Houlihan's values weren't low, and they were consistent with doping. Nothing you or your "experts" claim made accidental contamination probable or even likely, which is the threshold it would have needed to attain for her defence to work. It remained merely a bare possibility in theory without actual evidence - a contaminated burrito - to support it. Without that, it was just a good story. Like fake moon-landings in a warehouse in Arizona.
More displays of ignorance -- you truly have no shame. According to WADA, Houlihan's values were "low" -- it is WADA who calls values less than 10 ng/ml "low", and consistent with "consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs". No expert before the CAS established any source to be more likely than pork consumption. Afterwards Tygart offered his opinion that contamination of supplements would be a more likely source, suggesting intentional oral ingestion is less likely.
Her values were consistent with doping - hence her violation. They were only consistent with the consumption of contaminated offal if she had eaten contaminated offal. She couldn't show that she had. It was more probable she hadn't or most consumers of burritos would be walking around with nandrolone in their system. Mexican takeaways would become a "go-to" destination for would be dopers. You are an absolute ......... moron.
More displays of ignorance -- you truly have no shame. According to WADA, Houlihan's values were "low" -- it is WADA who calls values less than 10 ng/ml "low", and consistent with "consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs". No expert before the CAS established any source to be more likely than pork consumption. Afterwards Tygart offered his opinion that contamination of supplements would be a more likely source, suggesting intentional oral ingestion is less likely.
Her values were consistent with doping - hence her violation. They were only consistent with the consumption of contaminated offal if she had eaten contaminated offal. She couldn't show that she had. It was more probable she hadn't or most consumers of burritos would be walking around with nandrolone in their system. Mexican takeaways would become a "go-to" destination for would be dopers. You are an absolute ......... moron.
You said her values weren't low. rekrunner showed you that WADA said they were low. You are the absolute moron here.
More displays of ignorance -- you truly have no shame. According to WADA, Houlihan's values were "low" -- it is WADA who calls values less than 10 ng/ml "low", and consistent with "consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs". No expert before the CAS established any source to be more likely than pork consumption. Afterwards Tygart offered his opinion that contamination of supplements would be a more likely source, suggesting intentional oral ingestion is less likely.
WOW so many little tricks there, rekrunner. Problems you are ignoring:
1) The isotope ratio was wrong.
2) The "low" amount was too high to have come from the proposed stomach offal.
3) "non-castrated male pigs" are rarely part of the commercial food chain (far less than 1 in 10,000).
4) ...
Lastly - please quote Tygart precisely. You sure he said that? At least you finally realize that he too knows it wasn't nandrolone from pork, and yet here you are...
Her values were consistent with doping - hence her violation. They were only consistent with the consumption of contaminated offal if she had eaten contaminated offal. She couldn't show that she had. It was more probable she hadn't or most consumers of burritos would be walking around with nandrolone in their system. Mexican takeaways would become a "go-to" destination for would be dopers. You are an absolute ......... moron.
You said her values weren't low. rekrunner showed you that WADA said they were low. You are the absolute moron here.
They aren't low so as to raise the question of whether she was doped. There was no doubt about it. Hence her violation. His claim is bullsh*t, like everything he writes - and you are stupid enough to buy it.
More displays of ignorance -- you truly have no shame. According to WADA, Houlihan's values were "low" -- it is WADA who calls values less than 10 ng/ml "low", and consistent with "consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs". No expert before the CAS established any source to be more likely than pork consumption. Afterwards Tygart offered his opinion that contamination of supplements would be a more likely source, suggesting intentional oral ingestion is less likely.
WOW so many little tricks there, rekrunner. Problems you are ignoring:
1) The isotope ratio was wrong.
2) The "low" amount was too high to have come from the proposed stomach offal.
3) "non-castrated male pigs" are rarely part of the commercial food chain (far less than 1 in 10,000).
4) ...
Lastly - please quote Tygart precisely. You sure he said that? At least you finally realize that he too knows it wasn't nandrolone from pork, and yet here you are...
He either lies about everything or simply doesn't understand it - like "the balance of probability", which he continues to get wrong. But at least in that he is consistent - consistently wrong.
Evidently so. The funny thing is that he uses Tygart to make his point, but Tygart (and Tucker for this matter) concurred that the nandrolone was not in the burrito. Further, Houlihan and her lawyer figured out that the nandrolone was not in the supplements.
So.... let's add up these facts: not in the burrito + not in the supplements --> not accidental --> thus intentional doping.
