Your position seems to be that (1) nobody dopes, and (2) that doping does not work anyway so it is not cheating. That is being an apologist, plain an simple. It is a hobby I guess.
This is not my position. Of course some athletes dope, and I don't ever apologize for breaking the rules.
Let's play along and pretend they were just asking these questions to get answers to apologists' questions.*
Is the best use of resources, in the biggest doping case to hit T&F in the last few years, when you have access to a pre-eminent sport scientist who specializes in doping, to ask him FOURTEEN questions that imply she's innocent, just to get his reaction?
*They're the apologists.
Doping apologist #3 here :)
I thought the whole way this thing came about was pretty interesting. When we first talked to Ross about the case it took him like over a week to email me back a response because he pointed out it was complicated.
I almost expected a more a quick "She's dirty" or "She's clean" but instead got back a very detailed email that showed this was complicated.
Then I said, "Hey what if hired you to analyze the case" and he agreed.
Then we got the technical document. We had a lot of questions on it, and I wouldn't say it came across as, "Shelby's defense was obliterated" .
Then we decided the document at the very least needed a conclusion, but what people really wanted to hear were Ross' opinions on the case. After comprehending the more technical document, I knew Ross agreed with the ruling but what did that mean in terms of what he thought Shelby actually did or what he thought in terms of if she intentional doped or took a supplement or whatever.
So then we suggest the Q&A opinion piece. Not sure who came up with the idea for that one. We threw a lot of questions at him and all sort of contributed them at once. I said to him "some of these questions seem similar to one another, so feel free to answer what you feel is necessary."
I think nearly all of them got answered. There was slight nuance in each question and each answer so we pretty much just edited the answers and that is the article you see.
I was pleased with the end product.
I felt it took a lot of conversation to get everything flushed out and the stronger opinions he expressed in the Q&A.
To some who felt it was a bit repetitive I can see that especially knowing how the story came about.
" I knew Ross agreed with the ruling but what did that mean in terms of what he thought Shelby actually did or what he thought in terms of if she intentional doped or took a supplement or whatever."
Again: how you don't see that this line of thinking stains your enrtire approach is beyond me. Your entire vision of this story is "but did she do it on purpose? Really? Do we have absolute proof?" And you already know, that it's unknowbale to answer that. So by repeating the question over and over, the only possible effect is to move the needle from "guilty" - which is what the suspension, report and analysis state - to 'well, there's a chance it was an accident, right?"
We don't need a breakdown of how the questions came about. Your entire response here is so flawed. Of course a respected scientist doesn't look at data and say "here's absolute certainty." That's not how science works. When he tells you it's complicated, it's because he knows you're going to oversimplify the answer. Because this case IS complicated to someone looking for an answer they can fit in a Tweet. It's not complicated in terms of whether Shelby did something that correctly produced a positive doping result. And I don't think anyone is surprised that Tucker's reaction to being asked whether this is a cut-and-dried case was to tell you he'd rather present it in his own area of expertise - science - than in yours.
If you don't want to be acused of being a doping apologist for a white Amerrican medal hopeful, don't cover her case from the lens of "but there's a chance it was all a misunderstanding" while simultaneously fundraisaing for her defense.
We reached out to Ross, who is one of the best at conveying information on endurance sports science, a few months ago and asked him to look at the Shelby case for us.
He's got two pieces for us.
If you've only got time to read one, we recommend the Q&A piece where he gives his opinion on the case, the ruling, Shelby's burrito defense and a lot more. (Spoiler alert, he agrees with how CAS ruled.)
Third, if BTC is dirty you give up being a fan of the sport?
I follow the top end elite sports mainly to see drugs busts - who wins or whatever is of secondary importance. To see the cheats all telling ridiculous stories as grown adults to explain their um "unusual" test results is utterly hilarious - Lance and his corticoid creams, Bradly no-needles Wiggins and his asthma, off-score Paula and her altitude training/racing in hot temperatures/faulty lab equipment/faulty procedures (take your pick!), Shelby and her "accidental" consumption of a steroid-infused burrito, Baumann and his East-German agent-infused toothpaste, doorbell Mo, the Kenyans and their malaria treatments, the list goes on and on....
When the governing bodies realize that the doping busts are now the most entertaining part of the sport maybe they will actually start testing athletes properly and we can have more of these hilarious excuses come up.
"No one suggest we are talking about meat ingestion alone"? So how does this help you argument since the claim that she hit these NA-19 levels from a PARTIALLY consumed burrito?
