shelby houlihan report - lrc journalists - pls chase

pupil3142 wrote:

This is why the report has to be published, to stop BOTH parties spouting nonsense. at the moment it merely allows the NIKE PR machine to bulldose their version as fact and allow the crowds to cry foul over any other version.

^^^ Exactly ^^^

Again, well done, Nike PR/lawyers.

stater of facts wrote:

Personally, I'm not in dire need of a CAS report. She's dirty.

Why do you say that? Do you know anything more than what youve read on these forums?

I don't need the CAS report either.

Shelby's behavior has confirmed her doping.

A famous doper said, "watch her be all defiant up front and then we she doesn't get what she wants, acceptance and silence."

canon wrote:

stater of facts wrote:

Personally, I'm not in dire need of a CAS report. She's dirty.

Why do you say that? Do you know anything more than what youve read on these forums?

I say the same. No need for a CAS report to establish her guilt, noting that the WADA lab, AIU/WA and - after her appeal - CAS in a unanimous verdict found her guilty of intentional (steroid) doping.

What decisive knowledge do you expect to gain from more details?

pupil3142 wrote:

You're all guessing wrote:

Make up any old BS why not?

since you cant identify which bit is wrong, and since much is clearly right, i will assume you are accidentally admitting it is all true. Not a good look for your btc overlords.

i love the bit about her excellent diet, improved over her high school diet. It was her diet got her busted (according to her).

This is why the report has to be published, to stop BOTH parties spouting nonsense. at the moment it merely allows the NIKE PR machine to bulldose their version as fact and allow the crowds to cry foul over any other version.

What are you expecting to be in the report? It will describe the positive test and that her burrito story is not plausible. It won't contain any specuation about involvement by Schumacher or Nike .

Other athletes have blamed a positive test for nandrolone on tainted meat and had their bans upheld. Houlihan's ban is no different.

I don't know about Nike pushing any story defending Houlihan. She is no longer in the news and her career is effectively over.

I think a better explanation will help to shift the narrative to where it always should have been. Not anymore of this, "idkaayyyyy...she COULD be clean!"

BTC is clearly well liked and has a powerful spin machine. They have shifted the thought process behind this BS story so much that we are all questioning if Shelby is some sort of a victim, when we NEVER would have thought the same had it been a Faith Kipyegon or Sifan Hassan or Galen Rupp or Beatrice Chepkoech or Eliud Kipchoge or even Emily Sisson, Molly Seidel or Elle Purrier-St P.

So here are some things to chew on.

Synthetic nandrolone doesn't come from a pig.

The amount of nandrolone found is a small amount but not a "trace" amount.

Again, after 3 years as a mid pack international runner, she became unbeatable and kept getting better and better.

Nike and BTC made everyone afraid to take a drug test, when in reality false positives are rare and can be proven if need be (see Brenda Martinez et al.)

I’m not sure the report can shift the narrative the way you expect …

We can still talk about if her order got mixed up, and the dry carne asado burrito was instead a greasy pork offal burrito, but she simply couldn’t prove it, e.g. because the receipt would show what she ordered, and not the mixup.

We can still talk about whether the “strict liability” leads to a just outcome from accidental ingestion — USADA’s Tygart doesn’t seem to think so, and thinks some reform is necessary.

We can still talk about whether the WADA labs and the CAS made the right decisions.

We can still talk about whether Houlihan is a victim of a system that puts the athlete against the WADA labs, the AIU, and the CAS.

I would say if it happened to “Faith Kipyegon or Sifan Hassan or Galen Rupp or Beatrice Chepkoech or Eliud Kipchoge or even Emily Sisson, Molly Seidel or Elle Purrier-St P. “, I would raise the same question about the justice of rules that treat accidental ingestion from publicly available food the same as taking an explicitly banned drug with the express intent of gaining performance.

I chewed on some of your things and spit a few back out:

- No one is talking about “synthetic nandrolone” or for that matter just any pig; what is relevant is normal nandrolone contained in the edible parts of uncastrated male pigs (boar)

- “small” or “trace” is a false distinction that doesn’t matter

- Every athlete can have a breakthrough year for a number of reasons

- It’s not clear to me if Nike is involved any capacity besides sponsoring BTC

- Brenda Martinez was prosecuted by USADA, and not the AIU — a clear difference. One can imagine that Tygart would have treated the case differently, yet still within the WADA rules.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

What are you expecting to be in the report? It will describe the positive test and that her burrito story is not plausible. It won't contain any specuation about involvement by Schumacher or Nike .

