Shelby Houlihan joins The Running Effect Podcast again

Seems like your problems with this case run deeper than the pork and the gut. When you see Shelby's name on this site and the word "banned", it seems like you become very defensive, because your need for control over what people (strangers, autonomous strangers) are communicating from their minds (not yours) is not being met. Would you be willing to just not reply, even if you believe you're correct?

It looks like "casual obsever" has gone underground. I'm sure you got a big laugh for trolling me in another thread.

No -- the 10 open questions are just the ones that were asked, but never answered by the CAS nor by Ross Tucker. For example, the CAS did not explain the reasons behind the minority dissent that ruled the AAF reporting from the WADA lab was improper. The CAS report does not reconcile how the CAS ruled "corn" after all sides conceded "soy" during the relevant period, nor why the CAS answered it at all as that was not a question before them. I cannot reconcile how the CIR was used at all, when the WADA guidance says that "it may not be used".

It is not me suggesting that the CAS Panelists are non-neutral, nor am I suggesting that any expert is not competent in their specific domains. There is no doubt though that Prof. Ayotte and Prof. McGlone were picked by WA/AIU for their ability to represent their side of the dispute -- this is the most obvious explanation for their omissions.

But WADA Code reform can prevent future athletes from being railroaded to 4-year bans.

One common thread in all my posts goes far beyond the single case of Shelby -- but rather what can be supported by facts and evidence; why we believe what we cannot support with facts and evidence; or sometimes why we refuse to change our beliefs when faced with contradictory facts and evidence.

Whether Shelby is banned or not is secondary to a WADA Code that allows improperly banning athletes for 4-years when they are not able to reconstruct ancient history, lacking the evidence and domain specific knowledge required to do so.

"Blatant omission".... all this trolling about the CAS report, and you still haven't read it, or are just plain outright lying. No o mission, troll!

Race? Kenya and Ethiopia are not races, nice attempt to bring race into it.

No reckie. The common thread to your posts is that you keep repeating your nonsense until nobody responds anymore. In this thread alone you are already at 22 posts.

The answers to your posts and the down votes show how unconvincing you are, to put it mildly. But see above - you'll just keep shouting corn! CIR! omission! Until you have killed the thread that was actually about a podcast not the unanimous CAS decision.

I was wondering is the evidence always weak even in slam dunk cases? I mean short of a video of a runner with a needle in their arm isn’t it just like with people like trump or Biden etc. ? The ability to prove something legally always ends up some people believing they didn’t do it

Earlier, I said I am genuinely interested in thoughtful responses rather than reflexive and thoughtless, "it's in there, lying troll". I'm not surprised at the quality of reactions, but somewhat dissappointed in humanity that emotions are getting in the way of intelligence.

After having fully read the CAS report and Ross Tucker's responses, and much more, none of my questions are addressed or fullly resolved -- that's why they are still open and asked and not answered.

The rationale of the minority, whose existence is confirmed in paragraph 75, is omitted from the CAS panel report. Why did a minority of the panel "agree with the Respondent’s assertion that the Laboratory departed from the ISL / TD2021NA"? The most common but unthoughtful answer is "because Nike/Houlihan picked that one". This comes from fans ignorant of which panelist dissented and why, not from anything found in the CAS report, nor by Ross Tucker.

The rebuttal of "pork offal" from highly nandrolone dense organs like liver, kidney, and heart, is also non-existant in the report. This one is also quite key, because it factors in a lot of consequent conclusions, which pretend only "pork meat" and "pork stomach" were relevant.

The conclusion of corn versus soy is in the CAS report, but inconsistent with the experts concession.

These are not trivial details, omissions and inconsistencies.

While the post was about a video, it was "here's a summary" in post #6, who actually watched the podcast, so we don't have to, and told us it wasn't about the "elephant in the room", who then made it about "What did she take, who provided it to her, and for how long has she been doing it." What answer will satisfy him if the truth is that she doesn't know, like she already told us? Tygart, in an earlier podcast, said he thought supplement contamination was more likely, but this is similarly unproveable without evidence.

I'm not all that bothered by popular vote, as the truth is not something that can be established by popular vote, especially among the masses who generally possess insufficient knowledge. Nor am I bothered by anyone not being convinced. These unanswered questions are formed in a way for someone else to be able convince me, and the answers I'm receiving to date are unconvincing.

Wow you are actually providing a quote now. Progress! Let's try one by one.
1) "The rationale of the minority"
... only those who were there can give you a response why that one arbiter did not agree with the others. Possibilities for the disagreement are mentioned in the report (see 78 and 79).

