Travis Tygart doesn't think Shelby Houlihan is a doper

It should really be called the World Anti Code-breaking Association.

If you are going to debate Wada you must use the terms that they actually use and not invent your own. You can’t assume that your understanding of words and concepts outside of Wada are transferable to Wada however sensible you may feel that is.And I can very much see how sensible that might seem.

If you read the copious technical documents from WADA and then begin to relate them to the debates within decisions you will begin to see my point more clearly.

So let the cover ups continue.

let’s all join the lying circle and shoot any whistle blowers.

or are you still locked in Soviet times?

this is THE Houlihan theory, all but accepted fact.

she wasn't taking nandrolone independently, but she was probably doing a cocktail of some kind.

The biggest question is, how many more BTC-ers were using the same cocktail?

My personal question is for Colleen--did it cause her to leave?

Colleen Quigley is literally marrying her high school sweetheart.

No, she was forced out by Nike. They offered her a super low deal, knowing she wouldnt be able to accept it and that way she left on her without it looking like they dropped her.

Colleen and Shelby have beef with each other and possibly pork. There are theories that Colleen had a hand in making sure Shelby got this ban.

Who is the deaf one, if you are not actually listening to what Tygart is saying -- not just here, but in many statements since WADA Code changes in 2015, when the burden of proving intent shifted to the athlete to prove not intentional?

WADA says on their website: "WADA was established on 10 November 1999 to protect athletes ..."

while the AIU says "it is the Athletics Integrity Unit’s role to drive cheats out of our sport, and to do everything within its power to support honest athletes ...

Tygart has told us repeatedly that, in some cases, the WADA Code -- with its principle of strict liability, and shifting of burden onto the athlete to solve the mystery in order to prove their innocence, combined with the risk today of ingesting small amounts of many banned substances in USDA approved food, and the small likelihood of the athlete being able to prove it -- is causing WADA to fail to live up to one of the reasons it was established -- to protect athletes.

Similarly, the AIU promises to do "everything in its power to support honest athletes", while they appear to have done the opposite for Houlihan -- done everything in its power to argue that Houlihan is not an honest athlete for not being able to prove the contents of a long consumed/discarded meal. For example, it was well within the AIU's power, and WADA guidelines, in light of the ambiguities, to declare the result an ATF and request more tests. The AIU did not do everything in its power.

Note that Houlihan's sample collection was on 15 December 2020 at 6:15 am. To the extent you suggest or believe that any of these above races were influenced by doping, or doping cocktails, there is no real evidence for that, and requires further imagination.

Note also that it is undisputed that the nandrolone was ingested, and the quantity, to use WADA's own words was "in the low ng/mL range (< 10 ng/mL)". According to studies on ingestion of steroids, the ingestion of quantities in the low ng/ml range is unlikely to impact performance, mainly because most of it is filtered out on "first pass" before even getting into the blood stream.

If micro-dosing/ingesting nandrolone, with or without other cocktails is so effective, it seems unusual that the USA would have waited as long as 2018-2020 for someone to achieve these kinds of jumps in and these levels of American record performances.

And you think anyone gives a duck what YOU think?

You aren't being realistic. I think no one reasonably considered/considers eating pork from a food truck in Oregon sketchy/risky. Supplements are a different story, as WADA calls that out specifically saying athletes are at their own risk in this unregulated industry.

Just logging what you eat on a $0.99 pad, would not be enough. If we consider a hypothetical scenario where nandrolone comes from meat and organs mixed into a spicy chorizo from an intact boar fed a diet of soy, what can the athlete write in the log that would convince a panel on the balance of probability?

Even if they could convince them they still get sanctioned.

What is the universally accepted meaning of “ a supplement “?

What point exactly did I miss? I never even used the word "cheat" in what I wrote - you quoted it so go back and check. I used the word guilty, which she was found to be, and in this context it means guilty in breaking the rules which is enough for her to go bye-bye for 4 years.

So I suggest you read the post again and then you may grasp what is being said.

You know honestly the single biggest issue with this message board isn't peoples opinion or points of view - it's what you just did here. People like yourself don't even read other peoples opinions and concoct sh$t out of thin air to perpetuate their agenda/narrative. In this case your whole deal is suggesting that Shelby wasn't found to be a cheater, just a breaker of rules and that doesn't necessarily mean she cheated. Yeah yeah, f-ing yeah - what an doyen of policy interpretation and legislative nuance you are. What you are is an a$$hole like Travis Tygart.

And even more insufferable than the "don't read anything just pander my narrative" d-ckheads that pervade this forum are people like you who love playing the devils advocates of grammar and terminology and living in this grey area of "well if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it might be a duck but you can't say for sure because, well, what really constitutes a duck"

"the AIU does everything in its power to support honest athletes". Okay, and? There was a lengthy and elaborate process which I'm sure cost a lot of money to determine if Houlihan was honest or not. It was determined she wasn't. Maybe if she had just actually been honest about how 2.5 times the legal limit of nandrolone was found in her system the AIU would have then supported her (maybe a palatable 2 year ban vs 4 for example). But the statement reads "support honest athletes" and last time I checked she made the choice to go with a story that was thoroughly debunked which I'm pretty sure makes her dishonest. Like isn't this the way honesty works? If I steal a packet of gum from the store, I get caught and say I bought it then camera footage shows that I just pocketed it, am I not presumed in that instance to be have been dishonest?

