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 🙄
So more stupid opinions and no facts. There is nothing about you that makes me - or anyone - feel insecure. Intellectually, you are about 5' tall. That doesn't threaten anyone. Except you.
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.
More unreadable drivel that prove the moon landings were in a warehouse in Arizona. And Shelby is "innocent".
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
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.
They are treated as intentional cheats when they cannot show they did not take the drug that was in their system. It's quite simple but obviously beyond you.
They are treated as intentional cheats when they cannot show they did not take the drug that was in their system. It's quite simple but obviously beyond you.
The simplicity is that "intentional cheat" is baseless but for presumption. It's a very weak premise. If we presume otherwise (because we are not athletes subject to WADA), that athletes are innocent of intent until proven guilty, as WADA did before 2015, then it would simply be wrong to treat them as intentional cheats. The difference here hinges on baseless presumption.
Tygart tells us that such a burden placed on the athlete weeks after the fact is nearly impossible, when samples may not have been preserved, and that is why this part of the Code needs to be reformed.
They are treated as intentional cheats when they cannot show they did not take the drug that was in their system. It's quite simple but obviously beyond you.
The simplicity is that "intentional cheat" is baseless but for presumption. It's a very weak premise. If we presume otherwise (because we are not athletes subject to WADA), that athletes are innocent of intent until proven guilty, as WADA did before 2015, then it would simply be wrong to treat them as intentional cheats. The difference here hinges on baseless presumption.
Tygart tells us that such a burden placed on the athlete weeks after the fact is nearly impossible, when samples may not have been preserved, and that is why this part of the Code needs to be reformed.
You stupid ph*q - the "baseless presumption" of intent is that the drug is in their system - like food is found in their stomach. How do you think it gets there? It is entirely reasonable that the athlete need show a cause other than the usual one, that it was something the athlete intentionally ate, drank or injected. Your self-delusion is at the level of a mania.
You stupid ph*q - the "baseless presumption" of intent is that the drug is in their system - like food is found in their stomach. How do you think it gets there? It is entirely reasonable that the athlete need show a cause other than the usual one, that it was something the athlete intentionally ate, drank or injected. Your self-delusion is at the level of a mania.
That is not WADA's definition of "intent". You really should learn how to read.
Any person ever who has ever been found to have this drug in their system, can claim (according to you) - 'it was accidental, it was in a burrito'. and they should be able to get off. no evidence at all - just, 'i ate a burrito - it must have had this'
what wada has said is that excuse is BS - i think they are right. otherwise we might as well get rid of drug testing. this as open and shut case as there is in drugtesting. the only reason it isn't open and shut is that shelby keeps complaining and she is a white attractive female so wapo is able to print a story about her so it gets some press and sympathy
drugs are in their system - they get faster through drugs - there is your motive
if someone is found murdered - they look for a motive - having one matters in a court of law. here there is a motive - get faster - this drug works.
you are not even arguing shelby's case - you are making arguments about the entire process of drug testing - and doing a bad job of it
I'm not looking for a motive. I'm explaining that "intent" is "presumed" by the WADA Code, then was "deemed" by the CAS. It is not an established fact. This is exactly what the CAS explained, so if I'm doing a bad job, simply read the CAS report, and the WADA Code for reference. First read WADA's definition of "intent" in the WADA Code, and then let me know if you find any supporting evidence of "intent" that fits WADA's description, that I may have missed. Armstronglivs cannot.
I am not criticizing "the entire process" -- but just for the small subset of cases involving low amounts of orally ingested banned substances that can be found in USDA (or the equivalent in other countries) approved meat, or other unlikely sources like contaminated substances in prescription medication (but not contamination of supplements which athletes are explicitly advised to avoid), and ingested unknowingly by the athlete without intention to dope.
Using your murder analogy, there are degress ranging from "involuntary manslaughter" to "first degree murder", where intent plays a factor in the sentencing.
Any person ever who has ever been found to have this drug in their system, can claim (according to you) - 'it was accidental, it was in a burrito'. and they should be able to get off. no evidence at all - just, 'i ate a burrito - it must have had this'
what wada has said is that excuse is BS - i think they are right. otherwise we might as well get rid of drug testing. this as open and shut case as there is in drugtesting. the only reason it isn't open and shut is that shelby keeps complaining and she is a white attractive female so wapo is able to print a story about her so it gets some press and sympathy
WADA's TD for nandrolone reads pretty much like that. Pork ingestion is considered "endogenous" by WADA, and the low amounts (less than 10 ng/ml) usually coming from pork would not be a violation. In the footnotes, if an athlete "invokes pork", then the carbon-isotope test cannot be used to determine the origin (exogenous or endogenous). I would say the TD needs to be cleaned up as the CAS panelists were split 2-1 that the WADA Labs reported the violation correctly, according to their guidelines.
While the majority ruled otherwise, I am in agreement with the dissenting CAS panelist that the WADA Lab, the AIU, and the CAS majority made the wrong call.