It's hard to fathom the thinking of someone who thinks that because something happened that it therefore had to be probable. It's like saying Beamon's freak jump was probable because it happened. "Near-zero" events are, by definition, not frequent. You really don't have the basic intelligence to discuss these subjects.
I'm sure there are a great many things hard for you to fathom, especially if there are too many words, or any numbers.
frequent by definition: "occurring or done on many occasions"
Being struck by lightning is a near-zero events (per year 1 in 1,222,000; per lifetime 1 in 15,000), yet 300 people are struck per year in the US, and 2000 per year worldwide.
For a near-zero event, 300 and 2000 per year seems like "many". Can you suggest a better word to describe these numbers significantly greater than ZERO?
What about intact pork in the USA? Using Prof. McGlone's (the AIU expert) figure of less than 1 in 10,000 -- more than 1000x more likely than human lightning strikes -- and given 131,563,000 pigs were slaughtered in 2020 in the USA, that turns McGlone's estimate into some value less than 13,156 non-castrated boars on the US market in 2020. That's a lot of time-bombs each year for the athlete not permitted to eat nandrolone.
There are reasons to think Prof. McGlone's estimate is not neutral, but one that favors the AIU.
You said her values weren't low. rekrunner showed you that WADA said they were low. You are the absolute moron here.
They aren't low so as to raise the question of whether she was doped. There was no doubt about it. Hence her violation. His claim is bullsh*t, like everything he writes - and you are stupid enough to buy it.
I didn't buy anything, sweetie. I stated facts, something you dislike when it shows you are wrong.
It's hard to fathom the thinking of someone who thinks that because something happened that it therefore had to be probable. It's like saying Beamon's freak jump was probable because it happened. "Near-zero" events are, by definition, not frequent. You really don't have the basic intelligence to discuss these subjects.
I'm sure there are a great many things hard for you to fathom, especially if there are too many words, or any numbers.
frequent by definition: "occurring or done on many occasions"
Being struck by lightning is a near-zero events (per year 1 in 1,222,000; per lifetime 1 in 15,000), yet 300 people are struck per year in the US, and 2000 per year worldwide.
For a near-zero event, 300 and 2000 per year seems like "many". Can you suggest a better word to describe these numbers significantly greater than ZERO?
What about intact pork in the USA? Using Prof. McGlone's (the AIU expert) figure of less than 1 in 10,000 -- more than 1000x more likely than human lightning strikes -- and given 131,563,000 pigs were slaughtered in 2020 in the USA, that turns McGlone's estimate into some value less than 13,156 non-castrated boars on the US market in 2020. That's a lot of time-bombs each year for the athlete not permitted to eat nandrolone.
There are reasons to think Prof. McGlone's estimate is not neutral, but one that favors the AIU.
you are drawing false equivalences. the odds of being struck by lightning are indeed low - but there are millions and millions of lightning strikes per year and 9 billion people on the planet. there are plenty of flips of the coin happening all the time - so the total number of people that are struck does become a relatively large number.
now take elite runners being tested for peds and who eat risky burrito's and who get tested just on the right date - the number of flips of this coin is tiny, tiny
to any confidence interval one can reject the hypothesis that this is a high probability event - is it possible - sure - likely, no way.
put differently - every 1000 years one elite runner may be erroneously busted for eating a bad burrito. that is part of the deal. errors will be made. we minimize them as much as we can.
besides, elite runners should be responsible for what they put in their body - who would eat a sketchy burrito as a runner. I probably wouldn't eat pork at all if I was being tested
Her values were consistent with doping - hence her violation. They were only consistent with the consumption of contaminated offal if she had eaten contaminated offal. She couldn't show that she had. It was more probable she hadn't or most consumers of burritos would be walking around with nandrolone in their system. Mexican takeaways would become a "go-to" destination for would be dopers. You are an absolute ......... moron.
I see now that WADA completely debunked your claim of "not low", you whack-a-mole to another fallacy.
Likewise, they are only consistent with doping if she had taken exogenous nandrolone. No one has shown that she has. No one has shown that exogenous nandrolone is more probable than pork consumption. That question was not answered, nor asked -- it is just another presumption.
Wa Po stated: ... she said had a trace amount ... . Wa Po stated: ... experts said her story was plausible ... .
S H, without question tested positive. No trace amount. Some trolls on here stated her story was plausible.
She either got greedy and decided the heck with microdosing or S H thought she was untouchable because of a couple of U.S. running records.