The evidence that they were untruthful is your lying eyes. Never heard of nandrolone -- LOL. Then the shift was, well even if it was NA-19 that isnt performance enhancing. Then that morphed into 'well you cant prove the Nandrolone DID NOT come from that burrito' which again, putting the onus back on the investigator to prove your theory of the case.
Just like the apologists are doing, you can set tests that the CAS undoubtedly cannot pass to your liking, but that is not the point here.
The point is this athlete has a banned substance in their system at the time of the test and the explanation is pure BS.
What is my argument? Consuming two thirds of a burrito with a meat and organ mix is plenty sufficient to reach the low levels of 5.2 and 5.8 ng/ml.
Did the AIU or CAS provide evidence that Jerry and Shalane had heard of nandrolone? This doesn't look like "history", but looks like another "story" invented by fans.
Which performance do you suggest was enhanced in Dec. 2020?
Don't confuse burdens and purposes. If the limited purpose is deciding WADA rules were broken, as interpreted by the WADA code, the respective burdens of each party are well defined.
But these threads talk about so much more than "presence", "use" and whether "not intentional" was established. These extra claims are not subject to WADA defined burdens in an artificial and limited context, but rather by long established scientific burdens on those making these claims, supported by evidence, observations, and logic.
To everyone on here who thinks Shelby is dirty, I'm curious what do you think of Ajee Wilson? I have no idea if she is clean or not. I'm naturally a skeptic of the consensus view. Can someone tell me why she got off - were her levels really low and the isotope's consistent with tainted beef? I've never looked into it.
You never looked into it. LOL. Three months ago, you tried to compare Wilson's case with Houlihan's in the Coffee Club thread.
This was my response back then - which you chose to ignore or forget:
But, for the umpteenth time, Houliham's case is very very very very very different: 1) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that an intact boar made it into the burrito ("improbable", CAS wrote). {At this point, the case is lost, in contrast to the Lawson and Wilson cases, where the beef - not pork - contamination was judged to be "more likely than not"} But wait, that is only the beginning. There is more: 2) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that a stomach offal burrito even from an intact boar would have caused such high nandro levels ("improbable", CAS wrote). {extra icing} 3) According to CAS, we can rule out on the balance of probability that a stomach offal burrito even from an intact boar would have caused such high androgen levels ("highly improbable", CAS wrote). {nail in the coffin} 4) According to CAS, we can rule out that the nandro came from "commercial pork" (not "consistent with", CAS wrote). And according to CAS, the food truck obtained their food from a commercial plant that used commercial pork from commercial farmers. With that, the coffin was burned, and all ashes spread out over the ocean. Case closed. Lawson and Wilson had no equivalent to points 2, 3, or 4. Recall that Gatlin was banned just based on 4 (CIR showed synthetic testo, just like it showed synthetic nandro for Houlihan).
And then there was the evidence of her hormones being increased and this being caused by designer drugs.
The reason the questions read as pro Shelby is because that’s how you do a Q&A like this! This structure ensures Tucker gets an opportunity to refute every possible counter argument.
Thank you.
I didn't write all of the questions for Ross, but I wrote/contributed to some of them and I wanted to ask him the things I still wasn't clear on coming out of the CAS decision in June. I understood pretty well why CAS decided to ban her. A lot of that evidence is laid out fairly clearly in the CAS decision, particularly McGlone's explanation of how improbable he believes it would be for a boar with sufficient androgen levels to trigger a positive test at Houlihan's level to show up in the food supply.
But there were some things I still wasn't sure about. Ayotte's prominent role in the case, coming on the heels of her mistake in the Lawson case, raised an eyebrow so I wanted to know his thoughts on her as well as the study she cited. And it never made sense to me why the lab didn't do the pharmacokinetics study Houlihan requested, even though it wasn't required (or why she wouldn't do it herself) but now I have a better understanding of that as well.
Also, I read the first piece by Ross, which goes into great detail about most of the arguments Houlihan made in the CAS case and why CAS rejected them. That article already made clear the damning evidence against her (namely that her nandrolone concentrations were relatively high and her carbon isotope readings did not suggest an endogenous source). Should I just ask him about that stuff again to get him to repeat what he already explained in article #1? That doesn't seem like a great use of his time.
what a pantload. When you do a Q&A with a respected scientist after the fact in a high-profile case where a decision has been made, you don't spend all the questions asking him if he's sure they got it right. You ask him to explain the science in layman's terms for people who don't understand it.You ask him about other cases that people can use for context. You extract knowledge about the overall situation that wasn't covered in the report.
