Oh Please wrote:
One way to remove all arguments is to just say that ultimately she is responsible no matter how it got there. Now it doesn't matter whether the burrito story is true or not. We know she tested above the published limit.
Yes. That might be a good way going forward. But they need to publish a massive list of which foods can cause it.
@rojo the Lawson story was after he was cleared, where is the article at the moment he was charged about how it was a tragedy?
Also I am unclear where did the information on the lab that did Shelby’s test come from?
LRC note. This is a false statement. John wrote two stories. One before he was cleared and one after. Here is the one before.
rojo wrote:
Liberal fact checker wrote:
Yeah, this article basically says "if we like you, we'll believe whatever you say and claim you're clean. If we don't like you, we're getting the pitchforks out no matter what defense you present."
It really amazes me that people like you are so lazy. Jonathan Gault wrote a similar piece about Jarrion Lawson, whom he doesn't have a relationship with. Contaminated food is a real problem in this country whether you want to believe it or not.
But yes, it also is an easy excuse for dopers to make.
I suggest you read this.
We had Jonathan spend a lot of time and resources on that article. Not many people read it at the time but the fact that we wrote it about a black sprinter disples the argument that we only care about a) whites or b) pepole we cover regularly.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2020/04/the-amazing-story-of-how-jarrion-lawson-cleared-his-name-he-showed-that-the-head-of-a-wada-lab-provided-false-testimony-against-him/
The wording from CAS press release was "intentional " in this case . I read " inadvertent" on another case that also had a suspension . wondering if a detailed release is coming or is that it.
i heart heavy metal. wrote:
wejo wrote:
Weird thing is I just ate pork tacos and was debating between them and carne asada. They really were greasy.
no one cares
I care
lara_croft wrote:
If it had been injected it would have been present in her follow up test in January and it was not.
And in response to “spade detector” it has been mentioned over and over that if you actually wanted to gain advantage and cheat, nandrolone taken orally would not be the way to go.
This is just not true. As far back as 2001 (see Coaches Report (2001) Vol. 8(2)) it was reported that the increase in the nandrolone positive test results was because it had recently become available in pill form and due to it being more easily ingested and more quickly cleared from the system it became more attractive for usage by athletes (who previously would not have considered using by injection because of how long it remained in the system).
This is the ultimate in gaslighting. One of the most attractive features for an athlete to choose to use nandrolone in pill form over other steroids is somehow being twisted to be a negative feature which people just blindly believe.
I can assure all of you who want to cheat - if considering a steroid to increase performance and not wishing to be caught, nandrolone in pill form should be on the top of your list. And now apparently, with less fear than ever, you can feel free to microdose if you live near a Mexican restaurant.
rojo wrote:
Harambe wrote:
There have been studies showing that eating a few 100g of wild (i.e. non-castrated) boar offal can cause levels close to 5 ng/mL.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10861987/The fact that the AIU has conceded that the nandrolone could not have been injected is a big flag for me. Who takes oral anabolic steroids? They don't work at all.
Something doesn't add up. I'm more on Shelby's side than I was last night.
Harambe. Can you explain why oral steroids don't work at all? Why is that? That's very important to me to understand.
Oral-Turinabol worked like a charm for the East Germans,
Embarrassing. I'm not sure which is worse, leaping to believe the tainted pork swaparoo or painting the situation of "athlete would have to decide to cheat and then lie about it when caught" as if it's a shocker, and not every doper ever.
mise en scene wrote:
You don't even have to go that far...
Imagine if it were a NOP athlete... brojos would be going wild with unbridled speculation claimed as journalism
Yes, I would act differently on the NOP. That's true.But it wouldn't be unbridled speculation.
Why? There's at least 12 different facts associated with Salazar that I I don't have with Schumacher.
1) Salazar was part of Atheltics west where there was known steroid use.
2)Salazar admitted he used steroids himself.
3) I had guys calling me unsolicited when Rupp was in college saying weird shit was going down, with Rupp getting shots in hotel rooms.
4) I had his massage therapist calling me saying they saw weird shit in the apartment.
5) I've got a picture of a nike lab report saying Rupp was on testerone in HS.
6) I know for a fact his coach has steroids in his bag and gives Rupp massages even though they have a masseuse on staff.
7) Also Slaney was popped.
8) I know Salazar violated the rules on Lcarinitine.
9) I know Salazar repeatedly violated US prescription med rules.
10) I know Salazar sent drugs across the world in hallowed out books.
