Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

LIRunerr wrote:

I think the 7th is the smoking gun;

o Seventh, the carbon isotopic signature of the 19-NA detected in the Athlete’s

urine (-23 ‰ ng/mL) is fundamentally inconsistent with the largely corn-based

diet of commercial pigs in the US (-19 ‰ ng/mL).

Also, do they live alone or share house together? if the former, I would assume it is easier to keep things away from your teammates. If living together, where does she hide it? If they knew, do they just look away? Obviously, it affects them if she is a lock to make the team.

Sadly, it does make the whole team questionable.

Sad that actual scientists had to spend time debunking such an outrageous story. It’s insulting.

all BTC clearly using thyroid meds that’s why you see the slenderness. But as that other idiot says thats for ‘health’. Would love to see the baseline levels, the TUEs they all have, and the list of supplements theyre taking regularly.

The pics of SH, freirichs, cranny, centro all show how slim you can get when your body is on thyroid meds. they prob cut 10lbs in a month no problem

Never ever take a burrito from a burrito truck unless it has your name on it. Otherwise double check that it’s yours by asking the person who made it.

I made a deal with the devil

https://townsquare.media/site/675/files/2016/08/Shelby-Houlihan-Patrick-Smith-Getty.jpg?w=630&h=419&q=75

unbelief wrote:

all BTC clearly using thyroid meds that’s why you see the slenderness. But as that other idiot says thats for ‘health’. Would love to see the baseline levels, the TUEs they all have, and the list of supplements theyre taking regularly.

The pics of SH, freirichs, cranny, centro all show how slim you can get when your body is on thyroid meds. they prob cut 10lbs in a month no problem

WADA saw to it that you don’t need a TUE for thyroid medication.

I'm not willing to go down the "everyone at BTC is doping and everything is a grey area" just yet. When NOP allegations came up, they were against Salazar and Rupp. This is just a Shelby thing.

That's not to say I was thrilled with Jerry not knowing what nandrolone was...

But scrutiny is going to come BTC's way, and that is completely fair. For years they were Nike's good guys. Turns out they weren't all that good given Shelby definitely took a substance that was banned at some point.

I do wish we knew the truth...

runhills wrote:

Never ever take a burrito from a burrito truck unless it has your name on it. Otherwise double check that it’s yours by asking the person who made it.

^^^^

This. And if it looks too authentic when you open it, like all chopped up and greasy and stuff, send it back. Because it probably has a enough boar offal in it to power a goddam battalion.

Also, if Frerichs and Houlihan both ordered/ate the same burrito, how is that only Houlihan tested positive? I had assumed that Houlihan's Nike lawyers would get her ban reduced to two years but seeing how ridiculous their argument is I think she'll serve the entire 4 years. Looking back at her career, it appears she started doping in her breakout year of 2018, when she dropped nearly 6 seconds from her 1500 PR. Guilty as charged. Goodbye, doper. Join Regina Jacobs and Mary Slaney in the hall of infamy.

tainted burrito wrote:

I made a deal with the devil

https://townsquare.media/site/675/files/2016/08/Shelby-Houlihan-Patrick-Smith-Getty.jpg?w=630&h=419&q=75

Is this Shelby’s mom?

Les wrote:

Also, if Frerichs and Houlihan both ordered/ate the same burrito, how is that only Houlihan tested positive? I had assumed that Houlihan's Nike lawyers would get her ban reduced to two years but seeing how ridiculous their argument is I think she'll serve the entire 4 years. Looking back at her career, it appears she started doping in her breakout year of 2018, when she dropped nearly 6 seconds from her 1500 PR. Guilty as charged. Goodbye, doper. Join Regina Jacobs and Mary Slaney in the hall of infamy.

I don’t buy the burrito excuse, but Courtney wasn’t tested on this day. Shelby (and potentially Centro?) was tested.

It’s not hard to imagine the other BTC women being freaked out. They don’t necessarily know all the details and could sincerely believe they’d be in the same boat as Shelby had they been tested on the same day.

pavement88 wrote:

I suspect this website will take the following stances:

-It is difficult to prove you didn't do something

-Critical of the process used by CAS

-Find a way to criticize WADA

-Suggest that "we'll never what happened"

-Continue support of Jerry and his runners

-Something more about the shoes

-if we are so worried about small amounts of nandrolone but not doing anything about intersex athletes...etc etc

Again, I think that this is what the brojos will put out.

I personally think BTC operates in the same gray area as NOP did but most people like the personalities of BTC so are in denial.

If I could give a post 1000 likes I would do so. Nailed it.

In no other sport could someone operate the way Jerry S. does with regards to the media yet somehow his evasiveness is seen as "cute" by the majority of track media and not insanely suspicious and something that needs to change.

#JERRYPRESSCONFERENCE

Banned from all sports that are covered by wada ; st least read something that basic prior to posting.

