, she already “came clean”.

This idea that she ever cheated or lied is something that “fans” made up.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

You haven't understood it. It essentially says there is a zero likelihood that she failed the dope test because of a contaminated burrito. So the evidence is therefore overwhelmingly that she doped. But you refuse to acknowledge that.

What I understood is that you incorrectly attributed this view to the CAS.

The view the CAS took was that the burrito explanation was possible, despite the cascade of improbabilities argued by the AIU.

The CAS didn’t rule on any other possibility, so we cannot really compare the burrito possibility to all of the other possibilities in order to decide which possibility would be the likeliest.

While it may have been theoretically possible that the presence of a banned substance in her system was through food contamination CAS accepted the AIU argument on the evidence presented that it was of almost zero probability. Of the arguments on the table as to how she tested positive for nandrolone that only left intentional doping, which was the finding accordingly of the Court. The result was a 4 year ban.

I am not the subject - as you seek to deflect yet again. The question, on a thread about a convicted doper, is do you accept she is a doper. If you thought 'yes' then that is all that you needed say. That you flannel on, trying to throw up a verbal smokescreen about what the word 'doper' means, can safely be taken as a 'no'. Hence, you confirm that you are a doping denier. You always have been and you always will be.

Of all the speculative possibilities you venture what is the most probable on the basis of the evidence presented to CAS ? That she didn't dope - or she did?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

What I understood is that you incorrectly attributed this view to the CAS.

The view the CAS took was that the burrito explanation was possible, despite the cascade of improbabilities argued by the AIU.

The CAS didn’t rule on any other possibility, so we cannot really compare the burrito possibility to all of the other possibilities in order to decide which possibility would be the likeliest.

While it may have been theoretically possible that the presence of a banned substance in her system was through food contamination CAS accepted the AIU argument on the evidence presented that it was of almost zero probability. Of the arguments on the table as to how she tested positive for nandrolone that only left intentional doping, which was the finding accordingly of the Court. The result was a 4 year ban.

The result was that the ban was not overturned or its length reduced.

I don't know why you guys continue to rehash the CAS decision. She has been banned for 4 years and she has about 3 years left which will take her through the 2024 Olympics and that's what matters. She will not be successful in challenging the ban in Swiss Federal Court.

casual obsever wrote:

^^^^ This ^^^^^

Plus her androgen levels were too high, consistent with ingesting a designer cocktail, not a young boar.

Which androgen levels ?

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

While it may have been theoretically possible that the presence of a banned substance in her system was through food contamination CAS accepted the AIU argument on the evidence presented that it was of almost zero probability. Of the arguments on the table as to how she tested positive for nandrolone that only left intentional doping, which was the finding accordingly of the Court. The result was a 4 year ban.

The result was that the ban was not overturned or its length reduced.

I don't know why you guys continue to rehash the CAS decision. She has been banned for 4 years and she has about 3 years left which will take her through the 2024 Olympics and that's what matters. She will not be successful in challenging the ban in Swiss Federal Court.

There was no ban that existed nor any length that was not reduced.

Lots of people bending over backwards to try and come up with a way a substance that has no business being in a professional athlete system got into her system.

I'm very happy she is missing two Olympics and wish she was banned for life.

kow992928288ii wrote:

Lots of people bending over backwards to try and come up with a way a substance that has no business being in a professional athlete system got into her system.

I'm very happy she is missing two Olympics and wish she was banned for life.

Many think that that should be the job of the sports doping courts.

And the rules apply to the multi millions that take part in sports that recognise Wada.

liar soorer wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

The result was that the ban was not overturned or its length reduced.

I don't know why you guys continue to rehash the CAS decision. She has been banned for 4 years and she has about 3 years left which will take her through the 2024 Olympics and that's what matters. She will not be successful in challenging the ban in Swiss Federal Court.

There was no ban that existed nor any length that was not reduced.

There was a provisional ban which is effectively the same thing and which prevented her from competing. When she lost, the the starting point was still Jan 14th of this year which was the date she was notified of the ban.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

liar soorer wrote:

There was no ban that existed nor any length that was not reduced.

There was a provisional ban which is effectively the same thing and which prevented her from competing. When she lost, the the starting point was still Jan 14th of this year which was the date she was notified of the ban.

Suspended !

No ban til CAS decision.

Why keep misleading in prejudicial way.

And what about Wada rules for the millions of non professionals.29 million of them in Germany who do sports.