Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

jock jams wrote:

I cannot begin to imagine how embarrassing it must be to get caught cheating, make up a 1/10,000 billsh1t story then have to endure a 44 page scientific breakdown of how BS you story was, which is then made publicly available.

I'd much rather just say - you know what, I was cheating. It was wrong, I regret it but given the chance I would do it again.

Several other athletes have made similar claims so the there is nothing surprising about Houlihan doing the same. They had the receipt so they threw the hail mary knowing there was a minimal chance of winning the appeal. There was nothing to lose so that's what did.

100% of the story was the results of the test and the ban; whether she appealed it or not is irrelevant

you don't say wrote:

And there you have it:

"Sixth, the concentration of 19-NA in the Athlete’s urine was 2-3 times higher

than the highest values reported in the scientific literature after the ingestion of

much more significant quantities of meat of mature (uncastrated) boar"

And this is on top of everything else.

Shame on all of those in BTC that defended her.

+1

Let's see how many previous defenders of this drug cheat now have the honesty to admit that they were wrong, here and from BTC...

Drug cheats out!

you don't say wrote:

Rememberer wrote:

GUILTY!

Also it looks like French's was in on the same stuff and tried to help with the BS story.

I'm torn by the vigorous defense of her peers. I would like to believe that they are sincere, otherwise this a wider conspiracy. Frerichs' though is the one I doubt the most, it just seems like she's trying too hard.

The facts speak for themselves to me, especially the fact that it's the wrong type of nandrolone to occur in pigs and that she would have eaten pig stomach, not pig kidneys, even if she did get the wrong order at the food truck.

BUT I agree with you that the defense by her peers is sincere. That just leads me to believe that she truly fooled them all into thinking that her success was only based on hard work and they bought it. I have to imagine they're devastated by this. I would be if it was my teammate and friend.

This is pretty damning:

"The concentration of 19-NA measured at 7.8 ng/mL in the B-Sample (and

estimated at 6.9 ng/mL from the initial testing procedure of the A-Sample) is

not consistent with the ingestion of uncastrated pig meat, more than twice

exceeding the highest amount reported in literature following the ingestion of

much larger amounts of meat. "

I'm only halfway through it. I got to admit the fact that she refused to wear the carbon shoes really makes me believe she is much more likely to be guilty than if she did wear them.

This was a typo by rojo. He meant to say much less likely.

It logically makes zero sense that you'd dope with drugs but not wear the shoes. Unless it's a super elaborate humble-brag type of coverrup. Yes I know this type of stories shouldn't impact the evidence but I'm just telling you my thoughts.

Why in the hell if you are looking to cut corners wouldn't you wear the Carbon Plates?

Again, I'm only halfway through it but it looks like she had a former lab employee testify on her behalf.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

jock jams wrote:

I cannot begin to imagine how embarrassing it must be to get caught cheating, make up a 1/10,000 billsh1t story then have to endure a 44 page scientific breakdown of how BS you story was, which is then made publicly available.

I'd much rather just say - you know what, I was cheating. It was wrong, I regret it but given the chance I would do it again.

Several other athletes have made similar claims so the there is nothing surprising about Houlihan doing the same. They had the receipt so they threw the hail mary knowing there was a minimal chance of winning the appeal. There was nothing to lose so that's what did.

100% of the story was the results of the test and the ban; whether she appealed it or not is irrelevant

Not really a hail mary. US athletes are used to giving this sort of excuse and USADA goes along with the BS. But AIU is not in the business of protecting American athletes.

Yes, hahahaha, and of course they pretended it to be only 5 ng/ml, not 7 or 8 ng/ml.

I could be getting my facts wrong, but didn't Shelby and her team say that the sample she gave in January (the B sample) didn't have nandrolone detected? But clearly if you look at the report they explicitly say:

"On 15 January 2021, the Athlete exercised her right to the analysis of her B-Sample. On

27 January 2021, the findings of the A-Sample were confirmed."

Which would imply that she tested positive for nandrolone twice. How embarrassing for her team and her to blatantly lie if so. Really puts all of BTC in question here.

rojo wrote:

I'm only halfway through it. I got to admit the fact that she refused to wear the carbon shoes really makes me believe she is much m ore likely to be guilty than if she did wear them.

