Malcolm Gladwell: Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying?

Zjsjsydhsnw wrote:

high school xc coach wrote:

99% chance she was taking another anabolic that was tainted with Nandralone. This is an easy call.

This is what I think happened too. And it's why her excuse makes no sense.

Never thought of that. And most prob a designer masking agent they forgot to see if it worked for Nandrolone.So simples.

Your cultural bias is showing.

There’s a difference between guessing and presenting scenarios that fit the set of facts.I won’t go down some stupid rabbit hole of doping arcana with you because I don’t have to. I accept that WADA got it right here and CAS slammed the door shut. The cascading probabilities were sufficiently convincing to me such that even if you eliminate 1-2 terms the rest of the product still approaches zero.

You need to accept that SH is going to serve her ban and her career is effectively over. The sooner you get out of denial, anger, and bargaining you can move on to acceptance.

Now, if you’ve recently become an expert on anabolic metabolites and want to occur some silliness about oral and (subcutaneous/intramuscular) injection routes, then I still don’t give a crap. she got popped. Her excuse was ridiculously implausible, and she got called on her bs. It’s over. Go home and develop a new fixation that you can white knight on a message board. Or maybe you figure this is finally your chance with SH because she’ll be at an all time low. Better go somewhere else and try to comfort her.

His conclusion is pretty straightforward. She doped.

His 'unease' is why such a person would do so and get caught. Don't make it sound like he doesn't conclude or there's some vagueness in this.

We only have questions because we haven't put Shelby on the witness stand. The endless lies from her and her team just make her credibility zero. And yet you still give her the benefit of the doubt. That's your bias.

High hopes wrote:

That would be Travis Tygart, the guy who lets dopers serve secret bans but also still compete and win prize money. Way to capture the moral high ground

Yes, the "immoral" "incompetent" one that aggressively convicted Armstrong and Salazar, and apparently applied the WADA permitted procedures to reduce sanctions in exchange for substantial assistance.

Way to address the merits.

You are asking me what I believe? It's faith versus faith, right?

I believe it is very easy to accidentally ingest enough nandrolone from ingesting boar meat and organs. One study with a small sample showed 7.5 ng/ml from eating boar in one subject. Another study, from AIU's expert, showed up to 130 ng/ml from eating a mix of boar organs. I think it is not that hard to get "enough of a banned substance", i.e. 5.2 and 5.8 ng/ml, from food that is legal to sell and consume.

I believe it is very easy for supplements and vitamins and medicine to be cross-contaminated with enough of a banned substance to have an analytical positive.

I believe it is very easy for other WADA banned substances to be mixed, or cross-contaminated, with enough of a banned substance to have an analytical positive.

I believe that, with few exceptions, distance runners don't take nandrolone on purpose, ever since the high profile of nandrolone in the Sydney Olympics around the year 2000.

I believe that a significant amount of nandrolone busts for distance runners are not athletes taking nandrolone on purpose for performance or recovery reasons, but rather accidental or oblivious consumption or contamination.

1) Tainted meat has worked well for others, but we are not talking about tainted meat here.

2) Nothing wrong with taking WADA legal supplements, but contamination is always a risk.

3) This has happened, but I don't consider it a likely possibility here.

... and I believe that with the 2015 changes in the WADA code, that it is no longer possible for ADAs/ADOs/AIU/CAS/... to distinguish between athletes unable to meet the legal burden of "proving the source" or "proving no intent", and the geniune "intentional doper" that choses to take a banned substance for improving performance.

With "guilty until proven innocent" the presumption is guilt.

Well, this thread was somewhat useful, until the usual idiots showed up to soil it with their pointless Shelbo bickering about burritos, WADA technicalities, die cheaters die, and sabotage that totally happened, just like they've done with the others.

rekrunner wrote:

... and I believe that with the 2015 changes in the WADA code, that it is no longer possible for ADAs/ADOs/AIU/CAS/... to distinguish between athletes unable to meet the legal burden of "proving the source" or "proving no intent", and the geniune "intentional doper" that choses to take a banned substance for improving performance.

With "guilty until proven innocent" the presumption is guilt.

I agree.

Perhaps some will actually read the rules.

Not one person has even tried to work out why a Stromba positive, with the same rejected food defence, would not have been deemed intent.

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Well, this thread was somewhat useful, until the usual idiots showed up to soil it with their pointless Shelbo bickering about burritos, WADA technicalities, die cheaters die, and sabotage that totally happened, just like they've done with the others.

