A question for Jonathan on his new Houlihan's article

Bingo

LOL I usually think the criticism LRC gets is unwarranted, but they've taken this one too far. They'll hold onto any thin premise that might excuse Houlihan from her positive test. I doubt they would even entertain the thought she's innocent if it wasn't a Schumacher athlete who got busted.

I notice Twoggle3 has gained a second follower on Twitter. So his followers are now

1. Keith Moulton - Covid vaccine sceptic and someone who thinks we should investigate the benefits of ivermectin for treating Covid

2. Letsrun.com

Keeping wonderful company there, boys

I was skeptical also...until I read the piece. I don't know how anyone could question the author's knowledge of the subject matter, regardless if you agree with his conclusions.

Awsi Dooger wrote:

I was skeptical also...until I read the piece. I don't know how anyone could question the author's knowledge of the subject matter, regardless if you agree with his conclusions.

I guess my problem is that I can write a fairly plausible blog post on how to build a rocket that is capable of space flight. I know a little about engineering and physics so I would use correct terminology, and can even copy out the necessary calculations for take-off instructions.

However, if I ever offer you a flight in my rocket, I'd advise you not to take it as I have genuine expertise in any aspect of space flight.

The point is, it's easy to sound credible to non-experts in an area that requires a high level of technical expertise. You can dazzle with detailed information that you barely understand yourself, you can provide unnecessary detail, and misinterpret results because, hey, your non-expert readers don't know enough to question your analysis.

That's why we rely on credentials. It's why every expert witness called to testify in court begins their testimony with an overview of their education and experience.

What do you know about Twoggle3 other than he had the time and inclination to write a blog post?

*that was meant to say "I have no genuine expertise in any aspect of space flight"

Awsi Dooger wrote:

I was skeptical also...until I read the piece. I don't know how anyone could question the author's knowledge of the subject matter, regardless if you agree with his conclusions.

For starters, Wada's rules do not say that pharmocokinetics must be used in such a case.

Then, Hülsemann's 2020 paper does not have the alleged 40% false positivity rate.

And so on, as discussed here two months ago, and briefly again in the full cas decision thread starting this morning.

Clearly the author is neither neutral nor a scientist. But yes, he read several articles on eating boar.

Looks like Gault's BS detector is still not functioning.

I hope Gault is getting paid by Houlihan, BTC or Nike, because he's definitely lost any objectivity here.

F-ing disgrace, that's what his article is.

totally correct.

i could easily write a peice in my field of engineering that you wouldnt have a hope of understanding. I would just introduce accepted terms without support and use them in my arguments. You wuld be floundering.

But that would be a crass iece of professional irresponsibility. true professionals understand that whilst they have to use the maths / science they also have a responsibility to communicate, not obfuscate.

and that is what consiracy theorists and poor journalists do - they [ick on random elemenets, they emphasise the support for minor details, and weave a nonsensical narrative around it.

professionals dont do that.

cf charpy values, steel, icebergs and the titanic. see - you dont know what a charpy value means - you can look it up on google, but you dont recoginse its relevance. try me.

It seems more relevant to demonstrate expertise than claim it.

Logic and facts of the Twoggle article speak for themselves.

Legal cases clearly show you can find an "expert" to vouch for just about any view - provided you pay them.

Gault won't address this...

but he'll address some immature topic.

Guilty people do not willingly submit to independent testing of their hair. If hair testing were the standard at WADA, all of the dopers would have shaved heads. Hair testing would destroy the anabolic steroid culture in the sport, but it probably would not stand court challenges on privacy issues. Hair testing catches what you ingested or injected months ago. And Houlihan gave up her hair that would have opened up many months of putative steroid abuse.

I think it's fine to question the way the investigation was conducted. It may be that she should be let off on some technicalities. These organizations do a horrible job of dotting i's and crossing t's.

BUT I believe 100% she is guilty.

Is Gault saying she is innocent, or is he just saying the investigation is trash?

When they test PGA Golfers , Curling , Shooting Sports , the Nandro leaves the system faster than a well trained runner . Saw this on Twoggle.

Gault's reliance on Twoggle is all I need to conclude that Gault isn't competent to weigh in on the matter.

I don't know who Twoggle is. I don't recall ever referring to that person as an "expert."

But I did think their article was helpful in helping elucidate some of the WADA Technical Documents. I think the fact that, had the lab pursued the pharmacokinetics study, they could no longer immediately rule an adverse analytical finding is important and I learned that through reading Twoggle's article, so I linked to it. It was a helpful source for me and I thought others interested in the case might want to read it as well.

You'll note that I didn't include Twoggle's claim that the GC/C/IRMS test has a 40% false positive rate because I think that claim was sensationalized (the sample was only five people). But I also think we don't have a ton of evidence about nandrolone levels in urine after pork consumption, period, and WADA itself admits the GC/C/IRMS test doesn't always work in its technical documents on nandrolone.

Why would you rely on some random internet guy named Twoggle to help you understand a TECHNICAL document. Shouldn't you get an EXPERT. lmao.