2) "The rebuttal of "pork offal" from highly nandrolone dense organs like liver, kidney, and heart, is also non-existant in the report. This one is also quite key, because it factors in a lot of consequent conclusions, which pretend only "pork meat" and "pork stomach" were relevant."
2a) "quite key", no, that is 100% irrelevant. Kidneys are actually mentioned several times! They are "non-existant" [sic] in the "rebuttal" part because the food truck used stomach to prepare the offal, not "liver, kidney, and heart". So you are lying with your "pretend" etc. In fact, if you would actually read the report, you would find that both sides exclusively talk about pork stomach when discussing the concentration of 6 ng/ml, not "liver, kidney, and heart":
107 (McGlone) "the Athlete claims to have eaten pork’s stomach" and "the product sold to retail vendors is called Hog Maw (processed stomach)" etc
108 (Strahm) "There is no study available on 19-norsteroids concentration in pig stomach. Because stomach is still offal, the amount of 19-norsteroids present in such tissue remains unknown."
109 (CAS) "The Panel notes that the above evidence submitted by the Claimant remains in essence uncontested. The evidence presented by Dr Strahm was not very substantiated and does not alter the onus of proof, i.e. that is for the Respondent to show that her explanation of the analytical results is more likely than not. Thus, based on the above, the Panel finds it possible but highly improbable that normal pork products in the US food supply chain, in particular pork stomach, would show elevated androgen levels. "
2b) In conclusion it is only your strange claim out of nowhere that it could have been kidney. You even went so far - without evidence - to claim "It would most likely from other organs, like liver and kidneys and heart, possibly ground and mixed in the chorizo". Because the Respondent never ever brought up liver etc. as a possible source because the food truck bought pork stomach only, you might want to give that up, instead of blaming Ayotte for not bringing that up. Ayotte was only responding to the Respondent.

3) "The conclusion of corn versus soy is in the CAS report, but inconsistent with the experts concession." Nothing inconsistent here, and no one ever claimed the pigs were fed corn because of the pandemic.
3a) 115 (McGlone): "The average proportion of corn to soybean in the pig feed is around 80:20: the soybean content is reduced to around 10% in the period before slaughter (6 weeks of age). Prof McGlone conceded at hearing that the diet of some pigs was altered during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the fact that the supply chain slowed down, which resulted in certain pig farms increasing the amount of soy fed to their pigs as opposed to corn. However, Prof McGlone submits that this practice was not maintained for a sustained period of time because of the (higher) costs of soybean and that corn remained overall the main diet source for all pigs in the United States."
Note "this practice was not maintained for a sustained period of time because of the (higher) costs of soybean". That is a far cry from your your direct lie that "the AIU expert conceded pigs were fed soy during the pandemic".
3b) 119 (CAS): "As explained by Prof McGlone in his report dated 29 May 2021, whereas the average proportion of corn to soybean in the pig feed is around 80:20, the soybean content is reduced to around 10% in the period before slaughter. The fact that commercial pig feed in the United States and Canada is predominantly corn-based is confirmed by Prof Ayotte in her second report dated 31 May 2021. As explained by Prof Ayotte, the consistent corn-based diet in the United States and Canada produces enriched carbon isotope values in US pork products"
and "The Panel notes that the study relied upon by Prof Jahren involving an experimental soy-based diet, in which the carbon isotope ratios of the 49 pigs varied between -21 and -25‰. In the Panel’s view, this study is not relevant to this case since a predominantly soy-based diet is not being fed to commercial pigs in the United States."

Note that CAS considered all sides, and made a well reasoned decision. "predominantly soy-based diet", not contested by anyone.

What did Tucker conclude? He actually studied the report, unbiased, unlike you:
“The contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.”
"So yes, based on what we see in the Reasoned Decision, it’s a pretty clear case."
"Presumably, the -29‰ is injected nandrolone, but the -23‰ belongs to what Ayotte describes as oral precursors of nandrolone....
As for me, I really don’t know, but that would seem to be the likeliest explanation based on the evidence."

You are out of questions now. You are welcome.

Ah -- he's back. Note I previously asked 10 "bigger questions", so three answers would not be enough to be out of questions. And these exclude another set of questions about the WADA Code justice and the needs for reform.

I appreciate the effort. Let's see, one by one.

1) "rationale of the minority" -- thanks for confirming that it is not in the CAS report, and that I still can ask that question. Paragraphs 78 and 79 give us a lot of clues to the majority's rationale as to why they thought it was ISL/TD compliant. But let's be clear. One of the CAS Panelists agreed with the "Respondent" that the WADA Lab deviated from the ISL/TD when reporting the sample result as an AAF. That seems like it deserves a worthy explanation. Even Ross Tucker agreed that that was an important ruling. Paragraph 79 is interesting, because Prof. Ayotte essentially admits she used the GC/C/IRMS (one of my questions) and compares the levels to "pork meat" (one of my questions).

2) "both sides exclusively talk about pork stomach"? That's not quite true. In Paragraph 8, the "Athlete maintained" "a burrito ... containing pork offal" was the source of nandrolone. In paragraph 9, Dr. Strahm says "boar meat/offal" when talking about both concentrations and ratios, and again "boar offal" when talking about ratios. Paragraph 99 tells us the "The Respondent" says the "pig stomach burritos" includes "the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito". No "exclusive" talk about pork meat/stomach from the Respondent. Given these claims are in the CAS report, a full rebuttal must necessarily address all the ingredients in the pig stomach burritos in paragraph 99, especially the ingredients identified as highly concentrated with nandrolone. A discussion of pork meat and pork stomach is incomplete, and any conclusions (e.g. Prof Ayotte in Paragraph 79) cannot properly be accepted as valid. You are right, that kidneys, testes, and liver were brought up several times, confirming what I said that that is where the high concentrations of nandrolone can be found. They were mentioned more than once while mistating what Houlihan's claim was, incorrectly stating her claim excluded these highly concentrated organs but only included stomach. Prof McGlone also mentions fat and salivary glands. Kidney, heart, and liver comes from outside research on nandrolone ingestion from boar by Prof. Ayotte in 2008.

