The report by twoggle was, too. If you think Shelby actually doped, you lack the capacity to reason and are probably, well, not very bright.
Just like twoggle's post, this reads like something written by Nike's lawyers: a whole lot of "could well have beens" that amounts to nothing convincing. And no mention of the fact that she actually ordered a beef burrito that I saw, which seems a strange oversight for such a detailed post.
She's another American cheat,move on
First sentence of that article:
"First, there can be no longer any reason to doubt Houlihan ordered food from a Mexican food truck on that fateful night, a story which many observers had described as being fabricated."
Absolutetly no one is claiming this. What people are pointing out is that Shelby produced a receipt for a steak burrito, not a pork burrito or an offal burrito.
Second sentence:
Second, the manager of the truck was revealed, along with information about the source of the pork in question, and that pig stomach (buche) and sausage (chorizo) burritos had been on the menu.
I can't even make sense of that word salad.
At this point, I decided it wasn't worth wasting my time with the rest of the garbage article. I did see a picture of some snails that seemed out of place. Apparently one time the police caught some guys in New Jersey illegally clamming, and, I sh!t you not, this is evidence of Shelby's innocence.
griles17 wrote:
If you think Shelby actually doped, you lack the capacity to reason and are probably, well, not very bright.
Anyone with the capacity for reason knows that no professional athlete is completely above suspicion, least of all someone who has actually tested positive. Maybe calling people stupid for being skeptical of the ridiculous burrito excuse isn't the best way to go?
griles17 wrote:
https://keithmoulton.com/the-cas-report-on-shelby-houlihan-a-case-of-misleading-analysis-false-statements-bogus-evidence/The report by twoggle was, too. If you think Shelby actually doped, you lack the capacity to reason and are probably, well, not very bright.
Alright buddy, how much is Nike paying you to post on message boards? For the right price tag I can be bought too.
fake fake fake everything's fake wrote:
First sentence of that article:
"First, there can be no longer any reason to doubt Houlihan ordered food from a Mexican food truck on that fateful night, a story which many observers had described as being fabricated."
Absolutetly no one is claiming this. What people are pointing out is that Shelby produced a receipt for a steak burrito, not a pork burrito or an offal burrito.
Second sentence:
Second, the manager of the truck was revealed, along with information about the source of the pork in question, and that pig stomach (buche) and sausage (chorizo) burritos had been on the menu.
I can't even make sense of that word salad.
At this point, I decided it wasn't worth wasting my time with the rest of the garbage article. I did see a picture of some snails that seemed out of place. Apparently one time the police caught some guys in New Jersey illegally clamming, and, I sh!t you not, this is evidence of Shelby's innocence.
Haha! That's when I quite reading too. "fateful night" - oh, the drama. And pretending it was an issue in dispute at one time whether she bought a burrito from a food truck or not. Who cares if she wants to claim she eats burritos from food trucks? We'll take her word for it. What people were skeptical off is how that can lead to a false positive for nandrolone. EVERYTHING we have learned since she made the claim that the burrito caused the false test has been clearly her, to the point where anyone claiming Houlihan isn't a cheat looks like a deluded fool and/or a liar.
griles17 wrote:
https://keithmoulton.com/the-cas-report-on-shelby-houlihan-a-case-of-misleading-analysis-false-statements-bogus-evidence/The report by twoggle was, too. If you think Shelby actually doped, you lack the capacity to reason and are probably, well, not very bright.
The article is too shrill for its own good and for it to be taken seriously. The case is closed. The only way to undo it would be to undo the failed test results. The athletes agreed to take responsibility for what they consume and both WADA and CAS went by the permitted nandrolone limits to which every runner implicitly agreed.
The article seems to be arguing that if she could prove that the nandrolone did come from what she unknowingly ate at the food truck, she’s innocent. That may be true in a common man’s eyes, but by the WADA code, she’s still guilty. It is not practical to have a code that investigates each case like a criminal investigation to determine intent. So the rules are simple — you are innocent until you fail a test without a medical exemption — and that rule does apply uniformly to everyone.
0/10
Ho Hum wrote:
Just like twoggle's post, this reads like something written by Nike's lawyers: a whole lot of "could well have beens" that amounts to nothing convincing. And no mention of the fact that she actually ordered a beef burrito that I saw, which seems a strange oversight for such a detailed post.
The CAS report was a whole lot of “possibly, but probably wasn’ts”.
The article’s comparison of the process to the US justice system is random. IAAF, WADA, and CAS are by design like a global corporation. Athletes and sponsors can either choose not to do business with them and start their own organization (like Kasparov tried in chess) or comply with their governance. Their rules were never meant to be “innocent until proven guilty”, but that an athlete is innocent until they fail a test. There are narrow exemptions provided like a medical one, but even on those, they have the final say.
