https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html#Part1
Methodical demolition of the doping accusations against Shelby and the approach taken by CAS. Thoughts?
Methodical demolition of the doping accusations against Shelby and the approach taken by CAS. Thoughts?
Yes, everyone here has thoughts. And they are posted in a 400-post (and rapidly growing) thread right here:
start reading wrote:
Yes, everyone here has thoughts. And they are posted in a 400-post (and rapidly growing) thread right here:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10829287
You didn’t even read the OP’s link, did you? Be honest.
This post was removed.
At first, I thought she was for sure guilty. But after reading David Epstein’s article, I changed mind (he is a very respected journalist).
I also believe CAS got it wrong.
What makes it clear she is guilty is the super-ridiculous quasi-racist defense she put forth. I don't know how it happened would have been a more plausible defense, and one consistent with innocence. The burrito line is one only a guilty, guilty party comes up with.
sepreh wrote:
What makes it clear she is guilty is the super-ridiculous quasi-racist defense she put forth. I don't know how it happened would have been a more plausible defense, and one consistent with innocence. The burrito line is one only a guilty, guilty party comes up with.
Ok. That's what YOUO believe. You don't 'know' that, you just believe it.
Bottom line: There are problems with the way CAS and the AIU are conducting their affairs. the first being that upon the finding, the athlete is automatically assumed as guilty and then the athlete has to have the burden of proving their innocence. I know that CAS isn't American law, but it should be that an accuser has the burden of proving guilt. that means, especially in this case, that they should do everything possible to strip away viable innocence. That wasn't done here, because they don't HAVE to. They SHOULD have, but it wasn't required, so they didn't. This is not fair to the athlete for a number of reasons. 1st: Assume the athlete is innocent... their reputation is now destroyed. 2nd: The athlete's livelihood is now destroyed. 3rd: Their sponsors potentially have a claim against them and the athlete likely loses their financial support as well. this is a huge burden IF THE ATHLETE IS INNOCENT. Again, in this case, all avenues should be run down to show SH was not correct. CAS didn't do that. They have the privilege of sitting on high in a place of assumed superiority and can pass judgment with impunity. that is fundamentally wrong at best.
All of this does not mean Shelby ISN'T guilty. It means that the process is flawed and one-sided. It should not be that way.
I greatly enjoyed reading the report by Twoggle3.
That being said, I've been trying to find out who wrote it as I have a few questions. If the person really wants to help Shelby, they need to go public. Hell, just email me anonymously. I can keep things off the record.
CAS proved she had a non-naturally-occurring substance in her system, and then proved it couldn't have gotten there in the only legitimate way Shelby could think of. What more could they have done?
Interesting article at least for the parts I could understand. It is very technical in other places.
What is the David Epstein article? I am assuming this one is not his writing.
The women in the lab is a know liar . And still working …. This will be point 1 in the appeal.
rojo wrote:
I greatly enjoyed reading the report by Twoggle3.
That being said, I've been trying to find out who wrote it as I have a few questions. If the person really wants to help Shelby, they need to go public. Hell, just email me anonymously. I can keep things off the record.
robert@letsrun.com
99.9 % chance it is her legal team. The full CAS report and the twoggle3 release were timed . 99% after the long weekend another post will come out with the history of the liar women that works at the lab . PR news cycles are usually midweek and never released on weekends .
rojo wrote:
I greatly enjoyed reading the report by Twoggle3.
That being said, I've been trying to find out who wrote it as I have a few questions. If the person really wants to help Shelby, they need to go public. Hell, just email me anonymously. I can keep things off the record.
robert@letsrun.com
Either her legal team or her Dad.
Another thread that shows Letsrun will give currency to every stupid alternative theory going. "Shelby is innocent" is up there with "voter fraud" and "Covid is just the flu" - and is just as vacuous. Like those who believe it.
Thanks for saying this. What most of Shelby's defenders are failing to grasp is that CAS has proven conclusively that she ingested an illegal substance. Whether she did it accidentally or intentionally is not CAS's responsibility to prove. The burden to prove accidental ingestion falls on the athlete and her team and they failed to do that. It's very likely she ingested while taking another supplement but that's not the defense they submitted to CAS. They claimed it was a beef burrito and CAS rebutted with solid evidence that defense was highly improbable if not impossible. The bottom line of any defense process is not innocence or guilt but to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Her team did not do that.
griles17 wrote:
Methodical demolition of the doping accusations against Shelby and the approach taken by CAS. Thoughts?
There are several problems with that:
"Fact #1: One of the tests that the laboratory used has a 40% false positive rate!"
False. No false positivity rate whatsoever; no one tested positive for nandrolone who shouldn't have. Fact: 2 of the 5 participants showed high delta-13C values after eating (German or Estonian) wild boar because of their diet. This does not apply here, with the meat being from commercial pigs "with largely corn-based diet" (see CAS report).
"There is no question that once the Houlihan legal team invoked the WADA clause on January 19, 2021 that the nandrolone came from pork consumption, the GC/C/IRMS test should not have been performed on the B sample. Instead, the analysis should have focused on the "pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion."
Incorrect, see CAS decision. That was very much a question, and ultimately it was ruled that the lab used the correct procedures.
