But you are wrong -- I drew many conclusions based on the quite limited extent of all of the available evidence.
.
Whaaat? You cannot be serious. Those aren't conclusions, those are all extremely stupid baseless assumptions coming from your wishful imaginations against all the convincing evidence.
This is here from Ross is the right conclusion: "So yes, based on what we see in the Reasoned Decision, it’s a pretty clear case."
Conclusion: stop trolling, and go defend some other doper.
But you are wrong -- I drew many conclusions based on the quite limited extent of all of the available evidence.
Whaaat? You cannot be serious. Those aren't conclusions, those are all extremely stupid baseless assumptions coming from your wishful imaginations against all the convincing evidence.
This is here from Ross is the right conclusion: "So yes, based on what we see in the Reasoned Decision, it’s a pretty clear case."
Conclusion: stop trolling, and go defend some other doper.
I am as serious as the CAS. None of my conclusions are baseless assumptions or wishful imagination, and the little evidence in the case is ambiguous, rather than convincing. My conclusions are clear, and clearly based on the "Reasoned Decision".
The CAS was explicitly clear that their reasoning was based on a set of presumptions that presume the worst by default. In most domains, if you want to establish something, you have the primary burden of making that case. Here, every burden was reversed, presuming the worst and burdening the athlete to make difficult, if not impossible, arguments, with specific and concrete elements, to demonstrate the contrary. No party made the case with evidence that Houlihan intentionally doped with an exogenous doping substance.
With all due respect to Ross, he just expressed his opinion, without making the case.
With all due respect to Ross, he just expressed his opinion, without making the case.
You are 100% wrong with that too. If had read his explanations, you wouldn't be able to make such a ludicrous claim (without laughing out loud).
As a side note, are you really that stupidly arrogant that you think you understand this case better than the AIU and World Athletics and CAS and Tucker?
With all due respect to Ross, he just expressed his opinion, without making the case.
You are 100% wrong with that too. If had read his explanations, you wouldn't be able to make such a ludicrous claim (without laughing out loud).
As a side note, are you really that stupidly arrogant that you think you understand this case better than the AIU and World Athletics and CAS and Tucker?
I think I understand it better than you, and all the others who simply want to follow people based on their titles, rather than developing a genuine understanding of all the relevant issues.
I did read Ross's explanations, and learned virtually nothing I didn't already know. What new facts did Ross bring to support his explanations?
The CAS understands the case, and they explained the significant role of presumptions in both their decision of "doping" and of "intent". In fact, the CAS panel was split in whether doping was correctly reported and charged.
It's not about how well all these people know the case, but what facts they bring to support their arguments and opinions, as well as what desicions were made, versus what conclusions fans are making going far beyond the CAS decisions.
It's an unusual case with strange details. Also, listening to and reading her interviews, it sounds like she was hurt by all this but also tough and kept going.
In general, I'm suspicious of the fastest athletes regardless of skin color because of history, and I've noticed design flaws in the testing policies compared to the scientific papers. I don't know if a clean athlete can compete, especially when there were rumors that EPO was worth 20 to 50 seconds in the 5,000 meters and that any 100 meters under 10.2 is unnatural. It's possible that Houlihan used something else (EPO, testosterone, AICAR) but got wrongfully banned for nandrolone. But just being fast is not a crime and not proof.
In the Issam Asinga case (a black guy), it's bizarre that a sprinter would use something for endurance athletes (GW1516) that is detectable for a long time. I haven't read as much about it, but it kind of sounds like he was in a desperate situation and may have tampered with the product but also Gatorade may have tried to cover up something else.
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
The amount of SYNTHETIC NANDROLONE in her system does not speak to a 1-time doping attempt. Perhaps she did not use super spikes because she already felt she was doping enough and it was her personal conscience cover and rationalization.
While I appreciate a healthy debate, please do not make up fake stuff. A single injection of 150mg of nandrolone spikes at around 400 to 2,300 ng/mL 19-NA in this study and is detectable for 4 to 9 months:
The use of the anabolic androgenic steroid nandrolone and its prohormones is prohibited in sport. A common route of nandrolone administration is intramuscular injections of a nandrolone ester. Here we have investigated the de...
I could add the graph but not sure if this message board allows images.
Houlihans A and B samples were 7.8 and 6.9 ng/mL. She was tested in all 4 quarters of 2020. Negative on Nov 22. Positive on Dec 15. Notified of result on Jan 14. Negative again on Jan 23.
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
The obvious answer is because she was doping with steroids which benefit a muscular endurance runner, versus a natural runner who relies on recoil of Achilles tendon for propulsion. Someone who needs muscular strength to run fast will not respond to carbon plate
That's a good question, metaphorically. Nobody has addressed that. Apparently nandrolone was difficult to detect on cattle farms, but the question is how much she could eat with the change of flavor and reach 7 ng/mL in the test. I think somebody knows the answer or at least has an educated guess.
Nandrolone (NT) is a type of androgen anabolic steroid that is often illegally used in cattle farming, leading to unpredictable harm to human health via the food chain. In this study, a rapid detection method for NT in the sa...
the simplest explanation is that the shoes were too new to be verified faster at that point. I agree with the others saying she would have made the switch by now.
My belief with the nandrolone is she was taking something like regular test that was contaminated by nandrolone.
Interesting theory. Is there any data or anecdotes on that? The forms for microdosing are testosterone suspension and patches. I don't know if the T precursors actually work and their detection times for useful microdoses.
That's a good question, metaphorically. Nobody has addressed that. Apparently nandrolone was difficult to detect on cattle farms, but the question is how much she could eat with the change of flavor and reach 7 ng/mL in the test. I think somebody knows the answer or at least has an educated guess.
Read the Ross Tucker analysis - and more so the longer one he did. It will give some context.
The first issue she had with her tale was that she claimed (as we know) to have been given a burrito that she didn't actually order - an order mix up. Okay, that happens - not often in my experience but it's absolutely plausible. But that's about where the plausibility ends. She goes home and discovers the mistake but eats it anyway but despite it being at this point a mystery meat (because she really couldn't have known what it was) she somehow knows it was Buche, or pig stomach which is what he testimony is.
The first issue is that she/whoever devised the story didn't do their research very well because of all pork offals, the only part of the stomach which is sold for food consumption is the outer part of it which is "metabolically inactive", meaning it has extremely low steroid/androgen levels compared to other edible pork offal.
They also looked back on trials that were done with "contaminated" or high steroid concentration flesh and organs (not even the stomach) which showed that the amount that would need to be ingested to "pass on" such levels of nandrolone to her, would be so large it would honestly quite sickening. There was a German trial done where subjects were eating almost half a kilogram of boar meat and the registered 19-NA levels didn't even approach half of what hers were. Most burritos contain about 5 ounces of meat and that would be a massive burrito. 5 ounces is around 150g. 500g (half a kilo) is 17 ounces.
So you start adding this up. Even if she was given a Buche burrito (which is her testimony she freely bought to the table), and even if it somehow contained a high concentration of steroid (which it scientifically known not to), the basic amount she would have had to ingest would have been wild - at least, at least, twice the amount of meat you would find in even the largest burritos in this country. And in saying that I'm not sure many food truck owners are going out of their ways to be so generous with the most expensive constituent in their offerings and utterly destroy what little profit they make on an $11 burrito. But that's just me.
And that's why she lied. And that's why they deemed this not an acceptable excuse/reason to explain the 5.2/5.8 ng/ml in her piss and that's why she got 4 years.
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.
