No wonder this site is a toilet. You get the commenters and site content you deserve (as a website creator) ii guess.
No wonder this site is a toilet. You get the commenters and site content you deserve (as a website creator) ii guess.
I would like to add more questions to Jonathon and Rojo,
Why do you not question why she had it in her system and how it got there. Your argument goes to testing each time. As if you want her to get off on a technicality.
How do you not give the story the same debunking you give the testing?
How do you not question that the drug wasn’t even found at the food truck. With the amount of money Nike spent on this, don’t you think if they had evidence of the drug from the food cart it would have been presented
How do you not dig into the other witness who are teams mates and accept the fact they maybe bias too and possibly taking the same thing
How do you not accept the other experts. Yes the perjury statement isn’t great but it’s not like she’s the only person on the panel
How do you not try to atleast explain how it got into her system. Id be more likely to believe someone tried to effectively knock her out of the competition.
And finally how do you not try to state your own opinion and biases up front. The article clearly states that you believe she is innocent. Say it up front. Don’t present this like it’s a critique of the system and then be one sided. You are better than that.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
High hopes wrote:
You cite Twoggle's blog post in your article as a good source on the ISRM test, advising people to read it. My question is: have you do any background checks at all on Twoggle? Do you know this person's credentials? If so, what are they?
If not, why are you citing it as an expert source? Runners World interviewed a named expert in their analysis.
I am concerned that you are potentially using your platform as a journalist to give credence to someone who lacks any real claim to expertise. I simply don't understand why you would rely on this blog post when there are hundreds of experts - people who are willing to give you their names and credentials - around the world who would gladly answer your questions.
Do you think Houlihan's lawyers would offer up Twoggle as a witness for their case? No. So why is LRC doing so?
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.
Thanks for the reply. You have cited the Twoggle blog post as a source of authority in your piece. You said it helped you understand the facts of the case, but the point is that you have no idea if Twoggle understands any of the information he has posted.
Anyone can write with seeming confidence and authority on a subject but not have any real knowledge of what they are writing about.
I'm surprised that you didn't do anything to see if Twoggle's post passed the sniff test before you cited it as a source of authority. Someone like Ross Tucker (a reader of LRC and a stared fan of your podcast) would likely have responded if you'd asked him to take a look at the post and see if it was legit. Why not drop an email to a credentialed scientist to put some of Twoggle's claims to them and see if they stand up?
Did you even try to contact Twoggle to ascertain his background?
Right now, it looks like you have elevated an anonymous source who is claiming authority solely because it supports your preconceived notion that Houlihan is innocent. That's not journalism, it's advocacy.
I can see two reasons:
1. Hiring an expert costs money
2. If you hire an expert they might not tell you exactly what you want to hear.
High hopes wrote:
Jonathan Gault wrote:
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.
Thanks for the reply. You have cited the Twoggle blog post as a source of authority in your piece. You said it helped you understand the facts of the case, but the point is that you have no idea if Twoggle understands any of the information he has posted.
Anyone can write with seeming confidence and authority on a subject but not have any real knowledge of what they are writing about.
I'm surprised that you didn't do anything to see if Twoggle's post passed the sniff test before you cited it as a source of authority. Someone like Ross Tucker (a reader of LRC and a stared fan of your podcast) would likely have responded if you'd asked him to take a look at the post and see if it was legit. Why not drop an email to a credentialed scientist to put some of Twoggle's claims to them and see if they stand up?
Did you even try to contact Twoggle to ascertain his background?
Right now, it looks like you have elevated an anonymous source who is claiming authority solely because it supports your preconceived notion that Houlihan is innocent. That's not journalism, it's advocacy.
Pretty embarrassing. Ignorant and stupid?
High hopes wrote:it supports your preconceived notion that Houlihan is innocent. That's not journalism, it's advocacy.
That's the central issue. It's transparent he/LRC want Houlihan not to be guilty. The reasoning and writing on the situation is colored by this. The mental gymnastics going on with "so you say there is a chance" is sad. So is the gesticulation to find technicalities to cling on to. Not convinced that's necessarily advocacy though, certainly not competent advocacy in any case. Reeks of fanboyism. The guy went as far as stating "facts are against her but.... I want to believe" (paraphrase) in a previous podcast. Journalism in interested in truth and facts. In this case, facts don't hold much weight and this is anything but journalism.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
I think the fact that, had the lab pursued the pharmacokinetics study, they could no longer immediately rule an adverse analytical finding is important
What is the evidence for that statement? Is that really a fact?
Or do you just mean that a pharmacokinetics study would take more time?
Jonathan Gault wrote:
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).
Not just sensationalized, but also misleading: that article only showed that the delta-13C values depend on the diet of the wild boar (in Germany and Estonia). This does not apply here, because commercial pigs "with largely corn-based diet" were used. Explained in detail in the CAS ruling.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
WADA itself admits the GC/C/IRMS test doesn't always work in its technical documents on nandrolone.
Also misleading. It doesn't always work in cases of wild boars:
WADA wrote:
The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis, since the varying diets of migrating wild boars lead to dissimilar δ13C values which may range between -15 ‰ and -25 ‰ [9].
Steiner Math wrote:
Looks like Gault's BS detector is still not functioning.
