That's wild. So people buying these oral steroids, are they just wasting their money? 😄
In theory, on Nov 23 after negative Nov 22 test, she could have injected 1 or 2 mg of specialty nandrolone with -22 to -23% isotopic signature, not available to consumers but only with the right connections, but she would have not injected again in late Dec or early Jan before learning about the Dec 15 test result on Jan 14 and then testing negative on Jan 23.
And with such strategy and connections it makes better sense to microdose with testosterone suspension or testosterone patches. Useful microdose clear in 24 hours:
Administration of low amounts of endogenous hormones - so-called micro-dosages - are supposed to represent a major challenge in doping analysis. To model such a situation, we have studied transdermal administrations of 2.4 mg...
The -23% signature (if real, coming from Ayotte's lab) would suggest that contaminated supplements or contaminated testosterone is unlikely because that would be high-grade stuff designed to evade tests. It also seems the beef theory is unlikely because the shady farmers would not want to pay extra for specialty nandrolone.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Added range of percentage.
That's just one study with 12 dosages over one month, on males. No optimisation, no long range study, no different dosages, no synergistic effects with blood doping etc. On the other side of the coin, various athletes and doctors/pharmacists/chemists and teams and countries have been optimising their doping for decades.
FYI clearing within 24 hours is too late. Microdosers need clearance within six hours, to be on the safe side (using the no-test window 11 pm - 5 am). But indeed then there is the greed of the doper - maybe just a bit more, and then a bit more next month etc. Just in case, you could eat at a shady restaurant when you need to load up again. Voila, you are at 5.8 ng/ml at 6 am instead of at 1.5 ng/ml. Hmmm, when exactly was Shelby's test again? Early or late in the day?
Like the ones you make about Sam Ruthe. You are just the same.
Speculating about drug use is every second thread on this site. The sport is full of it. There isn't anything to speculate about Houlihan, who is a convicted doper.
24 hours is more strategic than 1 month, if both doses produce similar benefits. Having the correct symbol doesn't change the strategic analysis, but if you want to give some specific numbers comparing nandrolone to testosterone I'm all ears, ready to listen...
I'm trying to find the original paper showing that consumption of boar offal can cause 19-NA to reach high levels. In Ayotte's 2006 paper she says it reached 160 ng/mL in 1 subject, but when I downloaded the pair of papers she referenced I saw more moderate levels. Did she make a mistake, or is it a spike hidden within the tables and figures?
The Shelby doping apologists here should be grateful for threads like these; it allows them to rehearse the same unsubstantiated claims they have made for the last 4 years that make not a whit of difference to the outcome of the case or how they will be decided in the future. So Shelby remains a convicted doper and no one is persuaded otherwise by the repetition of her defenders' arguments here.
By "unsubstianted claims", do you mean things like "the WADA Lab correctly reported the result", "the WA/AIU met their burden to charge a violation", "offal must be stomach or meat", "boar must be cryptorchid", "boar must be at most 6 months old", "boar must have eaten corn", "pseudo-endogenous CIR must be exogenous", "source must be nor-DHEA", and "athlete conduct exists that must have been intentional"?
How is "unsubstantiated claim" different from "presumption"?
It is tragic that future cases will treat athletes who have done nothing wrong like intentional cheats and railroad them to 4-year bans.
Nandrolone is a known ped that is often used by distance athletes in Kenya, among other countries. That is why she used it. All drugs pose a risk to the athlete of being caught but done with expert assistance the risk as negligible, as only a fraction of dopers are busted.
Nandrolone is a known PED for sprinters and throwers, when large quantities are injected.
After high profile busts around 2000 and increased testing and a lower threshold for women (from 5 ng/ml to 2 ng/ml), nandrolone fell out of favor with the more sophisticated dopers, as it is too easy to detect, according to "experts" like Victor Conte.
In Kenya, it is known from WADA reports that 1) doping is unsophisticated and opportunistic and many aspiring Kenyan athletes are exploited by local chemists and doctors, as well as foreign coaches; 2) Kenyans and doctors and pharmacists are not always fully aware of athletes anti-doping obligations, and routine treatments for non-athletes, e.g. EPO for anemia from malaria, or steroid injections for muscle injuries, are not appropriate for athletes subject to anti-doping.
Using "expert assistance" to manage the risk doesn't mean that the doping is performance enhancing, for the athlete and event combination.
The Shelby doping apologists here should be grateful for threads like these; it allows them to rehearse the same unsubstantiated claims they have made for the last 4 years that make not a whit of difference to the outcome of the case or how they will be decided in the future. So Shelby remains a convicted doper and no one is persuaded otherwise by the repetition of her defenders' arguments here.
By "unsubstianted claims", do you mean things like "the WADA Lab correctly reported the result", "the WA/AIU met their burden to charge a violation", "offal must be stomach or meat", "boar must be cryptorchid", "boar must be at most 6 months old", "boar must have eaten corn", "pseudo-endogenous CIR must be exogenous", "source must be nor-DHEA", and "athlete conduct exists that must have been intentional"?
