A question for Jonathan on his new Houlihan's article

frustrated24 wrote:

Jonathan Gault wrote:

It did cross my mind that this was posted by someone with ties to Houlihan. Of course that is possible. But I suspect that was not the case. Why? Because Shelby herself didn't say anything about it when the Twoggle post first went up. You would think that if she read it right when it was posted (and if it came from someone with a connection to her, you would think that would be the case), she would have put up a tweet/Instagram post about it then. Instead, she didn't post about it until yesterday. My suspicion is she only found out about the Twoggle article after she/someone close to her saw the link from the LRC article and showed it to her. That is the most rational explanation to me.

As for your first question, can you tell me what information, specifically, you're referring to in the Twoggle article? When I read it at the time, my thinking was that this was an individual that listened closely to the defense put forth by Houlihan and investigated how reasonable some of her points where (including that the pharmacokinetics study should have been conducted) and then did some of their own research. The article cites a lot of sources. I think the reason why it addresses the stuff from the CAS decision is because Houlihan's lawyer laid out the case he made fairly clearly in that BTC press conference. He told us what they argued at CAS so it's not a shock to find those same arguments in the CAS decision.

Jonathan and Rojo,

This is most frustrating part and why I’ve lost all faith in you both to be good stewards of the running community.

It’s one thing to present your side and review all of the evidence presenting a summary case but her you allow hypotheticals to buy into why she’s innnocent but won’t give the same amount of leeway to the cas.

This is the most frustrating part. At the very most you want to get her off on a technicaly.

westsouthrunner wrote:

frustrated24 wrote:

Jonathan and Rojo,

This is most frustrating part and why I’ve lost all faith in you both to be good stewards of the running community.

It’s one thing to present your side and review all of the evidence presenting a summary case but her you allow hypotheticals to buy into why she’s innnocent but won’t give the same amount of leeway to the cas.

This is the most frustrating part. At the very most you want to get her off on a technicaly.

What's wrong with wanting CAS's argument to be 100% fullproof rather than who they are banning. Of course the story may sound crazy if it's not likely BUT. Still Possible.

Wanting her to get off on a technicality is ok if their stance all along has been for testing to be fullproof. Especially when other atheletes have gotten off for the same thing.

High hopes wrote:

Jonathan, Rojo, Wejo:

I think I've tried to engage constructively but critically on this thread. I know it hasn't been positive for LRC, but it's because I really like the site and want to believe in its quality (fwiw, one of the reasons I like the site is that you give a damn about runners and records from other countries). I have one more question about your platforming on Twoggle as a source of authority that I hope you can respond to:

Twoggle's post contains a lot of information responding to points made in the full CAS decision. How did he manage to publish this in July? The full decision was only made public a few days ago but somehow Twoggle knew its contents nearly two months ago?

Did it cross your mind that this blog was posted from someone inside the Houlihan camp or instigated by them? It's hard to understand how this information could have been obtained any other way

High hopes wrote:

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.

casual obsever wrote:

twoggle wrote:

In 2021 with the one remedy WADA provided for the published problems with the GC/C/IRMS test,

To be clear: these published problems are only in case of migrating wild boar, which does not apply here:

Shelby: delta 13 C of -19 per mille

Farm pig: delta 13 C of -19 per mille (and their nandrolone)

Shelby's nandrolone: delta 13 C of -23 per mille

commercial nandrolone: delta 13 C of -23.8 per mille

wild boar (in Germany/Estonia): delta 13 C of -19 to -24 per mille

To explain both Shelby's NAs delta 13 C and its (adjusted) concentration of 5.2 - 5.8 ng/ml:

a) doping

or

b) kidneys of wild migrating boar, not stomach of commercial (coincidentally uncastrated) pig in the US as she claimed

As discussed, her excuse wasn't well prepared. She should have come up with a private party with some of her buddies, where they ate wild boar kidney, liver, and testicles. Too late for that now, I suppose.

rekrunner wrote:

High hopes wrote:

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.

You seem to place too much emphasis and reliance on credentials and expertise. Experts are also human, and can be biased, particularly if they’ve invested many years in research on a specific topic. Anyone who is easily dazzled by a techno-babble and multi-colored flowcharts will also be unable to discern of the credential experts are not themselves biased.

If a blog/post/paper is well written, with many external references, quotes, and sound logic behind, it is not necessary to know the name or credentials of the writer, because the piece will stand alone on its own merits, on top of the foundation of the external references and quotes of research and experts in the field.

Alternatively, if it is not well written, it should be easy to come up with contradictory research, quotes, references, and expert opinions.

Keep in mind that Jonathon did not present this as a legal counterpoint to the CAS decision, but specifically in one of the “thoughts” specifically about Houlihan’s position, as having done a good job of explaining what Houlihan’s team was thinking and arguing, to “get a better understanding of why Houlihan’s team feel they got screwed”.

tagmeincoach wrote:

Rekrunner,

For us to even get to this point on the technical issues. Can you first describe how it would get into her system? This is where I’m stuck on still. The cas has laid out a well defined counter point to how unlikely her story explanation would be.

What about a list of all supplements she’s taking. Why did the lie detector test only answer two specific questions. Why wasn’t there testimony from jerry, Nike or any of the other sports med staff she works with? Does Nike do internal testing? Why wasn’t this picked up?

Why are all her character witnesses friends?

Can we take a step back first and I’d love to hear your thoughts or other who think she is clean defend the first part and not just accept that the burrito had boar meat. If we get pass this I’d be happy to debate testing specifics.