Totally agree. She said she was taking vitamins, were supposed to believe a vitamin d pill had astronomical levels of a steroid in it? Sure they asked them “tough questions” but when she gave completely stupid answers, they didn’t call her on it
-
100
-
Come on Jon. Don't you remember that Tucker already explained the 130 ng/ml to you?
Don't spread her propaganda by vaguely talking about organs.... hers was stomach, the 130 came from kidney.
50 -
Marinus wrote:
Come on Jon. Don't you remember that Tucker already explained the 130 ng/ml to you?
Don't spread her propaganda by vaguely talking about organs.... hers was stomach, the 130 came from kidney.
Yes, I remember. Ross wrote the following at the time:
What I did find strange, given what you mention from that study, is that Houlihan would not at least have tried to cast some doubt on the possibility that eating other parts of a pig might cause high levels.
Well it turns out, Houlihan's team did try to cast some doubt. There isn't much data on androgen/19-norsteroid levels in pig stomachs (a point even the AIU expert, McGlone, concedes in the CAS decision). McGlone lays out his logic for why he thinks the levels in pig stomachs are low, however, and the CAS panel accepts it -- in part because there isn't any data counteracting it.
The 130 ng/ml isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, because it's a kidney/heart/liver mix -- not the stomach, like you said. But Houlihan's team is arguing that it has some relevance because it shows that organs contain a much higher concentration than regular meat. If those organs have a much higher concentration, then maybe the stomach -- also an organ, and not regular meat -- might also show higher levels if we had data on it.
You don't need to buy that argument -- the CAS panel certainly didn't seem to lend it much credence -- but that is the one Houlihan's team is making in arguing that the chances of contamination are actually way higher than the AIU claims.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.26 -
Journalism-washing wrote:
Rojo and Gault claim to be “journalists” so they HAD to do a Shelby interview of one way or another,
but they go out of their way time and time again to ask straight up softball questions or softball questions in the guise of “tough questions.”
this wasn’t journalism by LRC, this was “journalism washing.”
It gives LRC the appearance of doing real journalism so that they can say that they’ve been tough on Shelby when we all know they’ve been anything but since day one
and it gives Shelby another chance to spout off her lies as truth
I got an idea... maybe they could have just opened the interview shouting: "ARE YOU A DOPER AND A LIAR? JUST ADMIT IT!!! JUST ADMIT IT!!!"
And her response would be:
"No."
Tough question asked. Tough question answered.
I'd rather actually just hear her make her case. I do think LRC should bring in someone like Ross Tucker for the counterpoint though.
53 -
Jon, I don't see her team arguing that in the CAS report. Neither did Tucker, evidently.
Maybe in the press conference thereafter...
21 -
Marinus wrote:
Jon, I don't see her team arguing that in the CAS report. Neither did Tucker, evidently.
Maybe in the press conference thereafter...
Not everything from the hearing makes it into the reasoned decision that is published. If you listen to our interview, Houlihan claims her team brought up the 130 ng/ml thing in the CAS hearing. She said they pointed out that not all of the people in the study the AIU cited tested positive for low levels of nandrolone after eating boar. Her team thought that was notable. CAS didn't.
37 -
But here you are, reporting the unsubstantiated claim of this doper as fact. And you wonder why posters here get upset about your obvious bias.
91 -
I think the 130ng/mL was actually a mistake in Ayotte's 2006 paper because when I looked at the pair of 2000 papers she referenced, the subjects' values were around 4 to 7.5ng/mL (similar to Houlihan's) unless there's a spike buried in the charts that I could not find.
32 -
facts are facts wrote:
Detective P wrote:
It has to do with the strategic advantage of a shorter detection window. If the testers come knocking, an athlete can dodge up to 2 tests within a 12-month period without consequences, but a 3rd test results in whereabouts failure suspension. If you're glowing for a day or 2 you can disappear and come back, but if you're glowing for 2 or 3 weeks you can easily get suspended for dodging tests.
