Why the CAS Decision on Shelby Houlihan Should be Thrown Out

Found Twoggle's primary twitter account

*yawn*

At the time of Twoggle posting their defense of Shelby, Twoggle was following a few people: 1) Some BTC people 2) Keith Moulton That's it, source: https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10833738&page=2

Whs323:

Twoggle's twitter is linked to the article site, He/she only follows BTC people, and this Keith Moulton guy. Twoggle is definitely an insider, or the private investigator they hired. The article is dated July 2021, and the CAS stuff became public just a few days ago.

She's just another American cheat,add her to the list and move on.

Keep yelling. Imagine wasting this kind of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ-LivK4-78

His website was a fairly normal personal website, a little too web 1.5 for someone who claims to be a web dev, but still, normal for a while. Personal stuff, family photos behind a password, blah blah

https://web.archive.org/web/20160309063459/https://keithmoulton.com/

On September 15, 2021 of this year, it became a blog for "Independent Research & Analysis"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RckbCMWS7esJ:https://keithmoulton.com/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

FartKing69 wrote:

Found Twoggle's primary twitter account

LOL. His arguments, or rather: misinterpretations/obfuscations, are even worse, as is his handling of the units.

It seems that the topic of Houlihan has long run its course of interest.

You did a lot of research on pork in Oregon during the pandemic, (as opposed to across the US in normal times) that gives good reason to think that soy-fed pork offal in the food system, especially during the pandemic, was more common than the CAS report would lead you to believe.

There are problems at several levels with the, starting with the WADA code itself which frames the process:

- Principles like “strict liability” and shifting the burden to the athlete will unavoidably cast the net wide enough to catch athletes only guilty of being unable to track down and prove the source of a substance ingested weeks and months earlier.

- The WADA lab that is still at liberty to ignore updates in a TD document, and record an AAF rather than an ATF. It raises the question under which circumstances would the new guidelines apply, particularly since any investigation of the source should happen much later in the process, than when WADA records the lab result, if it happens at all, depending on the result recorded?

- The neutrality of AUI experts, who are not 100% truthful, leaving out relevant information.

- What the “statistics” show. The AIU arguing, and the CAS accepting, that soy-fed boar offal is low probability, does not show us the likelihood that a positive result comes from pork, when compared to other sources, such as synthetic nandrolone or supplement contamination. The direct conclusion we can draw is that most athletes who eat burritos will test negative, shedding little light on the source of those few who test positive.

This isn’t just a problem for Houlihan, but remains a problem for future athletes unlucky enough to not know 100% what can be in their food before it gets on their plate.

I wrote this earlier in other threads:

Tygart and the WADA code:

On the AIU experts:

no thanks, lets keep the american cheater banned.

I feel a bit embarrassed for you, because your blog post simply shows why we hire lawyers for this sort of thing. It's at too low a level - you lack the educational background to understand legal doctrines such as strict liability, and you fail to address all grounds of the court findings.

One of which is why an elite level runner subject to frequent, random testing would risk consuming food from a roadside stall anyway.

The fact that some of her training partners (to better embellish the story?) went with her must cast some doubt on the practices of the entire group.

casual obsever wrote:

LOL. His arguments, or rather: misinterpretations/obfuscations, are even worse, as is his handling of the units.

The personal stuff doesn't bother me, but to accuse me of mishandling units?? That hurts.

For anyone who doesn't buy my arguments WRT to test timing (and units?), I would love for them to explain how WADA tested Marimuthi in 2019 for 187 ng/ml of 19-NA in one sample, and then measured 16 ng/ml in a second urine sample taken 35 minutes later.

casual obsever wrote:

LOL. His arguments, or rather: misinterpretations/obfuscations, are even worse, as is his handling of the units.

The personal stuff doesn't bother me, but to accuse me of mishandling units?? That hurts.

For anyone who doesn't buy my arguments WRT to test timing (and units?), I would love for them to explain how WADA tested Marimuthi in 2019 for 187 ng/ml of 19-NA in one sample, and then measured 16 ng/ml in a second urine sample taken 35 minutes later.

The only plausible reason to throw the case out and let her back in is if there's convincing evidence that AIU, CAS and whoever else procedurally went rogue or otherwise off book and did not properly handle the case.

But that's going to be very hard to prove, especially if a key argument is that the lab should have done a pharmacokinetics study on her sample, when the logic-tree of doing one is clearly predicated on detected nandro not being sourced as exogenous... which in Shelby's case her's clearly was exogenous. If she and her lawyer goes to Switzerland and that's her prime argument, the court will call her down on that and uphold the decision, case closed. And seeing how dumb her team has been in handling this appeal process, I would not be surprised if that's exactly what they did.