It logically makes zero sense that you'd dope with drugs but not wear the shoes. Unless it's a super elaborate humble-brag type of coverrup. Yes I know this type of stories shouldn't impact the evidence but I'm just telling you my thoughts.

Why in the hell if you are looking to cut corners wouldn't you wear the Carbon Plates?

Again, I'm only halfway through it but it looks like she had a former lab employee testify on her behalf.

Get a grip. You're embarrassing yourself. She cheated.

My position is that the evidence is (and has been) strong. There is still some possibility that she did not knowingly ingest it and just went the most plausible defense.

If she is innocent (seems unlikely) maybe just an "I don't know how" would have been better than a burrito story full of holes.

The b sample is from the same collection. It is just tested at different time.

that is extremely embarrassing. if this were an Ethiopian or Kenyan athlete we would not be giving even 1/10 the grace we have given Houlihan.

confounder wrote:

flyingfrog wrote:

Cliff notes please

You’re too lazy to read a measly 44 pages?

My limit is 40 pages.

rojo wrote:

I'm only halfway through it. I got to admit the fact that she refused to wear the carbon shoes really makes me believe she is much m ore likely to be guilty than if she did wear them.

It logically makes zero sense that you'd dope with drugs but not wear the shoes. Unless it's a super elaborate humble-brag type of coverrup. Yes I know this type of stories shouldn't impact the evidence but I'm just telling you my thoughts.

Why in the hell if you are looking to cut corners wouldn't you wear the Carbon Plates?

Again, I'm only halfway through it but it looks like she had a former lab employee testify on her behalf.

Interesting. So what do you think was her reason for not wearing the shoes? Are you saying that since she was doping and it worked, had she doped plus worn the shoes it would have been too obvious that something was up because she would have run an even more ridiculous time?

rojo wrote:

I'm only halfway through it. I got to admit the fact that she refused to wear the carbon shoes really makes me believe she is much m ore likely to be guilty than if she did wear them.

It logically makes zero sense that you'd dope with drugs but not wear the shoes. Unless it's a super elaborate humble-brag type of coverrup. Yes I know this type of stories shouldn't impact the evidence but I'm just telling you my thoughts.

Why in the hell if you are looking to cut corners wouldn't you wear the Carbon Plates?

Again, I'm only halfway through it but it looks like she had a former lab employee testify on her behalf.

Do you mean less likely? I don't know how anyone reads this report and thinks she is not guilty, unless you believe her samples were tampered with (which she doesn't even suggest). Honestly, her defense was pretty weak (it could have been the pork offal!) and they didn't contest the actual findings of the lab, just what the result for her should be.

Rojo's comment. I meant much less likely.

Rememberer wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Several other athletes have made similar claims so the there is nothing surprising about Houlihan doing the same. They had the receipt so they threw the hail mary knowing there was a minimal chance of winning the appeal. There was nothing to lose so that's what did.

100% of the story was the results of the test and the ban; whether she appealed it or not is irrelevant

Not really a hail mary. US athletes are used to giving this sort of excuse and USADA goes along with the BS. But AIU is not in the business of protecting American athletes.

Really? Who had similar test results to Shelby's that got off the hook? There was one guy that did but he was staying in Mexico at the time so his claim of tainted meat was far more plausible.

If you're saying these free passes are happening behind the scenes, you can't prove that.

800 critic3 wrote:

My position is that the evidence is (and has been) strong. There is still some possibility that she did not knowingly ingest it and just went the most plausible defense.

If she is innocent (seems unlikely) maybe just an "I don't know how" would have been better than a burrito story full of holes.

Maybe more informed on these things can answer this for me. Realistically - is it at all plausible to ingest this level of nandrolone accidentally? I'm very skeptical.

casual obsever wrote:

you don't say wrote:

And there you have it:

"Sixth, the concentration of 19-NA in the Athlete’s urine was 2-3 times higher

than the highest values reported in the scientific literature after the ingestion of

much more significant quantities of meat of mature (uncastrated) boar"

And this is on top of everything else.

Shame on all of those in BTC that defended her.

+1

Let's see how many previous defenders of this drug cheat now have the honesty to admit that they were wrong, here and from BTC...

Drug cheats out!

Not gonna happen. Her teammates are brainwashed. Shelby will tell the truth someday!

i think that's what he's getting at but you have to read it like 3 times to figure that out. ivy league writing skills, folks