The source is irrelevant. What is relevant is the nature of the substance, that it is a banned drug, and that it is confirmed in the athlete's system. If the athlete can't show accidental contamination or at least lack of negligence then how it got there doesn't matter, the athlete is responsible.
Rojos thread destroyer has arrived
That's what I thought, too, when I saw the site's resident doping denier was here.
The source is irrelevant. What is relevant is the nature of the substance, that it is a banned drug, and that it is confirmed in the athlete's system. If the athlete can't show accidental contamination or at least lack of negligence then how it got there doesn't matter, the athlete is responsible.
Not quite right. What is relevant is endogenous or exogenous. Endogenous nandrolone is not banned. Responsible doesn't mean exogenous. To make the argument compelling, you would necessarily need to establish the source, before you can establish its exogenous/endogenous origin. Houlihan's failure to persuade a panel of the source is not a compelling basis for any speculated alternative.
It wasn't endogenous. It was tested at above natural levels. She couldn't have committed a violation otherwise. That's why she tried the "burrito" bs. You try one dumb red herring after another.
The subject of this thread has been commented on here at length. It's chief significance is that it confirms doping can be found in schools and amongst mediocre athletes. So it will be rife in the pros.
They are completely right -- this is not a Houlihan thread, and discussing Houlihan's case at all is wholly off-topic, because there is virtually nothing in common with this father/son case that wasn't disputed and didn't go to arbitration. I can only guess you want to hijack yet another thread to beat a dead horse because deep down you know your previous discussions were lacking.
It isn't wholly off topic. The subject is doping in both cases and the risible excuses you make for a convicted pro athlete while accepting a teenage nonentity was doping on no stronger evidence.
Not quite right. What is relevant is endogenous or exogenous. Endogenous nandrolone is not banned. Responsible doesn't mean exogenous. To make the argument compelling, you would necessarily need to establish the source, before you can establish its exogenous/endogenous origin. Houlihan's failure to persuade a panel of the source is not a compelling basis for any speculated alternative.
It wasn't endogenous. It was tested at above natural levels. She couldn't have committed a violation otherwise. That's why she tried the "burrito" bs. You try one dumb red herring after another.
Her test results were consistent with both endogenous and exogenous sources, rendering them ambiguous and uncompelling. It is necessary to establish the source in order to make a compelling argument that she doped with exogenous nandrolone.
They are completely right -- this is not a Houlihan thread, and discussing Houlihan's case at all is wholly off-topic, because there is virtually nothing in common with this father/son case that wasn't disputed and didn't go to arbitration. I can only guess you want to hijack yet another thread to beat a dead horse because deep down you know your previous discussions were lacking.
It isn't wholly off topic. The subject is doping in both cases and the risible excuses you make for a convicted pro athlete while accepting a teenage nonentity was doping on no stronger evidence.
The subject of this thread is the father doping his son. It is wholly unrelated to Houlihan's case.
It wasn't endogenous. It was tested at above natural levels. She couldn't have committed a violation otherwise. That's why she tried the "burrito" bs. You try one dumb red herring after another.
Her test results were consistent with both endogenous and exogenous sources, rendering them ambiguous and uncompelling. It is necessary to establish the source in order to make a compelling argument that she doped with exogenous nandrolone.
The results weren't ambiguous. The Court found a violation had occurred. It's findings left that in no doubt. It also found she couldn't justify it. You never stop lying.
It isn't wholly off topic. The subject is doping in both cases and the risible excuses you make for a convicted pro athlete while accepting a teenage nonentity was doping on no stronger evidence.
The subject of this thread is the father doping his son. It is wholly unrelated to Houlihan's case.
Only because you cannot reconcile your views in two cases in which the official conclusion was the athletes doped. You never stop making excuses for Houlihan. She was just as guilty as a schoolboy who was found to have doped.
The subject of this thread is the father doping his son. It is wholly unrelated to Houlihan's case.
Only because you cannot reconcile your views in two cases in which the official conclusion was the athletes doped. You never stop making excuses for Houlihan. She was just as guilty as a schoolboy who was found to have doped.
You obsession with Houlihan is strong. On a thread about a doping case involving two completely different people.
