Shelby Houlihan joins The Running Effect Podcast again

And finally, I never stop being amused by the mindless reflex to label truth seekers and question askers as "apologists".

The process defined by WADA, to which the CAS is subservient, in cases like these, is just not intellectually robust enough to identify which positive tested athletes are bona-fide intentional cheats, because it allows anti-doping bodies to presume too much. This is not my rogue opinion, but also the opinion of longtime USA anti-doping chief Travis Tygart, who toppled giants like Armstrong and Salazar, who describes the current process as railroading athletes to 4-year bans and treating them like intentional cheats.

When shelbs has her oprah moment and admits that she took peds (but it was only like..one time, omg I don't know why everyone is freaking out). Are you going to come here and apologize for being an incessant numskull?

Are you hallucinating or just plain out lying. Of course CAS never said that, and even more obviously I never put any blame or shame on the experts.

Did you just pretend to be a truth seeker? Absurd... you are literally the opposite.

Too many hypotheticals and presumptions.

If Shelby ever had an Oprah moment, that still wouldn't explain all the inconsistencies and omissions in the testimony of the AIU experts. Looking back at my 10 "bigger questions", none of them would be answered by that Oprah moment.

None of the above. What is "that" that you think the CAS never said in their report?

No pretense.

Lol. I was talking about all your baseless claims I quoted, from post #156 in this thread. As expected, you tried deflecting instead of proving them. So, you either hallucinated or lied. Not exactly a "truth seeker".

At this point this thread needs to be locked or everyone on here should just block rekrunnrr

Had you clarified what you meant by "that", then I could have "proved" "that".

The basis for my claims in post #156 can be found in the CAS report in Paragraphs 8 and 40, fifth and sixth bullets, among others. Much of the AIU expert rebuttal can be found in 107, 111, and 114, and also bits and pieces in other paragraphs, like 79 -- maybe more. It's all about pork meat and stomach being low in nandrolone, and drawing conclusions on that basis. Prof. McGlone does tell us many organs which are high in nandrolone (40 and 107), but neither Prof McGlone nor Prof Ayotte addressed the possibility that the nandrolone came from small amounts of these highly nandrolone concentrated organs.

If I'm wrong, please point me to these arguments, but then it would invalidate some of the conclusions drawn by the AIU experts, and completely undermine some of the decisions the CAS took on the strength of these AIU expert conclusions.

I would be fine with either.

So you cannot provide a quote, understood.

Why not pursue a lucrative career in her actual field of study from college? Wasn't she a computer science major?!

This should be Shelby "it was the Mexicans fault" Houlihan's walk out music for her first race back:

Maybe you haven't. I can easily provide quotes with simple copy-paste feature of my laptop. Some of the relevant parts were already quoted back on pages 5 and 6 of this thread. But it wouldn't it be better if you read the paragraphs in the CAS report in context to see what the CAS wrote about what Shelby claimed, what the AIU experts thought that claim was, and what they addressed in her claim, and what they omitted? Here's a link:

Just a reminder of how you are lying here.

These were your baseless claims:

1) "the CAS report tells us that Shelby knew her claim was not limited to just pork stomach and pork meat" - after several requests, you still haven't provided any proof that CAS said that.

2) "you are right that it is a shame that the anti-doping organization and their experts are not held to a higher standard" - after several requests, you still haven't provided any proof that "madirdi" said that.

And then you try to turn it around, again without any proof whatsoever:

To top it off, that nonsense ("it would invalidate") has nothing to do with "the CAS report tells us that Shelby knew her claim was not limited to just pork stomach and pork meat". Poor deflection attempt from your side.

I am seriously considering to register so I can block your outlandish trolling.

Or you are lying. "madirdi" was rather vague which claims he considered were "baseless" -- so it's not correct to say I received several requests.

I have answered 1) several times -- her claim is stated by the CAS in paragraph 8, and it is clearly not limited to pork stomach and pork meat.

On point 2) I stand corrected -- I said "madirdi" was right, but in fact "madirdi" was not right. He did say "what a shame" but was wrong to suggest that the "WA, Shelburrito or CAS" did not already know my ideas, which were largely extracted from the CAS report -- as I have already shown by referencing just some of the paragraphs that the CAS wrote in their report.

I would be happy when you register so you can block me, if that means not suffering your false accusations that I am lying, or have not already answered the questions.