You can see in the various nandrolone research articles (some mentioned in the CAS report) that the glowing stops within 1/2 - 2 days when ingested, depending on the amount.
But is that enough to do anything physically? Somebody posted in the other long thread a link to a study showing that the prohormones (oral) don't actually work. I'm not sure if they actually convert into nandrolone or bypass that step to produce the same metabolites in urine, but the quantity is very small regardless.
An injection of 150mg is a useful dose and is detectable for about 4 months with some variation. Even a small dose of 5mg looks to be detectable for 1 or 2 months in the main graph of this paper.
Bodybuilders can test in the thousands and tens of thousands of ng/mL 19-NA consistently. The glow is crazy bright. Houlihan reach 5 (adjusted for specific gravity) on a single test. Negative 3 weeks prior and negative again 5 weeks later. Anything below 2 is considered clean.
13 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If she "doesn't know" then there is NOTHING to support it. What anyone else says - such as you - is irrelevant.
Almost there. No one knows, not the AIU, not the CAS, and not the public.
You still can't follow a point. What she "doesn't know" is whether it was tainted supplements. What everyone else knows is that there is no explanation that cuts it for unintentional doping. So she doped.
63 -
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Drone on. Yours is the cowardly way of avoiding saying she met none of the criteria that applies to athletes who are exonerated, and a banned drug in an athlete's system for which they have no adequate excuse can only result in a confirmed violation. That isn't a presumption since anything else remains mere speculation - your tiresome specialty.
She had an adequate excuse, an excuse proven by science, but was unable to prove it.
She could meet several criteria, in principle, if we give the athletes the benefit of the doubt, rather than a set of unfavorable presumptions.
What is your source for 99% then? You still failed to say.
How many fingers do you have on one hand? You still failed to say.
An "adequate excuse" is one that would have been accepted by CAS, you clod, on the balance of probabilities. So there was no "adequate excuse".
So why didn't she meet any of the criteria you gave for exoneration from a positive test? You don't answer. So she was doping.
63 -
Detective P wrote:
I think the 130ng/mL was actually a mistake in Ayotte's 2006 paper because when I looked at the pair of 2000 papers she referenced, the subjects' values were around 4 to 7.5ng/mL (similar to Houlihan's) unless there's a spike buried in the charts that I could not find.
You can download the 2009 Guay (and Ayotte) paper here below. See Table 2. But maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.11 -
facts are facts wrote:
Who said she didn't use testo + HGH + nandro + xyz?
Who said she did?
Who said she didn't eat a small amount of heart, liver, kidneys, salivary glands, testes, and fat?
09 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Almost there. No one knows, not the AIU, not the CAS, and not the public.
You still can't follow a point. What she "doesn't know" is whether it was tainted supplements. What everyone else knows is that there is no explanation that cuts it for unintentional doping. So she doped.
I followed it perfectly. You presume "she doped", but no one knows. If no one knews, then there is NOTHING to support it.
18 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
An "adequate excuse" is one that would have been accepted by CAS, you clod, on the balance of probabilities. So there was no "adequate excuse".
So why didn't she meet any of the criteria you gave for exoneration from a positive test? You don't answer. So she was doping.
You place a great deal of faith in the CAS, but the CAS doesn't really "know" anything -- they expressly presumed things they didn't know. As the CAS doesn't really know, then there is NOTHING to support it.
Who said she doesn't meet any of the criteria? I didn't. In fact I did answer. My answer was "her case could arguably be among "no case to answer", or "exonerated", or, similar to Peter Bol, among the 99% of tests not considered an AAF, because it was an ATF." I agree with the minority dissent of the CAS Panel because the WADA Lab improperly reported the sample as positive, and the AIU failed to meet their burden to establish an ADRV.