"Should I just ask him about that stuff again to get him to repeat what he already explained in article #1? That doesn't seem like a great use of his time."
You asked him 14 questions about whether here's really, 100%, positivvely certain, that the report got it right. That isn't a good use of anyone's time.
I've been mulling this since reading Ross' comment that the Nandralone could have been purchased off Amazon...
If you're going to dope, have a plan for WHEN you get caught - if you don't think you're going to get caught you're a complete moran. So to that effect, why isn't NOP BTC taking a little of their Amazon 'roids, sprinkling a tiny amount into their protein powders and then "storing" an amount from each batch of powder they hand out to athletes weekly/monthly - they've then got an actual believeable excuse for tainted supplements that can be tested when an athlete has a positive test.
It's probably not going to get an athlete off completely free, but it sure looks far less stupid to 99% of the population (except the Johnson's - still mad that's the case) than a tainted burrito.
"McGlone next explains that cryptorchid species are rare (0.5%, or “extremely low, approaching zero”), and so the “what if” scenario that might explain how Houlihan ingested an uncastrated boar is also very unlikely. McGlone’s final statement in this line of “plausibility of ingestion” is to point out that the plant where the Beaverton food truck obtains its pork meat does not operate a boar kill plant, which means there is a “near zero chance” that boar meat would be mixed up with normal pork products"
"Even if uncastrated boars (like cryptorchid species) have elevated androgen levels, they’d only be found in the kidneys, testes and liver. This is important because Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pork stomach, and McGlone then explains that the stomach has far lower androgen levels than other tissues, with reasons for this."
" The main study cited and explained in the CAS decision is one in which 19 volunteers were given various sized pork meals, containing various mixtures of meat, kidneys, livers and heart (basically, combinations of the various edible parts). That study, plus one other, Ayotte explained, are “loaded” so as to find high levels of androgens, because they use old boars whose androgen levels are higher, and they feed the volunteers with very large meals (300g of pork, in some cases). And still, Ayotte argues, the highest value measured in the studies was 2.4 ng/mL and 2.1 ng/mL, under half of what was found in Houlihan’s urine sample."
You need to stop carrying water for Houlihan, or at least find some other line of evidence to hang your hopes on. The nandrolone categorically did not come from pig meat.
I addressed all of these points already.
After considering all the evidence before the CAS, the source of the nandrolone was not determined. There is no basis to say it categorically didn't come from the burrito, or that an alternative source would be more likely.
I interpreted this differently. And maybe I'm naive.
But they hired Ross tucker. And by asking the questions this way. In favor of Shelby (If you believe that), repeatedly, and getting clear cut "no she doped" answers, i think it even more definitively puts the nail in the coffin.
The nail was already in the coffin. She was convicted and banned. Nobody in the world was wondering if she was guilty - except the LRC braintrust.
They asked 14 questions that didn't need to be asked. Questions that inject doubt into the process. They weren't fact-finding questions; they were questions designed to force a conversation around doubt. That's not journalism; it's acting for the defense.
Some people are confusing the LRC line of questions with those a prosecutor might pose to a police officer to get him to eliminate some options before the defense can present them. That's not what's happened here. This is all going on AFTER the conviction has been passed down. And it's not journalism; it's playing lawyer.
There is zero reason, after reading the CAS report and Tucker's analysis, to have any doubts or concerns about whether she was properly treated. It's like a self-denfense case: once the fact of the act has been established, the onus is on the defendant to prove it wasn't criminal. Her defense didn't hold up, and since the fact of the doping test was never in doubt, the rest doesn't matter. LRC has been trying since day 1 to cover this form a vantage point of "ok, but what if his happened?"
That's not journalism. That's defensive posturing on behalf of a proven doper.
I interpreted this differently. And maybe I'm naive.
But they hired Ross tucker. And by asking the questions this way. In favor of Shelby (If you believe that), repeatedly, and getting clear cut "no she doped" answers, i think it even more definitively puts the nail in the coffin.
The nail was already in the coffin. She was convicted and banned. Nobody in the world was wondering if she was guilty - except the LRC braintrust.
They asked 14 questions that didn't need to be asked. Questions that inject doubt into the process. They weren't fact-finding questions; they were questions designed to force a conversation around doubt. That's not journalism; it's acting for the defense.
Some people are confusing the LRC line of questions with those a prosecutor might pose to a police officer to get him to eliminate some options before the defense can present them. That's not what's happened here. This is all going on AFTER the conviction has been passed down. And it's not journalism; it's playing lawyer.