Remember you wrote on the Ron Clarke thread "The obsession here with Ingebrigtsen is strong. On a thread about a distance runner 60 years ago."
Her test results were consistent with both endogenous and exogenous sources, rendering them ambiguous and uncompelling. It is necessary to establish the source in order to make a compelling argument that she doped with exogenous nandrolone.
The results weren't ambiguous. The Court found a violation had occurred. It's findings left that in no doubt. It also found she couldn't justify it. You never stop lying.
The CAS Panel erred.
WADA guidance to its approved labs confirms that endogenous consumption can produce the same test results, calling the tested level "usual" and the tested ratio "endogenous".
The subject of this thread is the father doping his son. It is wholly unrelated to Houlihan's case.
Only because you cannot reconcile your views in two cases in which the official conclusion was the athletes doped. You never stop making excuses for Houlihan. She was just as guilty as a schoolboy who was found to have doped.
I have already reconciled the differences. My views are different because the underlying facts are different:
- one case is undisputed, with no alternative non-doping scenario offered -- there are no other alternatives before me for me to consider; the other was disputed, with an alternative "scientifically proven" WADA confirmed "non-doping" scenario
- one case was investigated by the anti-doping organization, identifying an exogenous source; the other was not, and did not establish an exogenous source
There is no ambiguity in the father/son case.
If Houlihan is guilty, as you say, I remain prepared to listen to compelling arguments that do not begin with nor include presuming her guilt until she proves otherwise.
Similarly, if you want to argue the father/son are innocent, I am also prepared to listen to compelling arguments.
Only because you cannot reconcile your views in two cases in which the official conclusion was the athletes doped. You never stop making excuses for Houlihan. She was just as guilty as a schoolboy who was found to have doped.
You obsession with Houlihan is strong. On a thread about a doping case involving two completely different people.
Remember you wrote on the Ron Clarke thread "The obsession here with Ingebrigtsen is strong. On a thread about a distance runner 60 years ago."
You have zero self-awareness.
You have zero intelligence. The two doping cases both involve confirmed violations. But one of them - which was an unequivocal conviction based on a positive test with no accepted defence - rekrunner relentlessly defends. But here you come to do your little lap dance for him, as you do. You never respond anything that isn't one of my posts. You are obsessed.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
The results weren't ambiguous. The Court found a violation had occurred. It's findings left that in no doubt. It also found she couldn't justify it. You never stop lying.
The CAS Panel erred.
WADA guidance to its approved labs confirms that endogenous consumption can produce the same test results, calling the tested level "usual" and the tested ratio "endogenous".
If CAS erred then Houlihan would have and could have appealed. She didn't.
The other side of the coin is that the top runners have far, far more to lose. This kid will probably never compete again, while a top runner will have put a cloud over his/her’s head for the rest of his/her’s career.
Track and Field is still such an unpopular sport in the mainstream that people don't care about the supposed public shame from Letsrun keyboard warriors.
High‑school drug testing is minimal, yet college scholarships are plentiful, so I can’t help wondering how many parents secretly dope their kids to land those full ride or how many athletes self‑dose for the same reason. When a runner posts a 1:46 in high school but slips to 1:50s, as an example in college, it makes me suspect something was going on earlier.
Track and Field Coach Michael Vowell and Track and Field Athlete Seth Vowell Accept Sanctions for Anti-Doping Rule Violations
Colorado Springs, Colo. (June 30, 2025) – USADA announced today that Michael Vowell, a coach in the sport of track and field, and Seth Vowell, an athlete in the sport of track and field, both of Richmond, Texas, have accepted sanctions for anti-doping rule violations.
“This case is a devastating example of why it’s so important for athlete support personnel, including coaches and parents, to put athlete well-being above all else, especially when involving minors,” said USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart. “And when they don’t, as in this case, they will be held accountable to the full force of the rules.”
After receiving information from a whistleblower, USADA initiated an investigation that uncovered evidence demonstrating that Michael Vowell, 49, administered his own prescription testosterone gel to his minor child, Seth Vowell, 16, at the 2023 USA Track & Field Junior Olympic Cross-Country Championships on December 10, 2023. Testosterone is a non–Specified Substance in the class of Anabolic Agents and is prohibited at all times under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policies, and the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, all of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (the Code) and the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List.