Plus, the (optional!, note the "may be") pharmacokinetics tests are only meant to differentiate between ingestion and injection, not between e.g. boar and Deca:
Wada: "Therefore, if the consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete as the unlikely origin of a 19-NA finding, this may be established based on the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion [3, 5, 16-18]. Profiles of 19-NA and 19-NE excretion following oral ingestion will have a different time course than following an injection of 19-norsteroids."
"AIU should realize that they are damaging the reputation of anti-doping organizations by ignoring WADA guidance, despite a 2-1 victory at the CAS hearing."
Incorrect, WADA guidance wasn't ignored, see CAS decision. It was ruled that the lab followed WADA guidance.
"This 2008 research showed in Table 2 that ingesting 300 grams (10.6 ounces) of uncastrated pig organ meat could lead to as much as 130ng/mL of 19-NA in the urine: more than 25 times higher than the 5ng/mL."
While correct, this is misleading: the food truck in question serves boar stomach as boar offal, not kidney etc. as in that Table 2.
"In Table 2, there are measurements of 19-NA levels in urine after ingesting uncastrated pig meat (not the organs). You can see that it is not only the organ meat ingestion that can lead to reliatvely high levels of 19-NA measured in the urine and potentially cause a drug test fail."
Misleading at best. "relatively high levels"? They were 0.6 to 2.4 ng/ml after eating 300 g wild boar meat, unlike Houlihan’s 5.2 – 5.8 ng/ml after eating 140 – 180 g commercial pig stomach.
"Fours Reasons That Shelby Houlihan Would Not Dope With Nandrolone"
Misleading at best, like in JG’s piece. For example, they neither considered that it could have been given sublingual instead of oral, or that the athlete chose oral (with less benefits) instead of an injection because that’s harder to detect (see the concept of microdosing for comparison).
Plus, as cited here on letsrun several times, nandrolone occurs as contamination in other steroids, such as in the good old testo cream that the athlete might have used. That option also did not get mentioned, neither by JG nor by Twoggle.
casual obsever wrote:
Plus, the (optional!, note the "may be") pharmacokinetics tests are only meant to differentiate between ingestion and injection, not between e.g. boar and Deca:
Wada: "Therefore, if the consumption of edible parts of intact pigs is invoked by an Athlete as the unlikely origin of a 19-NA finding, this may be established based on the pharmacokinetics of 19-NA excretion [3, 5, 16-18]. Profiles of 19-NA and 19-NE excretion following oral ingestion will have a different time course than following an injection of 19-norsteroids."
Yes, the PK test is wildly overhyped. We already know they the nandrolone wasn't injected. Shelby just didn't have any evidence to explain the exogenous IRMS finding.
Virtue is a Patient wrote:
sepreh wrote:
What makes it clear she is guilty is the super-ridiculous quasi-racist defense she put forth. I don't know how it happened would have been a more plausible defense, and one consistent with innocence. The burrito line is one only a guilty, guilty party comes up with.
Ok. That's what YOUO believe. You don't 'know' that, you just believe it.
Bottom line: There are problems with the way CAS and the AIU are conducting their affairs. the first being that upon the finding, the athlete is automatically assumed as guilty and then the athlete has to have the burden of proving their innocence. I know that CAS isn't American law, but it should be that an accuser has the burden of proving guilt. that means, especially in this case, that they should do everything possible to strip away viable innocence. That wasn't done here, because they don't HAVE to. They SHOULD have, but it wasn't required, so they didn't. This is not fair to the athlete for a number of reasons. 1st: Assume the athlete is innocent... their reputation is now destroyed. 2nd: The athlete's livelihood is now destroyed. 3rd: Their sponsors potentially have a claim against them and the athlete likely loses their financial support as well. this is a huge burden IF THE ATHLETE IS INNOCENT. Again, in this case, all avenues should be run down to show SH was not correct. CAS didn't do that. They have the privilege of sitting on high in a place of assumed superiority and can pass judgment with impunity. that is fundamentally wrong at best.
All of this does not mean Shelby ISN'T guilty. It means that the process is flawed and one-sided. It should not be that way.
I hate to comment on such nonsense, but this is. attacking the system, really? It sounds like you are trying to excuse . The system is designed that way for the protection of the system. This isn't a criminal trial, where there is a presumption of innocence. the are are number of reason for this. This isn't a criminal proceeded and if Houlihan WAS charged with a crime she would be presumed innocent. We have lower standards for all sorts of things.
Second, Shelby's team kept this under wraps for months and had a chance to present an appeal.
Focusing on this (especially because the doper is a nice, white American girl) is really just a red herring.
`` wrote:
CAS proved she had a non-naturally-occurring substance in her system, and then proved it couldn't have gotten there in the only legitimate way Shelby could think of. What more could they have done?
^ Pretty much this ^
More precisely, World Athletics presented that proof based on WADA-lab data, and testimony of two experts (one of which was falsely labeled by rojo as "known perjurer"). Then CAS confirmed that World Athletics was correct in charging Houlihan with an intentional anti-doping rule violation, resulting in the 4-year ban.
Case closed.
The rest is propaganda, meant to reduce the damage to BTC's reputation.