There is zero reason, after reading the CAS report and Tucker's analysis, to have any doubts or concerns about whether she was properly treated. It's like a self-denfense case: once the fact of the act has been established, the onus is on the defendant to prove it wasn't criminal. Her defense didn't hold up, and since the fact of the doping test was never in doubt, the rest doesn't matter. LRC has been trying since day 1 to cover this form a vantage point of "ok, but what if his happened?"
That's not journalism. That's defensive posturing on behalf of a proven doper.
"McGlone next explains that cryptorchid species are rare (0.5%, or “extremely low, approaching zero”), and so the “what if” scenario that might explain how Houlihan ingested an uncastrated boar is also very unlikely. McGlone’s final statement in this line of “plausibility of ingestion” is to point out that the plant where the Beaverton food truck obtains its pork meat does not operate a boar kill plant, which means there is a “near zero chance” that boar meat would be mixed up with normal pork products"
"Even if uncastrated boars (like cryptorchid species) have elevated androgen levels, they’d only be found in the kidneys, testes and liver. This is important because Houlihan’s claim is that she ate pork stomach, and McGlone then explains that the stomach has far lower androgen levels than other tissues, with reasons for this."
" The main study cited and explained in the CAS decision is one in which 19 volunteers were given various sized pork meals, containing various mixtures of meat, kidneys, livers and heart (basically, combinations of the various edible parts). That study, plus one other, Ayotte explained, are “loaded” so as to find high levels of androgens, because they use old boars whose androgen levels are higher, and they feed the volunteers with very large meals (300g of pork, in some cases). And still, Ayotte argues, the highest value measured in the studies was 2.4 ng/mL and 2.1 ng/mL, under half of what was found in Houlihan’s urine sample."
You need to stop carrying water for Houlihan, or at least find some other line of evidence to hang your hopes on. The nandrolone categorically did not come from pig meat.
I addressed all of these points already.
After considering all the evidence before the CAS, the source of the nandrolone was not determined. There is no basis to say it categorically didn't come from the burrito, or that an alternative source would be more likely.
Please stop trying to come across as an expert in these matters. You spam every thread with your opinions ad nauseum, without ever adding to the conversation (frankly neither does anyone else) or resolving any issues. You are just another windbag (like Armstronglivs, etc.) who clogs up the boards.
The system isn't broken (regardless what Tygart says), it just isn't perfect (just like any current Justice system). It seems that it would never pass muster to what YOU have deigned to be acceptable, because you are a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian. The bigger the net (and WADA has a big net) the less perfect it will be - the solution is either have no net at all, or accept the validity of the jurisdiction , or get involved yourself (off these boards) to enact some change. That you seemingly spend all day on here tells me that you don't have the time or will to get involved in the ACTUAL process.
If you were an expert on these matters the last place that you would inhabit is Letsrun. Frankly, that Tucker sullies himself by pandering to the likes of the Brojo's and their pseudo journalism, isn't exactly doing his reputation any favor either, regardless of which side of the fence he is on. You do know that much of the sporting world holds this site in contempt, and its denizens ( of which you are amongst the most vociferous) as well. It is a contempt well earned. This thread simply underscores that, again.
This all seems quite fair to me. I think people need to chill out a bit on this thread.
Lrc funded a great piece that pretty clearly shows Shelby is guilty. And yet the prevailing comments here are saying they're supporting Shelby too much.
That's because they have been carrying water and sowing doubt in the case for Shelby/Jerry/BTC for months now. Defending them, offering alternative defenses that Shelby/Jerry have not made, and even fundraising for Shelby. Even after Ross Tucker's analysis, which clearly explained the AIU's complete destruction of Shelby's case, they are still acting as if there is doubt. This is something that, historically, they have not done to any other doper, so there is definitely some favoritism/preferential treatment going on here (at the very least).
Can someone tel me why Shelby said she ate pig stomach? Since she had no idea what pig she ate (since she didn't eat pig), why does anyone think it would have been stomach? Was it because stomach was on the menu?
Shouldn't the debate be whether any type of pig consumption cold result in those values. People keep talking about pig stomach - that to me isn't revelant. I'm curious about any pig part producing those values and those isotopes.
Can someone tel me why Shelby said she ate pig stomach? Since she had no idea what pig she ate (since she didn't eat pig), why does anyone think it would have been stomach? Was it because stomach was on the menu?
Shouldn't the debate be whether any type of pig consumption cold result in those values. People keep talking about pig stomach - that to me isn't revelant. I'm curious about any pig part producing those values and those isotopes.
Because she and her team know that boar offal is what would produce a similar result on he test. Other pig parts don't. So it was her only possible alibi. And proven to be a crock of poop.