But the athlete would not "get off" for higher amounts, nor even for "invoking pork". Before 2015, the athlete would have gotten two years for unintentional and unknowing presense/use. Tygart and athletes seemed to be OK with that. WADA's TD foresees reporting this as an AAF, because there would be doubt as to whether the source was exogenous or endogenous. This does not mean that the athlete "gets off", but rather it would be an acknowledgement of the doubt that exists, and the athlete might then be subjected to more frequent target testing, in order to establish a pattern, and collect more data, and reduce the doubt.
You stupid ph*q - the "baseless presumption" of intent is that the drug is in their system - like food is found in their stomach. How do you think it gets there? It is entirely reasonable that the athlete need show a cause other than the usual one, that it was something the athlete intentionally ate, drank or injected. Your self-delusion is at the level of a mania.
That is not WADA's definition of "intent". You really should learn how to read.
The WADA definition below.
"As used in Article 10.2, the term “intentional”
is meant to identify those Athletes or other
Persons who engage in conduct which they knew
constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew
that there was a significant risk that the conduct
might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule
violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.59"
__________
So "intent" means "intentional" after all, which in plain English means the athlete knew they were doping or taking that risk.
You don't understand the English language let alone how it is applied by WADA.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
that there was a significant risk that the conduct
might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule
violation and manifestly disregarded that risk.59"
__________
So "intent" means "intentional" after all, which in plain English means the athlete knew they were doping or taking that risk.
You don't understand the English language let alone how it is applied by WADA.
Now go back and read your previous posts and compare them side by side. Your meaning and WADA's meaning don't match with each other.
An important element is that the athlete "knew" they were committing an ADRV, or "knew" they were risking a possible ADRV and ignored that risk. For example, intentionally eating a greasy burrito wouldn't reasonably match that definition, but could potentially put nandrolone in the burrito eater's system. WADA goes out of their way to explicitly account for that possibility in their TD.
Looking again at your answers, "the drug is in their system", "it was something the athlete intentionally ate", their is no mention of the athlete's "knowledge" of committing, or risking committing, a rule violation and ignoring the risk.
Same result with the AIU and their experts' arguments and the CAS findings -- there was no such conduct identifed where the athlete "knew" they were committing an ADRV, or manifestly ignoring the risk that a potential ADRV could be committed.
Intent is presumed, and was deemed by the CAS, not established as a fact, or as a finding of fact, by any party at any time. It is a baseless presumption that railroads athletes to 4-year bans, who did not know they were at risk of committing an ADRV.
WADA's TD for nandrolone reads pretty much like that. Pork ingestion is considered "endogenous" by WADA, and the low amounts (less than 10 ng/ml) usually coming from pork would not be a violation. In the footnotes, if an athlete "invokes pork", then the carbon-isotope test cannot be used to determine the origin (exogenous or endogenous). I would say the TD needs to be cleaned up as the CAS panelists were split 2-1 that the WADA Labs reported the violation correctly, according to their guidelines.
Incorrect. The TD does not say that "the carbon-isotope test cannot be used to determine the origin". Inform yourself better. Then read Professor Tucker's explanations, for example:
Not in the analytical results, no. The concentration in her urine wasn’t ridiculously high, but it needn’t be (there’s a published paper that explains how the level of 19-NA is not a good way to evaluate doping vs contamination). It was almost three times higher than the highest levels measured in those two studies where people ate much larger pork meals. More tellingly, the isotope signature didn’t meet the requirements for an “ambiguous case” that might require further testing. The WADA Technical Document sets up the criteria to rule on a sample being an Adverse Finding, and Houlihan’s meets that, pretty clearly. Her 19-NA looks quite different from her other endogenous (self-produced) steroids and also from the 19-NA that would be expected from boar parts. If it was only the concentration, or only the isotope signature, I think one could probe for a weakness. But taken together, that science looks pretty watertight.
That was one of the slight of hand deceptions from the scientific experts whom the CAS relied on and sided with. For some reason, these experts made a statement about pork meat, rather than nandrolone-rich pork offal.
More lies from you. The experts talked about pork meat because the receipt introduced by Houlihan (the Respondent) to CAS was about stomach, apparently outer stomach muscle.
Inform yourself. See CAS for example:
The Respondent did convincingly establish that the pork stomach meat from the food truck in December 2020 was from a frozen batch that had been purchased in September 2020
And Professor Tucker:
Importantly, Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pig stomach (see points 40 and 99). McGlone explains that the only part of the stomach that is sold to the food industry is the outer stomach, which is metabolically inactive and has a very low steroid concentration compared to the whole stomach. This comes up again in point 114, which is the CAS panel finding and which says that McGlone’s evidence is not disputed, and that pork stomach does contain one of the lowest androgen levels of any organ.
WADA's TD for nandrolone reads pretty much like that. Pork ingestion is considered "endogenous" by WADA, and the low amounts (less than 10 ng/ml) usually coming from pork would not be a violation. In the footnotes, if an athlete "invokes pork", then the carbon-isotope test cannot be used to determine the origin (exogenous or endogenous). I would say the TD needs to be cleaned up as the CAS panelists were split 2-1 that the WADA Labs reported the violation correctly, according to their guidelines.
