Full Shelby Houlihan Report is Out from CAS

mind blowing how people think she is innocent

Thing is I can understand the Brojo's as they get nice activity through the boards by coming up with weird theories to try make it "interesting"

But your average normal poster still thinking she's innocent is really deluded

Nike, with its infinite resources, hired legal and scientific experts to prepare Houlihan's defense. The AIU brought forward its own world-leading experts, people with scientific credentials and decades of experience in anti-doping. And you're asking us to believe that all of these people - including those hired by Nike/Houlihan - missed something but "Twoggle3", in his shady corner of the internet, has uniquely managed to put together a case that exonerates Houlihan?

Come on...

Awsi Dooger wrote:

I prefer generalities to specifics. That approach trends toward the truth far more often than not: When there is suddenly a known problem with positives and a given source, everything related is going to be exponentially more uncertain and complicated than early research will reveal or experts will prefer. That was the problem I had with the report. There were all these definitive or near-definitive conclusions that cannot be accurate, given immature status of nandrolone related to pork, and the related testing.

This makes no sense. Here are some questions that should help you make your meaning clearer.

1) What do you mean when you say you "prefer generalities to specifics"? Or when you claim that "generalities" "approach towards truth more often than not." Can you give examples of the sort of generalities you prefer?

2) What does it mean to say there is "suddenly a known problem with positives and a given source"? What is the "known problem"? What are the "positives"? The "given source"?

3) "Given immature status of nandrolone related to pork" is sounds impressive, but in English it means nothing -- literally non-sensical.

So, Twoggle3, the great hope for the LRC campaign to exonerate Houlihan, is a guy with 1 follower on Twitter, a guy called Keith Moulton. Twoggle3 only follows 5 people - Shelby, her mom, Molly Huddle, BTC, and... Keith Moulton. What are the odds that Twoggle3 is Keith Moulton? A quick scroll through Keith's timeline reveals he is a Covid vaccine sceptic and supports use of ivermectin. So Twoggle3's only follow/follow-back is a crank with just enough scientific knowledge to use the long words, but not fully understand what they mean. I wouldn't be hanging my hopes on Twoggle3

High hopes wrote:

What are the odds that Twoggle3 is Keith Moulton?

I'd say they are about the same as the odds that Keith Moulton is the LRC posters MoultonK and Twoggle? MoultonK first showed up 2 months ago and ~85% of Twoggle's comments come in the past 4 months, and have to do with covid and Houlihan.

It's all very Shakesperian:

A tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

sanootage wrote:

High hopes wrote:

My god. The report is utterly damning of Houlihan and her defense. It systematically dismantles her case and confirms she is likely to have doped. If the owners of a news website are now willing to subscribe to conspiracy theories in order to exonerate one of their pet athletes, then LRC is lost, it's no better than Infowars

The judgement was silent on intent, was not damning on her only the only reason she could think off when the test result came a month after the test.

Did you note Usada kept out of it and that they have been damning positives from contamination and the near impossibility of proving it.

Will they say anything ?

If evidence of intent were required almost no one would get banned.

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

High hopes wrote:

What are the odds that Twoggle3 is Keith Moulton?

I'd say they are about the same as the odds that Keith Moulton is the LRC posters MoultonK and Twoggle? MoultonK first showed up 2 months ago and ~85% of Twoggle's comments come in the past 4 months, and have to do with covid and Houlihan.

It's all very Shakesperian:

A tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

It would be funny if I didn't think Rojo is right now trying to amplify this. For better or worse, the Brojo's are influential in the running world and what they choose to amplify matters. Here, Rojo has found something that sounds sciencey and fits with his priors, but which he doesn't fully understand himself, so he's buying it without knowing anything at all about the credentials of the person who wrote it. This is how conspiracy theories take hold

Tastes Like Chicken wrote:

High hopes wrote:

What are the odds that Twoggle3 is Keith Moulton?

I'd say they are about the same as the odds that Keith Moulton is the LRC posters MoultonK and Twoggle? MoultonK first showed up 2 months ago and ~85% of Twoggle's comments come in the past 4 months, and have to do with covid and Houlihan.

It's all very Shakesperian:

A tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.

indeed.

moultonk has constructed an elaborate facade of seemingly relevant smoke and mirrors.

as an excercise in how to construct a conspiracy theory / how to tease the details to death, it is an interesting and amusing read.

But to then say it actually provides the basis for an evidencial case is farcical.

as someone said; the science of big numbers and statistics easily proves that the same number will come up four times in a row in a casino.

do you believe you can find that casino and bet on those numbers as they come up?

No.

Perch wrote:

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.

So in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence of what was in her urine sample you're considering what kind of shoes she wore as exculpatory evidence?

+1

thx for the summary

rojo wrote:

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?

0.33% is not 1 in 300. It is 33 in 10,000.

McGlone is saying that boar meat is a small fraction of US pork market (roughly 33 out of 10,000) and that boar meat (uncastrated pigs) does not into production for human consumption. Slaughterhouse could be fined by USDA for using boar meat and slaughterhouses would also fine farmers for delivering boar meat because it can't be used. That makes it unlikely that a boar with obvious big testicles was slaughtered and served at the food truck.