How is "unsubstantiated claim" different from "presumption"?
It is tragic that future cases will treat athletes who have done nothing wrong like intentional cheats and railroad them to 4-year bans.
But yay! Hooray for the sport!
None of this matters as she did not even have a 100 % uncastrated boar meat burrito with added 100% nandrolone-enriched pork lard
None of this matters as she did not even have a 100 % uncastrated boar meat burrito with added 100% nandrolone-enriched pork lard
I think it should matter that the "expert" claims before the CAS were unsubtantiated.
No one ever said she had "100 % uncastrated boar meat burrito with added 100% nandrolone-enriched pork lard". Witnesses did say she ate an uncharacteristically greasy burrito.
The claim all along was from "offal" in a burrito. This can be many things besides exclusively meat and stomach. The "expert witnesses" gave us a laundry list of what things they considered to be "offal": heart, liver, kidneys, salivary glands, testicles, and fat.
This original claim has not yet been wholly rebutted, so effectively remains undisputed.
As the CAS told us that the source of the nandrolone was not identified, nothing can be ruled out, even now, 4 years after the sample was tested. There are still several potential candidates: 1) offal from a burrito as claimed; 2) WADA legal vitamins and supplements contaminated; 3) WADA illegal oral nandrolone supplements; 4) etc.
The "near-zero" argument that is alleged to rule it out is jam-packed with unsubstantiated assumptions, and at best argues that nandrolone positives from pork in the USA will be rare.
Without substantianted evidence, there is no reason to think that "intentional doping" with a WADA illegal substance, e.g ordered from Amazon isn't equally rare in the USA, if not less rare -- e.g. "far less than 1 in 100,000". In fact, in an interview, USADA Chief Tygart said (if we go by his experience and population statistics rather than evidence specific to Houlihan), the most likely scenario would be unknowing ingestion from WADA legal supplements contaminated during manufacture and bottling.
The devil is always in the details, and substantiated details are what is missing in Houlihan's conviction, as she was railroaded to a 4-year ban based on a set of unsubstantiated assumptions, and implicit presumptions, a reversal of burdens, and a worst case interpretation of scientifically ambiguous test results.
How many times did El Guerrouj run with wavelights in use?
Because wavelights aren't necessarily better than a pacer, or they would have been used as a matter of course. El G didn't need them - and neither did Fisher and Hocker. It's not wavelights that are setting the records, it's doping.
This post was edited 6 minutes after it was posted.
None of this matters as she did not even have a 100 % uncastrated boar meat burrito with added 100% nandrolone-enriched pork lard
I think it should matter that the "expert" claims before the CAS were unsubtantiated.
No one ever said she had "100 % uncastrated boar meat burrito with added 100% nandrolone-enriched pork lard". Witnesses did say she ate an uncharacteristically greasy burrito.
The claim all along was from "offal" in a burrito. This can be many things besides exclusively meat and stomach. The "expert witnesses" gave us a laundry list of what things they considered to be "offal": heart, liver, kidneys, salivary glands, testicles, and fat.
This original claim has not yet been wholly rebutted, so effectively remains undisputed.
As the CAS told us that the source of the nandrolone was not identified, nothing can be ruled out, even now, 4 years after the sample was tested. There are still several potential candidates: 1) offal from a burrito as claimed; 2) WADA legal vitamins and supplements contaminated; 3) WADA illegal oral nandrolone supplements; 4) etc.
The "near-zero" argument that is alleged to rule it out is jam-packed with unsubstantiated assumptions, and at best argues that nandrolone positives from pork in the USA will be rare.
Without substantianted evidence, there is no reason to think that "intentional doping" with a WADA illegal substance, e.g ordered from Amazon isn't equally rare in the USA, if not less rare -- e.g. "far less than 1 in 100,000". In fact, in an interview, USADA Chief Tygart said (if we go by his experience and population statistics rather than evidence specific to Houlihan), the most likely scenario would be unknowing ingestion from WADA legal supplements contaminated during manufacture and bottling.
The devil is always in the details, and substantiated details are what is missing in Houlihan's conviction, as she was railroaded to a 4-year ban based on a set of unsubstantiated assumptions, and implicit presumptions, a reversal of burdens, and a worst case interpretation of scientifically ambiguous test results.
Yay! Hooray for the sport!
Remind me, notwithstanding everything you claim does Houlihan remain a convicted doper who has served a 4 year ban?
How many times did El Guerrouj run with wavelights in use?
Because wavelights aren't necessarily better than a pacer, or they would have been used as a matter of course. El G didn't need them - and neither did Fisher and Hocker. It's not wavelights that are setting the records, it's doping.
You are absolutely wrong. El Guerrouj ran his fastest times with awful splits.
Because wavelights aren't necessarily better than a pacer, or they would have been used as a matter of course. El G didn't need them - and neither did Fisher and Hocker. It's not wavelights that are setting the records, it's doping.
You are absolutely wrong. El Guerrouj ran his fastest times with awful splits.
Such terrible splits his records remain unassailable for more than a quarter of a century. Athletes using wavelight haven't been able to beat them.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