Honestly a combination of both (greed and believing she was untouchable) but I don't think it was anything to do with running US records, it was to do with covid. Don't forget that drug testing was effectively paused for 9 months (maybe even longer). It is no coincidence that Shelbys positive sample was given to testers literally weeks after WADA/AIU testing started back up at the beginning of 2021. I think a lot of athletes took advantage of absolutely zero threat of testing for 3/4 of a year (how exactly did Marcel Jacobs run 9.80 and win the Olympics again?)
Her values were consistent with doping - hence her violation. They were only consistent with the consumption of contaminated offal if she had eaten contaminated offal. She couldn't show that she had. It was more probable she hadn't or most consumers of burritos would be walking around with nandrolone in their system. Mexican takeaways would become a "go-to" destination for would be dopers. You are an absolute ......... moron.
I see now that WADA completely debunked your claim of "not low", you whack-a-mole to another fallacy.
Likewise, they are only consistent with doping if she had taken exogenous nandrolone. No one has shown that she has. No one has shown that exogenous nandrolone is more probable than pork consumption. That question was not answered, nor asked -- it is just another presumption.
no one saw her eat a burrito - no one saw her inject nandrolone
are you saying that testing positive from eating a burrito is just as likely to trigger a positive test for nandrolone from injecting it?
that is absurd. of course it is more probable
not only that - it isn't how dope testing works. no one has ever been caught literally injecting drugs.
do we need to see drunk drivers drinking to conclude they are drunk?
I probably wouldn't eat pork at all if I was being tested
But don't forget the cherries on the sundae here. Not only was it not the burrito she originally ordered, the story was that it turned out to boar offal (and not your regular carne asada) because those were the only parts of the boar that could possibly contain the amount of nandrolone to make her positive.
So she ordered burrito A, was accidentally given burrito B (which coincidentally had a type of meat very rarely offered at trucks because the taste is kind of awful) and decided to eat in anyway. Oh, and don't forget to mention that the amount of meat that would have had to be in that burrito was something astronomical (like 3-4 times the regular amount of meat usually in a burrito).
Hey, she's not the first athlete to try and get away with doping - it happens all the time. She tried and failed - guess you can't hate her for that right?
I find it hilarious, the conversation has devolved into metaphors about lightning strikes in a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from what we all know: she tested positive for synthetic nandralone. The Shelby trolls will continue their work, though it is essentially a fruitless exercise, because most people have long ago tired of refutting the same points over and over again.
More displays of ignorance -- you truly have no shame. According to WADA, Houlihan's values were "low" -- it is WADA who calls values less than 10 ng/ml "low", and consistent with "consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs". No expert before the CAS established any source to be more likely than pork consumption. Afterwards Tygart offered his opinion that contamination of supplements would be a more likely source, suggesting intentional oral ingestion is less likely.
WOW so many little tricks there, rekrunner. Problems you are ignoring:
1) The isotope ratio was wrong.
2) The "low" amount was too high to have come from the proposed stomach offal.
3) "non-castrated male pigs" are rarely part of the commercial food chain (far less than 1 in 10,000).
4) ...
Lastly - please quote Tygart precisely. You sure he said that? At least you finally realize that he too knows it wasn't nandrolone from pork, and yet here you are...
This is reminescent of the selective half-truths that I often get from "casual obsever", who now posts anonymously. No these are not problems I am ignoring.
1) Not for soy fed pigs -- that factor was in the CAS report, and conceded by the AIU expert Prof. McGlone, but then curiously acknowledged, dismissed, then ignored. In any case, the WADA lab guideline is that "The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis". WADA expects isotope analysis to be unreliable "Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs".
2) Another "AIU expert" deception -- the claim was that nandrolone claim from offal in a pork stomach burrito. Debunking pork meat in isolation or pork stomach in isolation does not address the claim. That would require all the ingredients to be analyzed. IIRC, the AIU expert told us the nandrolone is rich in the kidney, heart, and fat.
3) Maybe in normal times, but the pandemic altered the likelihood in multiple ways. But even for the sake of argument, some intact boars are USDA approved, according to Prof. McGlone, as well as the USDA, based on a sniff test, creating a non-zero risk that some athlete somewhere sometime will test positive. Prof. McGlone also neglected other possibilities like immunocastrated pork, practiced in Oregon, and also impacted by supply shortages and delays, or open range fed pork.
4) ...