So that brings us to cryptorchids which is a different type of uncastrated pig. Usually uncastrated pigs have big testicles that can easily be seen on inspection. Cryptorchids are pigs with undescended testes so, on inspection, they look like castrated pigs. Once the cryptorchid is slaughtered, the undescended testes are usually found and the meat quarantined/destroyed. So it is possible cryptorchids enter a slaughterhouse but would likely be thrown out once it was apparent the pig was uncastrated.

McGlone is a scientist. He's probably been taught to not throw statistics out without evidence. The prevalence of cryptorchids in 1992 was less than 0.5% and "pig breeding stock companies have selected against

cryptorchidism and used genetic selection to lower androgen levels in market pigs” and that therefore, the rate of cryptorchidism today is “extremely low, approaching zero”;" (page 30). So there is likely an extremely small number of cryptorchids entering the food chain and then it is extremely unlikely that the slaughterhouse would miss the undescended testes and sell the meat instead of condemning it.

He doesn't have hard statistics on all of those things happening in sequence so his most defensible guess is "far less than 1 in 10,000". Not 1 in 10,000. Far less than 1 in 10,000. That makes a difference.

former HSer wrote:

0.33% is not 1 in 300. It is 33 in 10,000.

Whoops, I can't do math this early apparently.

0.33% is 1 in 300 like rojo said. But changing the denominator makes the comparison more confusing.

Rojo - wearing the latest *legal* tech is not cutting corners! Cutting corners is cheating.

This is incredible. Someone is actually found doping and your (completely pointless) crusade about the shoes somehow makes its way into it. Do you think you will change the shoe rules? If not then just accept it.

You actually defend someone found guilty of doping who has now exhausted all options? You're basically suggesting that it's better to dope and not wear the shoes than the other way round! She didn't wear them because she's a track runner and found no real difference in the spikes she was already wearing - maybe she's a non-responder? It was not some pure of spirit decision!

When you go on about the shoes, you're ranting against literally everyone, because everyone is wearing them. Seriously, it's damaging the sport, it was old 2 years ago - give it up!

adlai wrote:

sanootage wrote:

The judgement was silent on intent, was not damning on her only the only reason she could think off when the test result came a month after the test.

Did you note Usada kept out of it and that they have been damning positives from contamination and the near impossibility of proving it.

Will they say anything ?

If evidence of intent were required almost no one would get banned.

This is indeed a problem but not as bad one to solve as you might think.

Drugs that can’t get produced by the body and bio profiles would carry on as before. Those that are in the contamination chain would have to be dealt with as Usada suggests.For contaminated supplements or where a hearing determines no attempt to cheat etc( as they do now) would have a fresh set of burdens and standard of proof.

The Code has evolved over the years and further change would no be too difficult. One wonders if such could be forced on them by high profile multi multi millionaire sports people esp if supported by their “ Union” . I think wada must be pleased pro USA sports are not under wada.

A point that interests me.

Ayotte has been a discredited witness.

She acts as a witness to fact; her lab report.

She then acts as a witness for opinion.

I may well have got all this wrong but how can she be an expert opinion on her own lab testimony?

I have seen this in other cases with the extension into other Wada labs; under the same funding model and accreditation giving expert testimony on their best mates work.

I have also seen world super experts in an analytical field being dismissed as the are not from sports drug laboratories even though they head up the worlds leading university in Carbon Isotobe analysis.

Posting some thoughts here. Rojo, you should know better than to post something here without editing it. It comes off very poorly. On both sides, no one is perfect in the argument. It comes down to Nike providing the best argument for her falling short. The lay evidence by her pals is a lot of hear say and the athlete is responsible for everything put into their body under current rules.

I think the report comes down to that it while it might be probable but unlikely it came from a burrito; so a few options of what could happen:

1) she doped intentionally

2) she/her team take supplements that aid in recovery and it contained it

3) someone introduced it to sabatoge her and jerry and the bower man team.

4) it wasn’t the burrito

Considering all defenses, I’m more shocked they didn’t push number three somewhat more to cover all of the bases. The fact that her evidence was very select and only focusing on the boar meat has me wonder what did they not include.

Some other questions for her team:

- why aren’t samples provided by the food truck to test for it. There is no evidence introduced to show that the meat from the truck actually every contained it. Was it just one unlucky boar if it was true.

- what else does Shelby take for supplements. It was never described or tested. If it were me I’d have everything listed out to show I couldn’t tell how it got in my system.

- cheaters are always and have been proven to be ahead of testing. She I don’t buy the hair sample and direct questioning. Both could have been more extensive.

- the bowerman team is known for pushing CBD and other unregulated products. Who knows what’s really in them. It makes me view them in a harsher light.

- I do believe she believe she’s innocent and can’t explain how it got into her system but again it’s on the athlete now on the current rules

- it doesn’t matter what the rules said in 2015 rojo. The science and things change all the time. It’s the fact that these rules were clearly violated.

At which point in the documentaion did Shelby prove that the rules violation was unintentional?