Other athletes have blamed a positive test for nandrolone on tainted meat and had their bans upheld. Houlihan's ban is no different.

I don't know about Nike pushing any story defending Houlihan. She is no longer in the news and her career is effectively over.

These are good questions and points.

Other athletes were prosecuted by USADA, who is not as aggressive as the AIU in cases of what appears to be accidental ingestion.

I also don’t know if Nike is pushing any story here — it seems very popular to want to demonize Nike and pretend they are funding a larger conspiracy.

I would say many “fans” of the sport have already made up their minds and will find what they want in the report.

Some will see it as confirmation of “cheating” — but the CAS only decides if rule violations have occurred, not whether the athlete cheated.

There is a great deal we already know without the report:

- WADA knows that edible pork from uncastrated male pigs can cause nandrolone levels to exceed their limit

- The IOC/WADA limit for women used to be higher (5 ng/ml) until around 2003-2004

- Some kinds of birth control are known to raise nandrolone levels

- Pregnant women naturally produce nandrolone

- Houlihan’s lawyer argued that the WADA lab finding should have been declared an ATF, rather than an AAF, and this should have triggered a different process

- Houlihan’s lawyer argued that the source of the nandrolone must have been a greasy burrito

- Houlihan’s lawyer also confessed they didn’t know what she was given

- It is (allegedly) agreed that the source of nandrolone was not injection

- (It would be stupid to take it orally because) oral nandrolone is mostly filtered out on first pass before getting into the blood, and therefore provides a very limited, short term, effect

- Both parties agreed to skip the initial decision (and any chance of appeal) and go straight to the CAS

- CAS decided, with a majority, that Houlihan’s team failed to argue against the WADA labs findings

- CAS decided, unanimously, that Houlihan’s team did not identify the source of the nandrolone

- WADA defines “intent” differently for these kind of violations (e.g., engaging in risky behavior, or in behavior that should have been known to be risky)

- If an athlete cannot identify the source, it is highly unlikely to succeed in proving no intent

- Proving no intent can reduce or eliminate a sanction, but will still be a guilty verdict (meaning the next one is a second strike)

What I will look for in the report:

- What evidence did Houlihan give to the AIU (GPS details from phone, receipt, etc.)?

- What are the arguments for considering this positive an AAF and not an ATF?

- What are the arguments the CAS considered, and how did they weigh them, when balancing the evidence regarding the “source” of the prohibited substance?

- Did the AIU agree it could not have been due to injection?

On top of that, if would have to be from uncastrated boar, which is highly unlikely.

On top of that, Nike/BTC couldn't find any nandrolone-containing burrito in Portland.

On top of that, the lab said it was synthetic nandrolone, making the whole beef burrito story irrelevant.

Incorrect, see above.

If Tygart would have followed WADA rules, it would have resulted in a 4-year ban because the lab determined the nandrolone to have been synthetic.

Brenda Martinez actually did produce evidence that her pills were contaminated. Wilson is a better comparison, who also didn't prove that her roids were in beef. However, in addition to her luck that the lenient USADA was in charge, USADA just tested her before and she was clean, and she actually had the right receipt, and USADA consulted experts who apparently confirmed that the beef might have been contaminated:

From flotrack:

rekrunner wrote: I would raise the same question about the justice of rules that treat accidental ingestion from publicly available food the same as taking an explicitly banned drug with the express intent of gaining performance.

But the rules do no such thing! Why do you pretend they do?

Points in case:

1) Wilson: USADA believed the roid came from the food - DQ for one race, no ban.

2) Houlihan: CAS didn't believe the roid came from the food - four year ban.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote: I would raise the same question about the justice of rules that treat accidental ingestion from publicly available food the same as taking an explicitly banned drug with the express intent of gaining performance.

But the rules do no such thing! Why do you pretend they do?

Points in case:

1) Wilson: USADA believed the roid came from the food - DQ for one race, no ban.

2) Houlihan: CAS didn't believe the roid came from the food - four year ban.

There is no pretense. Maybe you didn’t understand what I wrote. Or maybe you do understand, but pretend not to.