His exact quote is not necessarily. Tygart has an opinion about what is generally likely for US athletes, but similarly no direct knowledge of Houlihan's source of the nandrolone. Therefore, I do not realize Tygart "knows" nandrolone was not from pork. No one knows the source as it was not identified with any likelihood.
As no possibility was ruled out by the CAS, still today there remain multiple possible sources of the nandrolone: 1) pork, 2) contaminated supplements, 3) intentional doping with exogenous nandrolone, 4) ....
A comparitive likelihood of all of these possibilities was not performed, so no one can offer any conclusive opinion.
They aren't low so as to raise the question of whether she was doped. There was no doubt about it. Hence her violation. His claim is bullsh*t, like everything he writes - and you are stupid enough to buy it.
I didn't buy anything, sweetie. I stated facts, something you dislike when it shows you are wrong.
Are you always this cranky in the morning?
You stated no facts, only your ignorant opinion. You are too stupid to realise that when rekrunner makes a claim he is lying or it is simply bs. Houlihan's values weren't "low" when they were sufficient for her to test positive for a banned substance for which she had no acceptable excuse. She was therefore deemed to have intentionally doped. Everything else is irrelevant twaddle from the doping denier. But I don't expect one with your intellectual limitations to get that.
This is reminescent of the selective half-truths that I often get from "casual obsever", who now posts anonymously. No these are not problems I am ignoring.
1) Not for soy fed pigs -- that factor was in the CAS report, and conceded by the AIU expert Prof. McGlone, but then curiously acknowledged, dismissed, then ignored. In any case, the WADA lab guideline is that "The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis". WADA expects isotope analysis to be unreliable "Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs".
2) Another "AIU expert" deception -- the claim was that nandrolone claim from offal in a pork stomach burrito. Debunking pork meat in isolation or pork stomach in isolation does not address the claim. That would require all the ingredients to be analyzed. IIRC, the AIU expert told us the nandrolone is rich in the kidney, heart, and fat.
3) Maybe in normal times, but the pandemic altered the likelihood in multiple ways. But even for the sake of argument, some intact boars are USDA approved, according to Prof. McGlone, as well as the USDA, based on a sniff test, creating a non-zero risk that some athlete somewhere sometime will test positive. Prof. McGlone also neglected other possibilities like immunocastrated pork, practiced in Oregon, and also impacted by supply shortages and delays, or open range fed pork.
4) ...
His exact quote is not necessarily. Tygart has an opinion about what is generally likely for US athletes, but similarly no direct knowledge of Houlihan's source of the nandrolone. Therefore, I do not realize Tygart "knows" nandrolone was not from pork. No one knows the source as it was not identified with any likelihood.
As no possibility was ruled out by the CAS, still today there remain multiple possible sources of the nandrolone: 1) pork, 2) contaminated supplements, 3) intentional doping with exogenous nandrolone, 4) ....
A comparitive likelihood of all of these possibilities was not performed, so no one can offer any conclusive opinion.
You really have no shame whatsoever. Instead of quoting Tygart (which you obviously cannot), or admitting that you made up that statement, you are now baselessly accusing the Observer (who?) of half-truths (without evidence), the AIU experts (which ones?) of deception (without evidence) and Professor McGlone of neglections (without evidence).
"there remain multiple possible sources" - LOL. Very very wrong. You act like we still haven't seen the CAS report, not to mention any comments of independent experts thereafter. I recommend that actually finally read the report. It is August 2023, for heaven's sake, not May 2021.
It was not the burrito, as judged by CAS, as expertly assessed and explained by Professor Ayotte and Professor Tucker and Professor McGlone and USADA chief Tygart, and it wasn't in the supplement as admitted by the banned doper.
I didn't buy anything, sweetie. I stated facts, something you dislike when it shows you are wrong.
Are you always this cranky in the morning?
You stated no facts, only your ignorant opinion. You are too stupid to realise that when rekrunner makes a claim he is lying or it is simply bs. Houlihan's values weren't "low" when they were sufficient for her to test positive for a banned substance for which she had no acceptable excuse. She was therefore deemed to have intentionally doped. Everything else is irrelevant twaddle from the doping denier. But I don't expect one with your intellectual limitations to get that.
I stated facts. You, being insecure, have to call me ignorant, stupid, intellectually limited. Hahaha
You are an embarrassment. No wonder you can't sleep at night. You feel worthless. And you are 🙄
You really have no shame whatsoever. Instead of quoting Tygart (which you obviously cannot), or admitting that you made up that statement, you are now baselessly accusing the Observer (who?) of half-truths (without evidence), the AIU experts (which ones?) of deception (without evidence) and Professor McGlone of neglections (without evidence).