3) No lie. Paragraph 119 is inconsistent with Prof. McGlone's concession. You quoted the exact parts where Prof. McGlone conceded that the pigs were fed more soy during the pandemic. It was at the hearing, after the written reports of both experts. Altering the diets with more soy will lead to an increased differences in carbon isotopes. It doesn't look like Prof. Ayotte ever took that into account when comparing carbon istopes, or describing feeding practices outside of the pandemic. Nor does it look like, when reading the complete justification in paragraph 119, that the CAS considered the concession either, as they wrote that they relied on the written reports of both experts, before the concession by Prof. McGlone at the hearing; that they rejected Prof. Jahren's study, because soy was not relevant; and furthermore they were convinced by Prof. Ayotte's analysis, based on corn diets before the concession.

Ross Tucker: Great that he read the report and explained the report, and is so neutral he didn't alter any existing bias. Not sure what he means by "contaminated food". The thing about Tucker is he is always honest, and concludes with "I really don't know, but that would seem ...".

No no no no. You are twisting all the facts about point 2, and are delusional about point 3.

2: Notice the "more soy" feeding practice was only short lived if it existed at all:

Your statement is an absurd exaggeration if not an outright lie:

3: That the food truck served kidney, is simply one of your illusions. At no point is that mentioned by anyone. On the contrary, as even you admitted, the descriptions go back and forth from the detailed "pork stomach offal" to less detailed "pork offal" to "boar meat/offal" to "pig stomach burritos" to "outer stomach" etc. Either stomach is mentioned as the ingredient, or nothing, by the Respondent and the Claimant alike.

As you should know by now, the sold stomach does not include kidneys or heart or liver. To be precise, the Hog Maw (processed stomach) that was used includes only the outer stomach muscle.

What did Tucker observe?

No mentioning of kidneys. Huh. He doesn't share your illusion either.

Finally, didn't you say you had questions? LOL. Somehow your questions changed into your unique illusory accusations.

Occam's Razor. The most plausible explanation is she doped and failed. People trying to bend themselves into all these different angles to try and make the outcome something else ignores this simple reality.

She should come clean even if that means talking about what Nike and the rest of the group did. It is the right thing to do but it sounds like she's not the kind of person who does the right thing.

Sorry to disagree with you. As a side point, I'm not limiting my asked but unanswered questions and arguments by what Houlihan argued/showed or failed to argue/show. For example, if she failed to argue or show chorizo, that procedural failure doesn't exclude that chorizo was the source of the nandrolone. But clearly her claim includes offal found in pork stomach burritos, and was not "exclusively" pork meat/stomach as you claimed. Her failures may have severe consequences for Houlihan in a CAS hearing, but that doesn't mean that the AIU and their experts, and the CAS have robustly determined the truth. An Ishikawa (fishbone) analysis requires exploring all of the bones -- not just the two that suit you. That is why I can still ask that question even now, despite your lengthy attempt to answer it.

2) No twisting any facts. It is a fact that Prof. McGlone conceded a period with altered diets with more soy existed. It is a fact that higher amounts of soy will create different carbon isotopes from Houlihan's natural isotopes. There is an unanswered question about the timing of this period of altered soy diets, but in 104) McGlone says the pandemic disruption was from "the summer of 2020" to "by November 2020". Considering a "proven" stomach delivery confirmed dated September 2020 (see Ross Tucker), it's not out of the question that the other burrito ingredients found in a pig stomach burrito are from that same window. That's why I can still ask that question.

3) It is a fact that pig stomach burritos have other ingredients than pork meat and pork stomach. It is not a stretch of the facts to say that "i) the buche (maw/pig stomach) burrito; and ii) the chorizo (pork sausage) burrito" contains other pork ingredients, possibly including some of the ones that Prof. McGlone said were high in nandrolone content. Whether this was argued or not by the respondent and the claimant is rather immaterial. What is clear is that the AIU and their experts did not address any other burrito ingredients besides pork meat and pork stomach.

Even if she got a burrito filled with offal she would have had to eat 3 burritos to have the nandrolone that was found in her system. She ate 3/4 of one burrito.

cheater cheater pun’kin eater.

She made her decision to fight the ban and it’s way too late to confess. Do believe there would be no ramifications from admitting she lied to the CAS? What about her GoFundMe request and betraying the people who supported her? For sure, she would never receive another professional contract.

She has no choice but to stick with her story.

This is one of the misconceptions that are made possible when you fail to consider that offal is more than just pork stomach.

Incorrect! No misconception: pork stomach burrito is made out of pork stomach. Try posting the truth for once.