06 -
twoggle wrote:
Lloyd Flandis wrote:
You say, "Not a single one of those five items would be necessary to get a positive test from her meal.” , then you say item one had to happen. You keep contradicting yourself/having a conversation with yourself and two other posters who are seemingly also you . You're are either under the influence or english isn't working for you, or both, because it's all gibberish. You and your alter egos are backtracking to the ridiculous series of events that were nearly impossible, and Foolagain just kept on digging... .
She didn't even get beyond the contaminated food theory. now she's throwing the birth control Hail Mary in there, and the "naturally higher levels of nandro" bs in there, even though it was synthetic nandrolone (see Floyd Landis). Also having six months, then asking for 7 days, to do her research with her Big Dollar Flex Lawyer , then acting like she only had 7 days is super dishonest. She, like, doesn't seem very bright, but she did higher the primo lawyer so that can't be an excuse.
I suppose that quoting me ("You say....") and responding to rekrunner is a sly attempt to trick the rekrunner and me to admit we are the same person. The truth is that there are only two people posting to this board: one person posting under 1,500 different usernames and you. :-)
Since you didn't respond to my question, I'm going to assume you meant Item #1 needed to be satisfied in order for "that amount of nandro with that CIR came from the burrito" (to quote the original post that listed those five items.
Item # 1 is
"She must have been given the wrong order."What we know from yearly EFSA tests on cattle are that nandrolone metabolites are sometimes found in cattle urine indicating contamination with nandrolone. So, nandrolone exposure could happen from eating a beef burrito. For example, the following EFSA report from 2021 showed a bovine nandrolone metabolite (epinandrolone) is 3.17 of the samples in PolandThe following EFSA report from 2020 shows non-compliant exposure to nandrolone in the Czech Republic (1.64%) and Norway (2.50%):Here is the EFSA report from 2019 showing nandrolone metabolite non-complaince of 5.38% for Ireland, 6.56% for Norway and 0.64% for the U.K.:Now, there are a couple of problems with this: 1) just because a cow urine sample is contaminated with a nandrolone metabolite doesn't mean there is enough to cause a positive doping test; and 2) this does not tell us exposure in the U.S. We would need a large sampling of cows (e.g., 1,000) in the U.S. to see how the levels and frequency of outliers in the U.S. Even with a current sampling in the U.S., it doesn't tell us whether there were more corners cut during the COVID years.
One final point: It is true that the post I am referring to qualified the five bullet points differently than McGlone at the CAS hearing. The post on this board said that those all five items had to be true to cause a positive test. That is definately not the case for any of the items in my opinion. On the other hand, the "prosecution" witness (McGlone) had eight bullet points and started with the assumption that the issue in question was uncastrated boar. With that assumption, it is true that the food truck order would had to have been mixed up. Most of the rest of McGlone's bullet points are his own speculation as a "prosecution" witness.
no US cases. "but I really went to an Authentic Polish/Norwegian/um...Czech food truck. Yeah that's it!"
60 -
facts are facts wrote:
You sound confused. The boar claim comes from Houlihan, not from McGlone.
Prof. McGlone's testimony is rather confusing, and I think he is the more honest one, at least making concessions.
McGlone's claim was that the intact boar could only be cryptorchid, only to argue that it couldn't be cryptorchid in the USA, and despite the use of immuno-castration (vaccines with temporary effects wearing off sometime shortly after 4-6 weeks of the second injection).
He also claimed the athlete claimed consumption of meat and/or stomach, despite the claim being more general: "offal in a burrito", while conceding that nandrolone can also be found in liver, kidneys, salivary glands, testes, and fat.
He also claimed the cryptorchid could be at most 6 months old, despite several months delay in slaughter during the pandemic.
He also claimed that pigs still ate mostly corn, despite conceding the diets were varied by increasing soy during the pandemic.
He also claimed something about androgens, when the case is about nandrolone.
16 -
Detective P wrote:
I think the 130ng/mL was actually a mistake in Ayotte's 2006 paper because when I looked at the pair of 2000 papers she referenced, the subjects' values were around 4 to 7.5ng/mL (similar to Houlihan's) unless there's a spike buried in the charts that I could not find.