"there remain multiple possible sources" - LOL. Very very wrong. You act like we still haven't seen the CAS report, not to mention any comments of independent experts thereafter. I recommend that actually finally read the report. It is August 2023, for heaven's sake, not May 2021.
It was not the burrito, as judged by CAS, as expertly assessed and explained by Professor Ayotte and Professor Tucker and Professor McGlone and USADA chief Tygart, and it wasn't in the supplement as admitted by the banned doper.
Yes, there it is - the half-truth trolling I've come to expect from "non-neutral observer". While asking me for evidence, you also say many things, yet without providing evidence. In fact, that is the standard for everyone who replies to me.
Not really sure what your interest is in Tygart's exact quote. The choice is between whether he is an "expert" who talked about supplements being a more likely cause, or whether "No expert before the CAS established any source to be more likely than pork consumption". I'm OK with either outcome, quote or no quote.
But whatever. I can meet the burden you requested, yet hypocritically failed to meet. In "The Running Effect Podcast" interview with Tygart, about 1 hour into it, Tygart talks about supplements. Some transcribed quotes: "You know, I really wonder about supplements, and whether the supplements were the true cause." and "... if it was truly the supplement that caused it, which, which I-I kind of believe that it is ...". This was based on his gut feeling, and not on any evidence. For more quotes, listen to the podcast.
Similarly, I already gave examples of the deception and neglection of both experts Profs. Ayotte and McGlone earlier in the thread.
You act like I haven't seen and read and understood the CAS report. Cute, but ignorant, if not dishonest. After all their analysis, the CAS still says pork was possible, and only ruled that Houlihan failed to prove the source based on the limited incomplete evidence before them.
Most people are confused by the probabilities -- probably even the CAS -- because they are not mathemeticians knowledgeable about statistics and modeling probabilities. You cannot determine probabilities of the various sources of nandrolone with any confidence for the sample size of 1 (Houlihan) by counting all of the pigs across the USA, and telling us what they ate before the pandemic. In any case, the only question about probability before the CAS was not whether the burrito contained nandrolone, and not the probabilities of the likely and unlikely sources of nandrolone, but whether Houlihan proved non-intentional (or the proved the source) on the balance of probability.
After reading the CAS report, the possible sources of nandrolone are not reduced. It can be pork as Houlihan claimed but could not prove; can be contaminated supplements as Tygart kinda believes; or can be oral nandrolone as Prof. Ayotte testified is consistent with the measured values.
No one can say what was the most likely source of the nandrolone, as this question was neither asked nor analyzed -- not the CAS, not Professor Ayotte, not Professor Tucker, not Professor McGlone and also not USADA chief Tygart. They can only speculate without evidence.
You failed to provide Houlihan's exact quote. Here it is: ""We tested all of my vitamins and supplements which all came back negative. Unfortunately, there were a couple that we didn’t have the original batches of because I was notified a month later and those supplements were already consumed," shared Houlihan." Tygart also explains in the same aforementioned podcast, how that is nearly impossible for an athlete to meet the burden without preserving samples to test.
you are drawing false equivalences. the odds of being struck by lightning are indeed low - but there are millions and millions of lightning strikes per year and 9 billion people on the planet. there are plenty of flips of the coin happening all the time - so the total number of people that are struck does become a relatively large number.
now take elite runners being tested for peds and who eat risky burrito's and who get tested just on the right date - the number of flips of this coin is tiny, tiny
to any confidence interval one can reject the hypothesis that this is a high probability event - is it possible - sure - likely, no way.
put differently - every 1000 years one elite runner may be erroneously busted for eating a bad burrito. that is part of the deal. errors will be made. we minimize them as much as we can.
besides, elite runners should be responsible for what they put in their body - who would eat a sketchy burrito as a runner. I probably wouldn't eat pork at all if I was being tested
The AIU didn't "take elite runners being tested ...". They looked at how many pigs there were in America, and how few of them would contain nandrolone. The number of "coin flips" per year then is an estimated 131,563,000 in the USA for 2020. They implied this was representative of the probabilities for one athlete and one burrito. You bring up an interesting measure -- "confidence interval" -- that was not given in the CAS report.
It's one thing to make athletes responsible for what they put in their body, but another to treat them like intentional cheats based on presumptions.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.