The problem lies in the rules; they are mixed up, contradictory and unpredictable.

Someone needs to point this out.

USADA and their paper on food contamination adds even more to the fuel to the confusion mess.

It is the technicalities that got her convicted; try reading them.

Unfortunately non of this is simple, as you will see if you read the decision.

sanootage wrote:

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

Well, this thread was somewhat useful, until the usual idiots showed up to soil it with their pointless Shelbo bickering about burritos, WADA technicalities, die cheaters die, and sabotage that totally happened, just like they've done with the others.

The problem lies in the rules; they are mixed up, contradictory and unpredictable.

Someone needs to point this out.

USADA and their paper on food contamination adds even more to the fuel to the confusion mess.

It is the technicalities that got her convicted; try reading them.

Unfortunately non of this is simple, as you will see if you read the decision.

She was banned and not convicted. She exceeded the limit for a banned substance. Are you suggesting that nandrolone should be taken off the list of such substances?

rekrunner wrote:

stuff, faith, organ meat..

Faith - not really unless you're one of those types who engages in solipsism. I believe in objective reality and there's no evidence to suggest she was framed. I also don't believe that it is possible for an organization of this size to engineer a cover-up that remained secret. So not so much faith, but I have a firm grasp on objective reality.

The part of the organ that would contain the anabolic residue is not eaten. Chew on that.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

sanootage wrote:

The problem lies in the rules; they are mixed up, contradictory and unpredictable.

Someone needs to point this out.

USADA and their paper on food contamination adds even more to the fuel to the confusion mess.

It is the technicalities that got her convicted; try reading them.

Unfortunately non of this is simple, as you will see if you read the decision.

She was banned and not convicted. She exceeded the limit for a banned substance. Are you suggesting that nandrolone should be taken off the list of such substances?

The decision of the Court went against her and she was banned.Ok? Though many on this site use convicted.

Why on earth do you think I am suggesting Nandrolone goes of the list of such banned substances? So why?

I argued hard to get it on that list.

llort_vbo wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

stuff, faith, organ meat..

Faith - not really unless you're one of those types who engages in solipsism. I believe in objective reality and there's no evidence to suggest she was framed. I also don't believe that it is possible for an organization of this size to engineer a cover-up that remained secret. So not so much faith, but I have a firm grasp on objective reality.

The part of the organ that would contain the anabolic residue is not eaten. Chew on that.

It is very a very subjective concept is objective reality.

Justify “ believe “ in objective terms!

Chew on that.

llort_vbo wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

stuff, faith, organ meat..

Faith - not really unless you're one of those types who engages in solipsism. I believe in objective reality and there's no evidence to suggest she was framed. I also don't believe that it is possible for an organization of this size to engineer a cover-up that remained secret. So not so much faith, but I have a firm grasp on objective reality.

The part of the organ that would contain the anabolic residue is not eaten. Chew on that.

I didn’t ever suggest she was framed or that anyone engineered a cover-up.

I believe in objective realities too.

Blah blah blah. Obfuscate obfuscate obfuscate...

What exactly did get "popped" for? Don't just say Nandrolone. Name the source and the method, otherwise it's some sort of shady deal that's gone down, yet again.

You don't know, nobody here does. I want to know, I consider it my duty to the sport (Shelby speedgoggles/nikebowerman shilling notwithstanding) to be well informed about DOPING. Whatever that is supposed to mean?

sanootage wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

She was banned and not convicted. She exceeded the limit for a banned substance. Are you suggesting that nandrolone should be taken off the list of such substances?

The decision of the Court went against her and she was banned.Ok? Though many on this site use convicted.

Why on earth do you think I am suggesting Nandrolone goes of the list of such banned substances? So why?

I argued hard to get it on that list.

So you were around in the 70s/early 80s when it was in regular use in sport?

What exactly is your point?

Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:

sanootage wrote:

The decision of the Court went against her and she was banned.Ok? Though many on this site use convicted.

Why on earth do you think I am suggesting Nandrolone goes of the list of such banned substances? So why?

I argued hard to get it on that list.

So you were around in the 70s/early 80s when it was in regular use in sport?

What exactly is your point?

I have no point in my post except to correct mis assumptions in the previous post about me.

Nandrolonologists of the World wrote:

SH: BANNED.

You: Endless word vomit.

Me: meh. I just don't like cheaters.

Good luck cracking the case wide open. Good thing you are the only one who really knows the truth. With all that knowledge of metabolites and oral routes you should fly over to Switzerland. You might be needed.