wejo wrote:
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
Just want to hear your thoughts on this.
Video excerpt from Supporters Club podcast:Can join the SC if you want the full pod:
So just to clarify, the LRC "executive consensus" on Shelby Houlihan is that she didn't intentionally dope, but unintentionally doped? I guess I've never really been able to figure this out so maybe you could help clarify. Maybe this isn't the case but guys, it comes off this way so again maybe you could set the record straight.
In the event that is this case let me ask you a similar "but why would you this and not this" style question with respect to the topic because really the spike thing is kind of minor in comparison (I'll touch on that briefly at the end).
So the question. If she was not intentionally doping, why would she craft and stick to a story so implausible it basically got her an extra 2 years on her ban, and not just be honest?
Because I would tell you this - if she had said "hey I started taking this supplement because I read it could help with recovery, lean muscle mass etc and I stupidly didn't check or realize how it might compromise me", not only would she have probably been running in Paris, but the majority of track fans (myself included) would probably have landed on "my god how can you be so careless BUT hey mistakes happen and we are all human, take your lumps and welcome back".
Except people don't like having their intelligence insulted - and especially not by athletes who at times can be guilty of believing their athletic prowess translates directly to intellectual prowess and that whatever comes out of their mouths should simply be accepted as truth by default. You guys respect Ross Tucker right? I mean in your own words you "turned to a man who knows running, science, the global anti-doping system, and most importantly, how to explain scientific concepts to the masses — Ross Tucker", and he basically blew up the Houlihan account.
This was from your own article:
"Q: You’ve spent the last month studying this case in-depth. Gut feeling: is Houlihan innocent or guilty?
A: With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion.” Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty. There is much unknowable in between, but the contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny."
So if they story doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny, why stick with it if it was simply carelessness?
As for "superspikes" vs illegal substance "aid", uhh, I'm not sure we have enough facts or even basic anecdotal evidence to suggest they are even on the same plateau. Because we do know that dopers - even in middle distance events and short as the 1500m have been able to garner considerable performance drops even across timespans as short as a season. We know the names - Ramzi, Katir and I would even look at Dibaba who despite not failing a test herself, had her coach arrested with a refrigerator full of goodies and from that moment was never the same again. Spikes are still a total unknown. So unknown that unlike road product which was quantifiable in a lab environment, the very brands that makes these products have never put a number or claim to any benefit even though they are the ones with the biggest incentive to do so. A "couple" of seconds is a massive and unsubstantiated claim especially over a distance as short as the 1500m. Like there is no doubt she has at a point in her career worn and tried a "superspike" - maybe she was an athlete that simply valued weight and better force transfer to the track vs more cushioning and a softer ride?
I personally would see that as a weak out - but that's just my opinion.