I write what I do because the rules do not make a distinction between accidental ingestion which cannot be proved, and willful doping with intent to enhance performance. They both get a 4-year ban according to the rules, and they both get called “intentional”.

I wrote about rules, and you didn’t write about rules, but made your point on what USADA and CAS “believed”.

If we consider any other athlete (e.g. hypothetically “Faith Kipyegon or Sifan Hassan or Galen Rupp or Beatrice Chepkoech or Eliud Kipchoge or even Emily Sisson, Molly Seidel or Elle Purrier-St P. ”) in general, unknowingly consuming pork offal, as rare as it may be in the US or Germany, yet may still be present legally in foods sold to the public, like burritos and chorizo, and this athlete is unable to provide evidence that the AIU and CAS or any other ADA or ADO would “believe”, the accidental ingester will be treated the same as an intentional doper, receiving a 4-year ban, because the rules do not make that distinction.

When I speak about justice, it is about whether “strict liability”, and identifying the source “on the balance of probabilities” are the standards that best bring justice.

Tygart believes the WADA rules, in these cases where limits are low, and the probability of ingestion in the food cannot be intellectually ignored, need to be reformed.

The “whole beef burrito story”, or rather, determining the consumption of uncastrated boar meat, is highly relevant, as it impacts both the determination of “synthetic” (sic), as well as whether the result should be considered an ATF (leading to further testing), or an AAF (potentially leading to a ban).

I don’t doubt the availability of uncastrated boar meat may be “highly unlikely”.

But Shelby Houlihan is just one person, and this is just one instance.

There is nothing illegal in farmers not castrating male pigs, and selling the meat.

It is also something of a small movement, i.e. avoiding cruelty to animals, in places like Oregon.

The fact that it can happen, even if the availability of boar meat is “highly unlikely”, means that it could have happened to Shelby, that one time back in December.

“Highly Unlikely” still means eventually it will happen to some athlete somewhere, somewhen, and they get caught.

It is just a question of time and bad luck.

The fact that boar meat is rare may also explain the difficulty of finding it some weeks/months later.

(You say Nike/BTC, but I’m not sure what active role Nike plays, if any, in this story, outside of sponsoring the team, or why that is so important to you.)

You do use the word “synthetic”, so I guess I cannot say “nobody” is talking about “synthetic nandrolone”.

I would expect someone as learned as you to use the same words as the WADA labs: “exogenous” and “endogenous”.

The labs cannot make a determination of “synthetic” (sic) after edible boar meat consumption, so a suggestion of mixing up a “beef burrito” with a “boar offal” burrito remains highly relevant, before any determination of “synthetic” can be made.

Wasn’t this one of the studies floating around: DOI: 10.1002/dta.2958

“… urinary NorA deriving from wild boar meat may be interpreted as “endogenous,” if the boar's diet was C3-based; conversely, it can be identified as “exogenous” if the animal was on a C4-based diet”

The WADA rules would allow interpreting the “positive” as an ATF, leading to further testing, rather than a ban. Someone sympathetic to the injustice of low-level contamination cases, like Tygart, would find ways to help the athlete navigate to an ATF result, or to a “no-fault” verdict, within the WADA rules, while also pushing for reformation of the rules, so such navigation would be automatic.

Yet I have no doubt that the CAS followed the WADA rules — they are lawyers interpreting words to the letter, and making determinations and findings based on the evidence in front of them, within the framework of the WADA code. The question that is ripe for discussion is whether following the WADA rules leads to just outcome in low-level contamination cases where food processing standards can vary widely from country to country.

casual obsever wrote:

canon wrote:

Why do you say that? Do you know anything more than what youve read on these forums?

I say the same. No need for a CAS report to establish her guilt, noting that the WADA lab, AIU/WA and - after her appeal - CAS in a unanimous verdict found her guilty of intentional (steroid) doping.

What decisive knowledge do you expect to gain from more details?

I’d prefer to see all information before I make a decision. Wouldn’t you?

There are innocent men on death row at this very moment.

rojo wrote:

Mods. Do not delete this thread. It was deleted for no good reason and I restored it.

The public health information on Covid from Dr Fauci gets deleted all the time, but the nonsense from quacks stays up. Do the mods want people to die of Covid? Why do the mods keep stuff up that goes directly against what the public health authorities are telling us to do?