Here's what WADA tells its labs:
"Following consumption of the edible parts of non-castrated male pigs, concentrations of excreted 19-NA in urine are usually in the low ng/mL range (< 10 ng/mL), although higher concentrations have been exceptionally reported [3]"
"[3] Guay C et al. Excretion of norsteroids’ phase II metabolites of different origin in human. Steroids 74: 350-8, 2009."
See Table 2 for for a list of maximum concentrations far exceeding Houlihan's, ranging from 5.4 ng/ml to 130 ng/ml. The data in Table 2 seems to be incomplete as in the text we find for samples sent for GC/C/IRMS analysis, "The amount of norandrosterone contained in these samples ranged from 20 to 140 ng/mL".
Guay reported that kidneys were highly concentrated: "the ingestion of kidneys leads to excreted levels 10–20 times those produced by the consumption of liver and meat respectively".
Note also that the Guay study reports the result from a small sample of 9 volunteers -- these are not necessarily maximum values. Similarly, the other papers use small sample sizes.
Something tells me that the CAS didn't get the whole story, when forming its opinions.
16 -
rekrunner wrote:
Lloyd Flandis wrote:
You say, "Not a single one of those five items would be necessary to get a positive test from her meal.” , then you say item one had to happen. You keep contradicting yourself/having a conversation with yourself and two other posters who are seemingly also you . You're are either under the influence or english isn't working for you, or both, because it's all gibberish. You and your alter egos are backtracking to the ridiculous series of events that were nearly impossible, and Foolagain just kept on digging... .
She didn't even get beyond the contaminated food theory. now she's throwing the birth control Hail Mary in there, and the "naturally higher levels of nandro" bs in there, even though it was synthetic nandrolone (see Floyd Landis). Also having six months, then asking for 7 days, to do her research with her Big Dollar Flex Lawyer , then acting like she only had 7 days is super dishonest. She, like, doesn't seem very bright, but she did higher the primo lawyer so that can't be an excuse.
I only post as "rekrunner", and not as any alter egos.
I did not say "Not a single one of those five items would be necessary to get a positive test from her meal." That was "twoggle".
I also never said "item one had to happen", but that "It could easily happen". "facts are facts", said "has to have ... occurred", which I agreed, but perhaps too hastily now that you push back, because in light of a recent tennis player testing positive from nandrolone from beef, item #1 isn't necessarily required.
Since no one established the source, and no possibility can be ruled out, it is not contradictory to say that the nandrolone could have come from many possible sources, e.g. pork, beef, supplements, precursor, etc.
There was no CAS finding the nandrolone was synthetic. WADA, the AIU and the CAS do not use the term synthetic. WADA also considers -23‰ to be in the "endogenous" range, for both pigs and man. WADA does tell the labs a possible way to establish "The possible Use for doping purposes of 19-norsteroid preparations with a pseudo-endogenous carbon isotopic signature", but this was not done because it was considered optional. In other words, "exogenous" isn't a fact, but was presumed.
Houlihan didn't have six months. In fact, sample collection to CAS verdict took less than 6 months, including the AIU's nearly 3 month delay. Houlihan had asked for a 14 day extension, to Feb. 4th, to submit her response, and the AIU refused, suggesting alternatively they might be allowed to supplement their response later. Apparently Houlihan did get a 3 day extension, as on the 10th day, Jan. 25th, they submitted their response. Note the lab results from the vitamins and supplements, and the purchased burritos, only came back on Feb. 23rd.
You are accusing everyone else of not being so bright, but nothing you say is accurate, and you are drawing your conclusions from your own inaccurate statements.
Her Premier Legal Team, with the top scientific, legal, anti-doping knowledge, requested a hurry up tribunal directly with the CAS., skipping the AIU process (and right to appeal). Foolagain then whined about not having any time to "us", thinking we would get that Railroaded vibe. worked on you
50
1 post was removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.