SHELBY HOULIHAN SPEAKS! Issues statement, does RW Q&A & 90min podcast explaining her side.

Wrong there is no discovery process allowed other than that provided by wada within the document package given at the time of the charge.Thus Wada provide what evidence they decide and such is deemed FACT.

Do read the rules.

And my point was why are such lab results correct deemed confidential. There may be many who may want to volunteer held in this extremely expensive defence.

Sure, you can. But you will lose without adequate grounds. She has none.

Gotcha. Lemme know the next time you run into someone on the track finishing up a 1500m in 5 minutes who ends up being banned by WADA for 4 years because he didn’t document his food correctly.

Unlucky for Houlihan. Had discovery proceeded, her case might have played out like this [USEF is a member of USOPC and the International Equestrian Federation, both code signatories of WADA's World Anti-Doping Code]:

theplaidhorse.com

USEF Fails to Prosecute Farmer/Glefke Case - The Plaid Horse Magazine

@plaidhorsemag

Statement by Kelley Farmer and Larry Glefke For Immediate Release – January 16, 2018 Kelley Farmer and Larry Glefke [long-time members of the United States Equestrian Federation], and their counsel, today are happy to announc...

Link:www.theplaidhorse.com/2018/01/17/usef-...

My god.

Exploiting a 16 year old kid. How low can you go?

Even if you are innocent, you shouldn't be talking to a high school kid about these issues. Dominic seems like a talented kid with a bright future, and I'm not trying to infantilize him. But just looking at the questions he asked, his defensive approach, and the "demand respect" post, he's not ready for an interview that carries this sort of weight. And how could he be? He's in high school!

Now people are giving the podcast negative reviews on Spotify, and with good reason. But that's a lot to put on a kid, and Shelby, an adult, should have known better.

How many running podcasts are out there? Like, a frillion? Let's see: there's CSC, Emily Abbate's pod, Conversations over Cold Brew, Lindsey Hein's pod, Chris mcClung has his own pod, citius pod, runyourmouth, it never ends. So many of those have been apologetic to Shelby. Why oh WHY did she choose the kid??

Just that choice alone is enough to enrage me. Dominic seems smart and is going to get older and realize what happened.

But anyway, about the pod.

Dearest Shelby,

The AIU and WADA aren't there to baby you through a positive test. The idea that you think it's their responsibility to in any way prove your innocence is ridiculous. Oh, and a positive A and B sample IS evidence of you cheating.

Nandy precursor? We got that right? No, they don't believe you randomly took nandrolone once and they happened to catch you. That's ridiculous. You know that but you're still banking on most of your audience not being aware of Ross Tucker's article, or the CAS report. They're just going off of your word.

No you weren't a victim of a terrible system, and I'm sure it's flawed like all systems but it didn't fail you. Good grief, the victimhood was grasping at straws.

There are a lot of points that are made already about the ridiculous things she said. One thing that stood out to me is that she really started to stumble when asked about her progression. She had difficulty explaining it. You could tell she felt uncomfortable.

I agree with other posters about the burrito story going from an absolute to something that she is basically admitting she concocted on the spot.

I wish this story would die in a dumpster fire. I'm so sick of her grabbing the limelight in the running community even though she's been banned for a year.

Mark Hylton case when the case dropped when the world leader drug tester, Cowen , had to admit he had been measuring the wrong ion.

Still have not got it.

5 min guy still has to follow the rules.

Plenty of low level rugby players tested and caught.Think a few old masters athletes as well ; but rules are rules

Don't you think as well we sometimes suffer from assuming that because someone is good at something it must mean they are good at many things and I would lump "intelligence" into this as well?

In amongst all this I can't get over how Houlihan possibly believes this latest "course correction" helps her case and also how blatantly insulting this is to anyone with half a brain. But then I asked myself why it's not possible she is just a complete imbecile. So just because she went to college and was a good (fake good) athlete? Why does that mean she is intelligent? Same way I get shocked when I hear Lebron James speak - almost as if he constantly blows up my expectations of not contradicting himself/not saying/doing something blatantly manufactured (like reading the inside cover of every book he is conveniently photographed with). But then I realize he plays only basketball and has at best a token high school education. Like he actually isn't intelligent - he's just great at playing basketball.

Lol you lost me.

anyway idk how smart Shelby is but she isn’t a great professional liar. I’ve got some notes for her.

LoL another basement dweller without real world experience. Here's a clue, the real world does not operate like social media

Reading many of the posts here make me question the intelligence of their posters.