+1
casual obsever wrote:
Jonathan Gault wrote:
I think the fact that, had the lab pursued the pharmacokinetics study, they could no longer immediately rule an adverse analytical finding is important
What is the evidence for that statement? Is that really a fact?
Or do you just mean that a pharmacokinetics study would take more time?
I think LRC thinks saying the word “pharmacokinetics” makes them sound smart
casual obsever wrote:
Jonathan Gault wrote:
I think the fact that, had the lab pursued the pharmacokinetics study, they could no longer immediately rule an adverse analytical finding is important
What is the evidence for that statement? Is that really a fact?
Or do you just mean that a pharmacokinetics study would take more time?
Gault is saying the legalities hinge on a pharmacokinetics study.
So what is your knowledge of the subject of how drugs are metabolized?
Another giver of +1 wrote:
Steiner Math wrote:
Looks like Gault's BS detector is still not functioning.
+1
Or maybe it is and yours isn't?
It's very disappointing how much time and energy the proprietors of this site have spent casting doubt on this story.
Letsrun has a huge reach in the running community and is valued as the main forum for athletics discussions (and weirdo covid conspiracies, but I digress)
AT LEAST, if you're going to put doubting articles on the front page on a weekly basis, you should commission or allow articles in favour of Houlihan's ban and discussing why, actually, it's ok to ban an athlete who tested positive. There's just no balance here.
jahangir khan wrote:
It's very disappointing how much time and energy the proprietors of this site have spent casting doubt on this story.
Letsrun has a huge reach in the running community and is valued as the main forum for athletics discussions (and weirdo covid conspiracies, but I digress)
AT LEAST, if you're going to put doubting articles on the front page on a weekly basis, you should commission or allow articles in favour of Houlihan's ban and discussing why, actually, it's ok to ban an athlete who tested positive. There's just no balance here.
So the doping war must escalate to keep everyone in work? Is that the kind of balance we need?
The reason the pharmacokinetics study wasn't done is simple and logical: Doing it is predicated on the nandro being endogenous. Because it was found exogenous, then the process stops there and no pharmacokinetics study is to be done.
It's similar to why you don't try to go for a run if you find your leg's broken.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
High hopes wrote:
You cite Twoggle's blog post in your article as a good source on the ISRM test, advising people to read it. My question is: have you do any background checks at all on Twoggle? Do you know this person's credentials? If so, what are they?
If not, why are you citing it as an expert source? Runners World interviewed a named expert in their analysis.
I am concerned that you are potentially using your platform as a journalist to give credence to someone who lacks any real claim to expertise. I simply don't understand why you would rely on this blog post when there are hundreds of experts - people who are willing to give you their names and credentials - around the world who would gladly answer your questions.
Do you think Houlihan's lawyers would offer up Twoggle as a witness for their case? No. So why is LRC doing so?
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.
so why did you side step several questions including:
1) why didn't you talking to another expert to verify what Twoggle was saying?
2) Why didn't you takes steps to verify who Twoggle is?
3) Why did you 1-source his/her claims?
4) Why not use another source who would go "on the record?"
Jonathan: You’re at risk of ruining your credibility and reputation if you do not retract your reference to an anonymous poster whose credentials are unknown. You cannot claim someone can “elucidate” technical documents if you don’t know anything about their background and qualifications. This is embarrassing. A first-year composition student should know better. And this is independent of the anonymous author’s obvious bias. Do better and fix this. We’ve come to expect a measure of professionalism from you. Live up to that, please.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
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.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
High hopes wrote:
You cite Twoggle's blog post in your article as a good source on the ISRM test, advising people to read it. My question is: have you do any background checks at all on Twoggle? Do you know this person's credentials? If so, what are they?
If not, why are you citing it as an expert source? Runners World interviewed a named expert in their analysis.
I am concerned that you are potentially using your platform as a journalist to give credence to someone who lacks any real claim to expertise. I simply don't understand why you would rely on this blog post when there are hundreds of experts - people who are willing to give you their names and credentials - around the world who would gladly answer your questions.
Do you think Houlihan's lawyers would offer up Twoggle as a witness for their case? No. So why is LRC doing so?
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.
Please have Ross Tucker or some other expert on the podcast who can at least press you three on the facts of the case. I almost had to turn off the podcast on Thursday listening to you Wejo and Rojo just dive into the CAS case and present it as though it's a "50/50" if she is innocent or not. The comment about super spikes from Rojo is just not relevant. Also, I noticed for a couple of weeks on the Pod the Rojo was "talking" to Jerry. Unless an interview was coming out of those "talks" it doesn't really hold great optics for you guys to come off as unbiased reporters.
Again love the content. I want to continue with the support. Again for this specific case, I would like you guys to have someone like Ross Tucker (or another person on). Who could at least press you guys or give some rebuttal.
Gault knows no one will ever hire him after working for LRC, so instead of trying to improve his writing, he’s doing everything he can to model his thinking and writing style after the Brojos
Breakfast In Bed wrote:
The reason the pharmacokinetics study wasn't done is simple and logical: Doing it is predicated on the nandro being endogenous. Because it was found exogenous, then the process stops there and no pharmacokinetics study is to be done.
It's similar to why you don't try to go for a run if you find your leg's broken.
Oh, I thought pharmacokinetics was about analysing exogenous substances? When did the goalposts move?
Was it when Shelby's lawyers started asking awkward questions?