Michael Vowell’s actions constituted anti-doping rule violations for possession of a prohibited substance, administration of a prohibited substance, and complicity. He accepted a lifetime period of ineligibility for his violations. Based on the circumstances of the case, Seth Vowell qualified for a reduced two-year period of ineligibility for his testosterone use anti-doping rule violation.
Michael Vowell’s lifetime period of ineligibility began on March 19, 2025, the date he was provisionally suspended. Seth Vowell’s two-year period of ineligibility also began on March 19, 2025, the date he was provisionally suspended. In addition, Seth Vowell has been disqualified from all competitive results obtained on and after December 10, 2023, the date he used testosterone, including forfeiture of any medals, points and prizes.
In an effort to aid athletes, as well as support team members such as parents, coaches, and medical professionals in understanding the rules applicable to them, USADA provides comprehensive instruction on its website on the testing process and prohibited substances, how to file and update athlete Whereabouts, how to obtain permission to use a necessary medication, and the risks and dangers of taking supplements, as well as performance-enhancing and recreational drugs.
In addition, USADA manages a drug reference hotline, Global Drug Reference Online (GlobalDRO.com), conducts educational sessions with National Governing Bodies and their athletes, and distributes a multitude of educational materials, such as a supplement guide, a nutrition guide, a clean sport handbook, and periodic alerts and advisories.
USADA makes available a number of ways to report the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs in sport in an effort to protect clean athletes and promote clean competition. Any tip can be reported using the USADA Play Clean Tip Center, by text at 87232 ("USADA"), by email at playclean@USADA.org, by phone at 1-877-Play Clean (1-877-752-9253) or by mail.
USADA is responsible for the testing and results management process for athletes in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement and is equally dedicated to preserving the integrity of sport through research initiatives and educational programs.
WADA guidance to its approved labs confirms that endogenous consumption can produce the same test results, calling the tested level "usual" and the tested ratio "endogenous".
If CAS erred then Houlihan would have and could have appealed. She didn't.
But she did appeal to the Swiss courts.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Her options finished with CAS. She had nowhere further to go and no grounds. Only you keep arguing CAS made mistakes. It's over, Rover.
In other words, she could not have appealed, as you suggested, regardless if the CAS erred -- except to the Swiss courts, contrary to what you suggested. The railroad met the end of the line. Do you know anything about her case?
In any case, despite your best efforts, the CAS decisions remains uncompelling, as they were only made possible by presuming the conclusions. If the WA/AIU had investigated, like USADA did here, and established an exogenous source, like USADA did here, that would be compelling.
Her options finished with CAS. She had nowhere further to go and no grounds. Only you keep arguing CAS made mistakes. It's over, Rover.
In other words, she could not have appealed, as you suggested, regardless if the CAS erred -- except to the Swiss courts, contrary to what you suggested. The railroad met the end of the line. Do you know anything about her case?
In any case, despite your best efforts, the CAS decisions remains uncompelling, as they were only made possible by presuming the conclusions. If the WA/AIU had investigated, like USADA did here, and established an exogenous source, like USADA did here, that would be compelling.
She had no grounds for an appeal; either on the facts or the processes followed. Her rejected defence was the end of her line. As guilty as the schoolboy.
In other words, she could not have appealed, as you suggested, regardless if the CAS erred -- except to the Swiss courts, contrary to what you suggested. The railroad met the end of the line. Do you know anything about her case?
In any case, despite your best efforts, the CAS decisions remains uncompelling, as they were only made possible by presuming the conclusions. If the WA/AIU had investigated, like USADA did here, and established an exogenous source, like USADA did here, that would be compelling.
She had no grounds for an appeal; either on the facts or the processes followed. Her rejected defence was the end of her line. As guilty as the schoolboy.
That is debatable, given the ambiguity of the test results, and the failure of the CAS to address some of the points before them.
Your focus on her "defence" still doesn't cure the gaps in the facts with the WA/AIU's "offence". These gaps in the facts, combined with the ambiguity, are the reasons why her conviction is uncompelling.