And some of the smarter few, I question your honesty and integrity.

I note you ignore the points I make.

Real world science does not operate like social media.It follows peer reviewed processes.

What is Wada afraid of by imposing NDA’s ?

Before 2015, athletes were tested and sanctioned for non-intentional presence/use.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that was pointless then.

I don't see how it makes sense to hold athletes fully responsible for what they cannot know happens in the meat industry, or in the manufacturer of medicines (like Simon Getzmann).

But here I only talk about small quantities known to be consistent with meat ingestion, and the need to conduct further testing/investigation to be sure the source is synthetic.

The TD2021NA foresees this path by declaring the result an ATF and/or pharmo-cokinetics. Both options require more testing to be sure. Without that, we are where we are -- we can't be sure.

I don't see any reason why a coach or athlete must have heard of nandrolone, and why that comes across as an obvious lie. A coaches job is coaching not doping. (It's also possible they had heard of "Deca", not making the connection, or simply always heard steroids.)

Maybe injecting large quantities of nandrolone in the bloodstream can help women, but here we are talking about a small quantity of ingested nandrolone. Virtually none of that gets into the bloodstream, being filtered out on firstpass.

The more sophistcated who have heard of nandrolone wouldn't be taking it intentionally after the year 2000 because it is so easily detectable. For example Victor Conte tells anyone listening to him to stay away from it.

Do anabolic steroids help distance runners? As a steroid, nandrolone might help women in the shorter distances, but if they helped for the 5000m, would we have had to wait until 2020's to see an American run in the 14:20s?

What do you mean by "all the proof"? You act like there is more proof than just the lab results, which, thanks to ambiguity in the guideline, could have been treated as an ATF or an AAF.

Guilty of what? She was found guilty of WADA ADRVs, according to the definitions and presumptions and interpretations spelled out in the WADA Code.

But the WADA Code takes so many shortcuts, to make prosecuting athletes easier, that, even now, nearly one year after the verdict, we cannot say where they nandrolone came from, and we cannot say there is any evidence of intention.

You people keep asking her to admit an invented, unevidenced and unproven alternative, that, maybe for your own mental health reasons, you want to so strongly believe, not realizing maybe she's been admitting it all along. She didn't and doesn't know where it came from, and all the paths they investigated could not come up with sufficient evidence to establish a more likely than not answer.

If the story is so infinitesimally improbable, why has Prof. Ayotte been studying nandrolone ingestion from pork for decades, and publishing studies showing Houlihan's values are well within her own research, with respect to both levels and endogenous carbon isotopes?

We already knew last year, when the CAS verdict came out, that Houlihan tested her vitamins and they all came back negative, but that she didn't have all of them from the same batch, so that door hasn't been completely closed.

Despite recent misinterpretations now, her story from the beginning hasn't really changed -- she didn't and doesn't know where the nandrolone came from, and after the vitamins came back negative, pork offal ingestion was considered the most likely source.

She is just saying she still isn't 100% sure where the nandrolone came from.

Two things:

1) We learned from other cases that there is no such discovery process that requires internal lab documention to be produced to the accused.

2) The lab test results are not in question. The two questions before CAS were how to interpret them and where the nandrolone came from.

You are wrong on both counts. "Way over the limit" is relatively meaningless when the limit is arbitrarily small. According to the WADA TD2021NA, the labs can typically expect small values less than 10 ng/ml, but occasionally higher, from pork ingestion, and even 15 ng/ml for women on birth control, and fluctuating values during pregnancy.

1) AIU expert Prof. Ayotte conducted a study with one subject producing 130 ng/ml. By comparison 5.2 ng/ml and 5.8 ng/ml are quite small amounts. One would only have to eat 15g, or half an ounce, of these parts (say ground up in a spicy chorizo ingredient in a greasy pork stomach burrito) to reach these levels. Before 2004, the limits were 2ng/ml for men and 5ng/ml for women, and even then, each case had to be considered on a case by case basis. These limits were controversial then. In a 1998 study in Nagano on 621 Olympic athletes, only 5 athletes exceeded the threshold — all women.

2) Nandrolone might be performance enhancing for distance runners (even that has not yet been established, but for the sake of argument), if large quantities were injected, like CJ Hunter resulting in 2000 ng/ml. But from the evidence of one time ingestion of this small quantity, most of which never entered the bloodstream due to being filtered out in first pass, it can hardly be argued that the remaining small quantity is performance enhancing.