Not sure if relating this to "innocent men on death row" is necessary or overly tactful but point taken. I'm not quite sure why the over analysis and over complication of this to be honest. Sure I am interested in a final report and what the key bullet points are the this idea/narrative that "we absolutely need to see this in it's entirety before we REALLY know?" - complete BS.

Look what you tend to find is that, similar to our friend Sha'Carri Richardson, is that concocted stories tend to be palatable on the surface but when you dig deeper into any detail and start putting the facts together, become as palatable as a pork offal burrito (see what I did there?). They work if you let the initial hit of emotion override any further desire to put the equation together and this is no different to almost any story the mainstream media puts out there because Americans are a very emotional bunch and love jumping to a conclusion early then defending their conclusion with blood under the guise of freedom and constitutional rights.

Richardson hedged on the "death of" her mother angle to thwart off logic and deflect away from the issue and by in large it worked. Shelby hedged on the "ate contaminated meat and how can this be the thing that destroys everything I've worked for and wanted to be" angle and to be honest, the reality this has worked and people are still calling for a final report and/or standing beside her on this, shows how effective and how malleable this "market" can be. Let's get back to the story falling apart as soon as you dig even a little below the surface. Facts such as:

- Ordering a burrito different to the one you were given and deciding to eat it anyway. Well sure if I order a chicken and get a pork one and I'm hungry enough I'll probably eat it. Not so sure if I am given offal which tastes f-ing disgusting.

- The amount of "contaminated" offal needed to elicit the amount of nandrolone in her body - approximately 12 ounces of off-cuts. Sure if you believe Shelby ate a burrito the size of a large bag of crisps....

read for yourself here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657496/

- The realities of nandrolone being used as a growth enhancer for pigs (the only way that nandrolone even gets into this equation to begin with). 1) It's outlawed in the United States of America. 2) If you then want to clutch a straw and say "well it could have come from Mexico" - it's virtually inconceivable that in Mexico they would use expensive nandrolone to feed pigs for food purposes and even then, this was right at the height of Covid (1.0) mania which had been going on for at least 8 months and import/export of food into the US was highly regulated.

These are just 3 examples of how if you want to go even marginally below the surface on this the story starts making as much sense as toothpaste sandwich (another doping related joke there for the old-schoolers). I don't need to know the minute ins and outs of this because they are ultimately meaningless and this report will ultimately only focus on amount of nandrolone found which unless it has dropped markedly from the initial amount they found her guilty of, is still the ultimate kicker in all of this. So they will confirm she didn't take anything through a needle - whoopdie-do, what does this mean? At the point of 5 ng/mL of Nandrolone vs the maximumallowable threshold of 2, who really cares if she was bathing in it?

Her easy to debunk story, her jittery and borderline unprepared delivery of it and her behavior now (great point made by the person who said that she will defend like crazy but when she realizes the futility of it, it will be crickets) are more than enough. Now we have this narrative emerging that because we aren't seeing the final report this might mean that there is so funny business going on that might exonerate her? Jesus Christ people.

why didn't Houlihan receive presidential-level attention like Richardson? Biden said he was “really proud of the way she [Richardson] responded”.

why couldn't Nike get this level of attention his way for Houlihan in the months leading up to the Olympic Trials?

terwilliger wrote:

I’d prefer to see all information before I make a decision. Wouldn’t you?

Yes. But all information has been seen by those who made this decision.

Finnished at 344 wrote:

why didn't Houlihan receive presidential-level attention like Richardson? Biden said he was “really proud of the way she [Richardson] responded”.

Richardson admitted to using, Houlihan is still denying it.

Really?

I showed using two examples that the punishment is different when the athlete is found guilty of "accidental ingestion" instead of "taking an explicitly banned drug...".

That the punishment was different is because of the rules of course. For details see article 10 of the current Wada code, as specified in the comment right under 2.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance...):

So yes, the rules do make a difference, specifically a huge difference to the punishment. Points in case are Houlihan and Wilson.

As for the "synthetic nandrolone":

a) That didn't come from me, but from aoenveio.

b) Unfortunately WADA's use of exogenous/endogenous is not consistent with the common scientific definition.

c) To be more clear: the lab determined via the follow-up test as standard procedure in January 2021 that the nandrolone did not come from the digestion of boar (uncastrated or castrated).

He might (source?), I don't. Either way, this is irrelevant in this case because of point c)