Sorry guys and gals. I've been busy all day and haven't been on her since page 2.

We recorded 3 podcasts today.

Anyway, have people been talking about this :

https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html#Part1

Do we know who wrote that? That to me is mindblowing. If you wrote it, please email me as I want to talk to you. If you read that it's hard to understand why she hasn't been cleared

If you know who wrote it, please let me know.

robert@letsrun.com

Anyways, in the past, we've kind ribbed Jonathan Gault on the podcast for being the Shelby doping apologist but having spent a little time on this tonight, I'm thinking of writing an article about "Why Shelby should be cleared, "ut I haven't even read the the whole decision yet.

I'll now briefly explain why. This is my steam of consciousness on it - without much thought and without reading what you all are saying or event the whole decision. I read half the decision and then learned of that document and was blown away.

Before I write my piece, I'd like have you all try to poke holes in any of the following arguments.

Why Shelby should be cleared.

1) The current WADA rules specifically state that when pork is cited that a pharmacokinetics study must be done to see if the nandrolone is endogenous or exogenous., not the GC/C/IRMS Test which has a 40% fale positive rate. WADA refused to run the test that is in their current rules (but was't in effect at the time). THis is absurd to me. This is like not running a DNA test on semen colleciton of a guy convicted of rape in 1970 simply because the tests weren't required in 1970.

2) Under 2015 Wada rules, Shelby whould be cleared. The δ13C values of 19-NA had to be outside the normal endogenous range of -16‰ to -26‰. In other words, it had to be -27‰ to -34‰ (or lower) and Shelby's was 23 according to Paul Greene.

3) Ayotte committed perjury and in the Lawson case and should have been suspended or sanctioned and yet she wasn't and was heavily involved here.

4) If Shelby wanted to dope with oral nandrolone, it would be easy as hell to do.

i) If Shelby had just been on birth control, she'd be cleared automatically according to the link above.

ii) levels went from 187ng/mL to 16.2ng/mL! Shelby had no missed tests, so if she was on oral nandrolone, why wouldn't she just move her testing window to 11 pm that night?

Here are 2 remaining questions I have.

1) How do you explain the following contradictions in the report as to how unlikely it is for an uncastrated pig to be in the US food supply.

“Prof McGlone estimates that the probability of a cryptorchid actually entering the pork supply chain is far less than 1 in 10,000,” the panel wrote.

Prof McGlone’s expert testimony can be summarized as follows: • Boar meat constitutes only a tiny fraction of the US pork market (0.33%).

Which is it - 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 300?

I forgot what my second question is. It's been a long day.

Update. I just remembered.

2) Can the pharmacokinetics study still be run on a sample now? I think this needs to be done ASAP.

ecoAnPac wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

No. If you look into the original verdict, you can see that she was banned for an intentional anti-doping rule violation. That fits with the normal definition of a cheater.

This +1, pretty clearly delineates from any accidental ingestion arguments.

Sanootage earlier said that "looking at the drug fails the common sense test" with zero justification or further explanation of the point. I assume it's a troll or mod keeping traffic up on the thread. Also has failed to provide any substantive or legitimate basis for their claims of sabotage.

It’s is Deca , nothing to add or needs adding.

Sabotage is a reasonable alternative when nothing else looks reasonable.

Iron Bars wrote:

sanootage wrote:

There is no evidence she cheated.

Such was never put to the test.

What?? Are you serious?

Yes , strict liability catches non cheats .

ecoAnPac wrote:

sanootage wrote:

Was silent on the matter.

Said she had the drug.

man then I wonder how it got there if it wasn't accidental

Sabotage

beyondadoubt wrote:

sanootage wrote:

There is no evidence she cheated.

Such was never put to the test.

No evidence she cheated? Glad you're not a lawyer. Sample A and B came out positive. That would be pretty damning evidence.

Yes of breaking the rules but not cheating.

Intention was never tested as the rules don’t require such.

goontage wrote:

sanootage wrote:

I would answer as below.; hope you find such acceptable method.

Sabotage40

Lying 10

Food as claimed 10

Other contamination 30

Some other possibility we have not yet thought of10

Were you on the O.J. Simpson jury? I thought I recognized you!

If growth or sarms I would say she cheated but not Deca , come on get real.

suspicion in the ignition wrote:

zxcvzxcv wrote:

Very interesting that they are requiring that she prove herself innocent, rather than that they prove her guilty. .

Not really. Imagine the DA's case against you in a murder trial is that they have your blood and footprint at the scene and your only defense is that there theoretically could be someone who has the same physical data. It is in fact possible (1 in a billion). The possibility isn't a defense and you will be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's the key, yes, there is an infinitesimal doubt, but it's not reasonable. And the burden of proof is lower with CAS than in a crime in the U.S.

Yes she broke the rules but that does not mean she is a cheat.