Barring some money changing hands behind closed doors between powerful people, it's highly unlikely her suspension will be thrown out or even shortened in any way.

moultonk wrote:

The personal stuff doesn't bother me, but to accuse me of mishandling units?? That hurts.

Yes. You used percent instead of per mille, several times. {CAS screwed up some units too, unfortunately.}

Your intro paragraph is also wrong:

On September 1st, CAS released its final 44-page report on the case which found her guilty by a 2-1 vote.

See CAS:

Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.

The rest is full of "what if" and other smokescreens. Face it, she remains banned for over three more years.

+1

Plus, the pharmacokinetics study is

a) not even mentioned in the procedure valid at the time

b) mentioned only as an option ("may be") - not mandatory - in the procedure currently valid

c) suggested now only to distinguish between oral and injection (which was never contested), not between exo and endo.

It's over.

Rekrunner, you have been a voice of reason on these threads!

It was more important (to me) to be right than to be timely. It's not really about Houlihan anyway.

Right, and it's surprising how quickly an animal's C13 levels vary according to whatever they're eating. But my main point was simply that the pork food supply was empirically and provably not normal, and on that basis alone, they had no legal basis to give her an adverse finding. It would be like if there were a problem with a forensics lab storing blood samples; prosecutors would just throw out any cases relying on them as evidence and not try to argue that one sample was okay because it was left in a cold place somewhere and probably ok.

As a fan, I would not have questioned an "Atypical Finding" (vs. a more serious "Adverse Analytical Finding") if it were accompanied by a statement about tainted meat and a short suspension. But to accuse her of taking performance-enhancing drugs without really being certain and permanently tarnish her reputation by banning her from competition for 4 years takes all the fun out of the sport. It makes me wonder if elite competition is merely the result of a politically-motivated process designed to cull athletes from "Third World" countries with less regulated food sources, and leave a remaining pool of athletes normalized to an abusive system that threatens their honor and does not care about their wellbeing.

I will say that McGlone is a bonafide expert on American pork production, and it was his painstaking research which tried to pave the way for reducing castration and has been very supportive of immunological castration, which unfortunately, looks like it won’t become widely adopted in the US.

But It is amazing to me how much trust people are willing to place in the American slaughterhouse industry. Have they no knowledge of its history? Of Tyson’s history? WADA and McGlone's assertions about the homogeneity of American pork is like the water company telling you they tested the water for safety at the treatment plant and therefore do not need to test whatever is coming out of your faucet. In any complex system, you can't just test or regulate the inputs; you have to test the outputs, and there are basically zero studies which have done so for American pork (in regards to nandrolone, taint, and C13). I fee like it's all a Javert-like obsession in Ayotte's head.

Nice that Jonathan Gault now has a name to use in his stories instead of Twoggle.

Hey Ken, how many clients have you had for your independent research and analysis? Just trying to establish what your expertise is and why anyone should take what you write seriously.

casual obsever wrote:

Your intro paragraph is also wrong:

On September 1st, CAS released its final 44-page report on the case which found her guilty by a 2-1 vote.

See CAS:

Finally, the CAS Panel unanimously determined that Shelby Houlihan had failed, on the balance of probability, to establish the source of the prohibited substance. As a result of which she was found to have committed an intentional ADRV and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility starting on 14 January 2021.

The rest is full of "what if" and other smokescreens. Face it, she remains banned for over three more years.

Actually, the 2-1 vote on “guilt” is correct.

The unanimous determination relates to “intention”, not “guilt”, and “guilt” does not require “intent”.

Here is the CAS decision on “guilt”:

“The CAS Panel (by majority) found that the athlete neither rebutted the presumption that the AAF was

properly reported pursuant to the ISL, nor rebutted the presumption that the ADRV was properly

managed, asserted and notified pursuant to the International Standard for Results Management

(ISRM).”

Without this finding, the results are ATFs, and there is no violation, and no need to determine the source or intent.

Proving “no intent” would allow a reduced or no-fault sanction.

casual obsever wrote:

+1

Plus, the pharmacokinetics study is

a) not even mentioned in the procedure valid at the time

b) mentioned only as an option ("may be") - not mandatory - in the procedure currently valid

c) suggested now only to distinguish between oral and injection (which was never contested), not between exo and endo.

It's over.

It may be over, but is it just, or was an innocent athlete railroaded as Tygart feared?

Lex mitior would make the newer TD2021NA version valid.

The TD2021NA document clearly says:

“The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis …”

This means that while “pharmacokinetics is an option”, clearly GC/C/IRMS analysis is not.