Can someone tel me why Shelby said she ate pig stomach? Since she had no idea what pig she ate (since she didn't eat pig), why does anyone think it would have been stomach? Was it because stomach was on the menu?
Shouldn't the debate be whether any type of pig consumption cold result in those values. People keep talking about pig stomach - that to me isn't revelant. I'm curious about any pig part producing those values and those isotopes.
This is what you and rekrunner don't understand. The job of the CAS/AIU is to rule based on the defense's claims. We'll never know for sure why Shelby specifically said pig stomach, but it seems pretty easy to parse out. Consider this timeline:
Shelby finds out she's positive for the test. Door A: It must be something in my supplements/doping regimen --> test them all, finds nothing (plausibly legal) to have triggered a positive test. Moves to Door B. Door B: Oh it's something I ate. I had a carne asada burrito that night. Oh wait, beef doesn't have Nandrolone. Move to Door C. Door C: Well, it was a weird burrito it seemed greasier and I didn't finish it. Maybe it wasn't beef? What if it was something else like pork which can contain Nandrolone if it's a wild boar? Her and her team then looked at the menu saw pork sausage (not plausibly confused with carne asada and also pork shoulder which doesn't have Nandrolone) or Pork stomach (at least has some Nandrolone).
This was the best they could do. You can't without any proof or reason to believe claim the food truck served you an off-menu item with weird meat parts that would not be sourced to them anyway. I mean you can, but it's going to fail. Their story was plausible in the sense that yes she could've had pork stomach mistakenly. Where it fell apart was the type of meat required (uncastrated boar) to mistakenly enter the food supply, the carbon signature of said meat, the specific menu item (pork shoulder) containing enough to hit the levels, and other nuances of her explanation (she didn't finish the burrito but hit a huge # etc.).
"No one suggest we are talking about meat ingestion alone"? So how does this help you argument since the claim that she hit these NA-19 levels from a PARTIALLY consumed burrito?
The evidence that they were untruthful is your lying eyes. Never heard of nandrolone -- LOL. Then the shift was, well even if it was NA-19 that isnt performance enhancing. Then that morphed into 'well you cant prove the Nandrolone DID NOT come from that burrito' which again, putting the onus back on the investigator to prove your theory of the case.
Just like the apologists are doing, you can set tests that the CAS undoubtedly cannot pass to your liking, but that is not the point here.
The point is this athlete has a banned substance in their system at the time of the test and the explanation is pure BS.
What is my argument? Consuming two thirds of a burrito with a meat and organ mix is plenty sufficient to reach the low levels of 5.2 and 5.8 ng/ml.
Did the AIU or CAS provide evidence that Jerry and Shalane had heard of nandrolone? This doesn't look like "history", but looks like another "story" invented by fans.
Which performance do you suggest was enhanced in Dec. 2020?
Don't confuse burdens and purposes. If the limited purpose is deciding WADA rules were broken, as interpreted by the WADA code, the respective burdens of each party are well defined.
But these threads talk about so much more than "presence", "use" and whether "not intentional" was established. These extra claims are not subject to WADA defined burdens in an artificial and limited context, but rather by long established scientific burdens on those making these claims, supported by evidence, observations, and logic.
You're the resident LRC.com bot on this board at this point.
"Did the AIU or CAS provide evidence that Jerry and Shalane had heard of nandrolone? This doesn't look like "history", but looks like another "story" invented by fans"
All they would have to establish is that Jerry and Shalane have a pulse and are bipedal mammals in an endurance sport at the highest levels. But sure, THEY dont know the landscape and are completely ignorant of all the F ery going on right on the margins.
They love to hold up this 'fresh' image of innocence but only some of the folks on this site buy that advertising. Again, they have no problem posturing with the moral superiority when it's other groups but if they are really serious, where's their record of transparency? Nowhere.
They have plenty of soft propaganda coming from places like this site to do their work for them, they have no need to get in the mud.
Now that you have had the opportunity to ask all of your questions to a renowned expert in the field, has your opinion on the case changed? If so, how? If not, what is making you stick to your original view?
Just bumping this in the hope of a response from anyone from LRC. In Jonathan's opinion piece, he said that Twoggle wrote a blog post that helped him understand the case. Twoggle is someone whose expertise in these matters is completely unknown. You guys have now had an experienced, renowned, and credentialed expert give you his views on the case. Has it shifted your thinking in any way? If not, what more do you still need to know (bearing in mind that it's impossible to know conclusively what is going on in Houlihan's head)?