Nike and/or BTC trying to use various proxy voices to challenge the decision is a pointless exercise for Houlihan. They can try to get the rules themselves changed going forward, but not change the past.
OP is Rojo, trolling the boards yet again with a secondary handle.
Keith appears to be an independent investigator. Did Shelby's team pay for this article?
IMO this is worth reading, even if it IS written rather poorly. Good science in some parts, really unintelligent logic and analogies in other parts. Rather overdramatic opener as well. Reminds me of the article that one mma coach wrote defending his fighter.
She is a doper. Even if she didn't know she was investing an illegal substance strict liability says she is a doper.
I don't know why so many people are bending over backwards to try and make her anything else.
Nike cheats out wrote:
griles17 wrote:
https://keithmoulton.com/the-cas-report-on-shelby-houlihan-a-case-of-misleading-analysis-false-statements-bogus-evidence/The report by twoggle was, too. If you think Shelby actually doped, you lack the capacity to reason and are probably, well, not very bright.
Alright buddy, how much is Nike paying you to post on message boards? For the right price tag I can be bought too.
How much is Adidas and New Balance paying you?
O,P,, you are either: 1) a blood relative of S. Houlihan or 2) a high school XC and/or T&F teammate of S. Houlihan or 3) a college XC and/or T&F teammate of S. Houlihan or 4) a Nike employee or 5) a let'srun employee.
What is your goal O.P? Do you want someone to give 1500m & 5000m 2020 Olympic gold medals to S. Houlihan?
Move on!
This is nice, but drug cheat Shelby Houlihan is still banned for doping. Enjoy the next few years, chief.
This Keith Moulton guy has been trolling the SH threads on LRC from the beginning of burritogate.
I don't know who Keith Moulton is and whatever he wrote isn't going to change things. The way the system is set up, like any judicial type system, is flawed.
The only fact that we know is true, Shelby Houlihan tested positive above the minimum threshold for a banned substance (nandrolone). As such, she was provisionally banned and appealed it before the ban was upheld on appeal.
What we don't know:
1. No conclusive evidence has been produced to show she was systematically doping.
2. She has not produced any conclusive evidence to demonstrate how the nandrolone got into her system that was not part of a scheme to use PEDs.
3. The public does not actually know how she had nandrolone in her system at all.
4. There is no publicly available fact based or probative evidence supporting a cover up, or that she was a scape goat, that Nike or BTC is dirty, or any other theory people are citing either for or against Shelby Houlihan.
The rules of the sport err in favor of the test. The international body that tested her appears to require stronger evidence in support of an inadvertent consumption from a tainted product than USADA. It sucks for Shelby if she really is clean. It sucks for everyone she beat the last few years if this is part of a long term scheme. Don't expect any true answers or whistleblowers unless it is someone who has no future in any part of the sport.
The real question is, how can we change the system? Maybe a shorter ban for a positive test, but an oversight agency can seek a lifetime ban with subpoena power including for coaches and agents. Athletes and their representatives must comply or face additional suspensions, but failure to produce evidence to support a lifetime ban in the first 12 months would nullify the remaining suspension? This would empower attempts to deal with systemic doping by accessing financial records and training records, but it would also provide a clearer path towards redemption for potential false positives or accidental ingestion that doesn't have an related evidence.
Probably not enough money in the sport to take this path but for now any self righteous attempts to crucify an athlete or defend an athlete are flawed at best without the athlete themselves admitting actual wrongdoing.
howlinghound wrote:
The article is too shrill for its own good and for it to be taken seriously.
The one thing I will NOT defend is my writing form and style. Hope it makes folks appreciate real writers like Gault and Gladwell all the more.
The article seems to be arguing that if she could prove that the nandrolone did come from what she unknowingly ate at the food truck, she’s innocent. That may be true in a common man’s eyes, but by the WADA code, she’s still guilty.
Not "innocent" per se, but if she could prove it did come from a piece of pork, it absolutely would have been grounds for a less serious Atypical Finding.
It is not practical to have a code that investigates each case like a criminal investigation to determine intent. So the rules are simple — you are innocent until you fail a test without a medical exemption — and that rule does apply uniformly to everyone.
If you treat athletes like criminals, then WADA needs to make their cases airtight, or fans and athletes will not respect the decision. It's actually not that difficult, but I would prefer to see a wholesale overhaul of the regulatory philosophy; one that puts that health and wellbeing of its athletes as the top priority.