Incorrect. The TD does not say that "the carbon-isotope test cannot be used to determine the origin". Inform yourself better. Then read Professor Tucker's explanations, for example:
Not in the analytical results, no. The concentration in her urine wasn’t ridiculously high, but it needn’t be (there’s a published paper that explains how the level of 19-NA is not a good way to evaluate doping vs contamination). It was almost three times higher than the highest levels measured in those two studies where people ate much larger pork meals. More tellingly, the isotope signature didn’t meet the requirements for an “ambiguous case” that might require further testing. The WADA Technical Document sets up the criteria to rule on a sample being an Adverse Finding, and Houlihan’s meets that, pretty clearly. Her 19-NA looks quite different from her other endogenous (self-produced) steroids and also from the 19-NA that would be expected from boar parts. If it was only the concentration, or only the isotope signature, I think one could probe for a weakness. But taken together, that science looks pretty watertight.
Unfortunately Tucker just transcribed some of what the CAS was told by WADA witnesses. Below is a snip of urine levels of nandrolone metabolites from a study that WADA cites in their technical document. You can see that one subject had 130ng/ml of 19-NA. That is 25 times what Houlihan had. The rest of the “watertight” testing has shown a 40% false positive rate in one study and a 12.5% false positive rate in another study as I posted earlier. I will post more on the issues with WADA testing in this area.
Unfortunately Tucker just transcribed some of what the CAS was told by WADA witnesses.
For crying out loud - again? The whole discussion is based on the receipt for the stomach meat from that Iowa plant. There was no other receipt. They also hired a PI and analyzed the burritos, and found neither nandrolone nor liver nor testicles.
You can neither blame CAS nor WADA nor AIU for that. Further neither Shelby nor her experienced lawyer Greene nor anyone else but rekrunner ever claimed the burrito contained testicles or liver, not then, not now, not in front of the Supreme Court, not ever. It should also tell you a lot that Prof. McGlone's statements remained uncontested.
Consider another good point that Prof. Tucker, among others here, has brought up: Shelby could not find a single pork expert that would argue in her favor, whether about the chance of uncastrated boar during the pandemic or the chance of liver in stomach meat etc. Also quite telling.
And Tygart, in the podcast that rekrunner to his credit referenced, stated very clearly that CAS did nothing wrong and that AIU did nothing wrong (that is all solely in rekrunner's baseless phantasies/smear campaign, don't fall for it):
The Athletics Integrity Unit that handled it did exactly what they were supposed to do under the rules
The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence
The most plausible "Shelby didn't cheat" conspiracy theory is that her and Colleen Quigley had some issues between each other. Quigley out of spite put some nandrolone in Shelby's food knowing it would trigger a positive. When Shelby tested positive Quigley ran away from the problem by quitting the team. Quigley has felt guilty ever since and hasn't been able to compete or run much because of the overwhelming guilt. She also can't come clean because then she would be in prison. Shelby has no clue how she tested positive but had to come up with something for the committee and the burrito story was the only possible thing she could think of.
Unfortunately Tucker just transcribed some of what the CAS was told by WADA witnesses.
For crying out loud - again? The whole discussion is based on the receipt for the stomach meat from that Iowa plant. There was no other receipt. They also hired a PI and analyzed the burritos, and found neither nandrolone nor liver nor testicles.
You can neither blame CAS nor WADA nor AIU for that. Further neither Shelby nor her experienced lawyer Greene nor anyone else but rekrunner ever claimed the burrito contained testicles or liver, not then, not now, not in front of the Supreme Court, not ever. It should also tell you a lot that Prof. McGlone's statements remained uncontested.
Consider another good point that Prof. Tucker, among others here, has brought up: Shelby could not find a single pork expert that would argue in her favor, whether about the chance of uncastrated boar during the pandemic or the chance of liver in stomach meat etc. Also quite telling.
And Tygart, in the podcast that rekrunner to his credit referenced, stated very clearly that CAS did nothing wrong and that AIU did nothing wrong (that is all solely in rekrunner's baseless phantasies/smear campaign, don't fall for it):
The Athletics Integrity Unit that handled it did exactly what they were supposed to do under the rules
The CAS decision I think in the Houlihan case does a really good job of analyzing the facts and the data and the evidence
Tucker believed WADA witnesses when he thought that no research showed urine 19-NA above 2 ng/ml from pork ingestion. Had he read WADA’s own cited research he would have seen 130 ng/ml with pig offal and 2.4 ng/ml for pork meat without any organs. It’s a problem when automatically believing WADA witnesses (especially in this case with proven history of false testimony).
Houlihan’s team can’t be expected to find nandrolone in burritos from different pigs weeks after the original purchase. Houlihan’s team brought a number of scientific experts. They didn’t bring an expert in pig feed clearly because that issue isn’t spelled out in the WADA Technical Document. Tucker is just speculating that they “couldn’t find” a pig expert to testify for them.
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.