So the AIU has not infringed on any of their "obligations" at all. But of course this is when someone like yourself gets to work right? "They could have ordered more tests, done more, asked more experts, turned heaven and earth upside down to support and protect this young woman". And when exactly does that end? Seriously. By that logic we would simply never weed out any rule-breakers in the sport because "doing everything" is simply an infinite f-ing landscape. What dream world do you live in? Your expectation is that WADA/the AIU does this for every rule-breaking athlete in their jurisdiction? So in this case your expectation of the AIU was that even though her story was shown to be dishonest they should keep going until someone says she's not dishonest?

Your gimmick is so transparent. Just smart enough to pick apart the statement you did and think you are asking poignant questions that point to some kind of conspiracy. Just smart enough to push a topic into that grey zone of infinite ambiguities and sit back in the rocking chair and say "so you can't say for certain it's really that duck can you". But for every person like you there is always someone smarter than can pick you out in a crowd and in this case it's me. Shelby broke the rules, interpret that as you may (premeditated cheater, inadvertent cheater, liar, misguided) - it doesn't matter. She's gone, so is your comically transparent logic.

+1

Fortunately. Drug cheats out! But, the facts won't stop rekrunner aka liar sorer aka twoggle from repeating his visibly nonsensical talking points. Over and over and over again, as history shows.

How about words like "positive sample" or "tested positive" or "a positive test"?

Is CAS allowed to use words like "positive test" and "tested positive"?

Can't believe there are still so many people talking about food contamination. Say it with me 'the nandralone wasn't from a burrito!' The science showed the likelihood of it being from contaminated food was virtually zero. Ross Tucker told the Brojo's this and yet they are still talking about food contamination and Shelby getting off because of it if USADA tested her on their podcast. Shelby pretty much admitted they only used the argument of the burrito because they couldn't think of anything better. She had nandralone in her system above legal limits, the burrito excuse is BS, she got a ban. What other option was there, believe everyone who says they didn't cheat and let them off? There is nothing wrong the the anti doping system in this case. There was no other option. Trying to make out there are major problems with anti doping so one of your faves is looked upon favourably and you don't have to admit you were wrong is some weak ass BS.

I don't think it even walks or quacks like a duck. I interpret it as she broke rules that do not require establishing intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use, and she was not able to prove "not intentional". She's gone for 4 years, but the question is, was the process just?

For all your lecturing, it looks like you didn't read any of Tygart's statement before your initial post. For example: "We need to work just as hard to exonerate the innocent as we do pursuing the true cheaters." This is where the AIU failed Houlihan in a big way. My expectation is what USADA anti-doping chief Tygart has done for 27 US athletes since 2015 -- help them navigate through the WADA Code around this nearly impossible athlete burden to prove what is caused by the various meat industries, or in other cases (e.g. Getzmann) during manufacture of prescription drugs. Because on face value, the standard of "strict liability" is quite a convenient shortcut for organizations prosecuting ADRVs, but it is not a fair process for athletes who have innocently ingested small amounts of a banned substance. We have seen this in the cases of Getzmann, Lawson, and 27 USADA athletes.

Tygart doesn't speak about all rule-breaking athletes, but just this small class of athlete who tests positive consistent with unknowingly ingesting small amounts a banned substance, e.g. from normal meals, who are suddenly forced to become experts in the world of meat processing, and in Houlihan's case, the temporary but signficant deviations from the normal practices during the pandemic.

The lengthy and elaborate process was according to the WADA Code, which, if you had seen any of his statements, is precisely what Tygart has repeatedly claimed needs to be reformed, for this small class of USDA approved meat eating athlete.

For all these calls of honesty, from "fans", the process is so one-sided, that there is just no way to tell from the AIU prosecution and the CAS report that Houlihan was not being honest. (And the CAS did not find her dishonest, but rather "credible"). The AIU did not "debunk" Houlihan's story, but gave the equivalent argument of "people struck by lightning rarely happens". All we can say is that Houlihan was unable to obtain "concrete and specific" evidence she needed to clear her name to the burden required, and "guilty until proven innocent" did the rest. The AIU "near-zero" argument fails in the public domain for the same reason the AIU says Houlihan's arguments should fail: it is not "based on specific and concrete elements". None of the AIU arguments, or speculated alternative, are connected to Houlihan, except for the unexplained presence of a small amount of nandrolone, which can be of endogenous, or exogenous origin.

All you "smart persons" may have fallen for it, but I'm not going to pretend "2.5x the limit" is a large amount, when, according to studies on small sample sizes, including by Prof. Ayotte's own study, eating pork offal can put you 65x-80x above the limit, and intentionally injecting nandrolone can put you 1000x-1500x above the limit. The 2 ng/ml threshold is too small a threshold for intact pork offal ingestion -- something WADA explicitly considers "endogenous" and will give positive values of the low ng/ml range of less than 10 ng/ml.