11) I know Salazar loved Dr. Brown. Jerry - who initially was a co-coach with Salazar -on the other hand thought it was weird and stopped sending his guys there.
12) And last but not least I have the assistant coach in the group calling me up saying he's got grave concerns.
So stop the shit about unbridled speculation.
Despite those 12 facts, I have REPEATEDLY said on the podcast that the Salazar ban wasn't satisfying for me.
rojo wrote:
colorunner123 wrote:
The problem with this argument is that less than 24 hours ago Shelby and Jerry both strongly implied she had eaten a pork burrito.
Yes, you raise a good point.
I do not like how they presented this at the presser. If I was them I would hae been 100% honest about it. The way they phrased it at the event made me think she hadn't ordered pork and that's specifically why I had Jonathan ask them about that.
That being said, they have been way more open than most. I've never heard of someone doing a Q&A with the media right after a positive test. Most whole up and deny.
It's not being "open" to get together on a PR campaign to spin facts, mislead, and try to sway public opinion. You're acknowledging that they did just that by telling a carefully edited story about what meat she got, but you're somehow not drawing the logical conclusion - that they aren't being open, they're attempting to spin. Sorry, if you're being "open" there is no reason to be so carefully vague about the carne asada thing.
NERunner0353 wrote:
Why aren't we getting articles from the viewpoint of the testers and clean sport? Everything is being framed pretty favorably for Shelby which is a problem for clean athletes whether she is guilty or not.
A lot of the big names in the sport who are usually staunch anti-dopers are silent, or are liking Shelby/Bowerman social media posts, or telling people to be nice to Shelby even though she's already being treated as good as anybody to ever face a 4 year ban.
WHy arent we hearing their side? Because they haven't issud the damn report. It's pretty simple.
Why aren't others ripping shelby? Because those they have a great reputation within the industry. In all insiders, everyone knows who they really trust, who they don't etc. No different here.
couldn't continue waiting at least 5 minutes wrote:
Pre-news release I had no opinion at all about SH being a doper. Some people who run fast are dopers but just because they run fast doesn't mean they are... folks can improve with training. I've seen it in real life.
After the announcement my initial thought about all of it was, unsure.
I thought those who thought she was doping before this happened think 'there's the proof, I'm right'.
I then watched the entire press conference and afterwards I thought 'she sure sounds innocent to me'... lawyers are always convincing but to me she looked and sounded very genuine.... her coach sounded mad which is exactly how I would react if I was her coach (I wouldn't distance myself if I believed she was innocent as some seem to think should be the proper reaction)....
in any case, after the news conference I thought that the penalty seemed really harsh for the crime, which means there might be more to the story, but that she sure was convincing and believable so at that point I'm thinking she got screwed by bureaucracy (happens all the time).
Now after it comes out she didn't order a pork burrito, she actually ordered a carne asada burrito but they fail to tell us that and just imply that the burrito she ate was a pork burrito well now I think maybe they are not clean...
If you are clean tell the whole story... it would have been simple to do that... it would make them sound more honest and it actually would have explained why Wada didn't believe them...
instead they dance around it and let everyone think she ate pork because telling the truth that they can't prove it yet they think that's what happened wouldn't create as strong of a case for her... not a good move in my opinion.
all in all they lost me with that move... now I think well maybe she isn't clean
I actually agree almost 100% with your post.
The biggest red flags was a) how they presented what she ate and b) that Stephen Haas told Jonathan Gault he didn't know of anything 2 weeks ago. Perhaps the agent was kept out of the loop (they said the team wasn’t told until this week) but that seems weird and it's pissing me off we haven't received a response.
But it's also true they may have just wanted to make themselves to look the best to try to get the public on their side in both cases.
mayhaveralready posted wrote:
You know what's funny ?
The woman mentionned in your post, C. Ayotte may have posted on this forum, under her real name in a thread about nandrolone, about 16 years ago ?
letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=886533#928862[/quote]
Amazing find. What case were they talking about in 2005?
She's likely guilty - and also a victim of WOKE.
If she were of a different hue, this situation would have been handled a lot differently. What better way to be WOKE, to show you're WOKE than slap down a cheating (white) Yank, while looking the other way at third world athletes who can fuel up on drugs for months at a time between drug tests.
Everyone's too scared to see the obvious.
rojo wrote:
NERunner0353 wrote:
Why aren't we getting articles from the viewpoint of the testers and clean sport? Everything is being framed pretty favorably for Shelby which is a problem for clean athletes whether she is guilty or not.
A lot of the big names in the sport who are usually staunch anti-dopers are silent, or are liking Shelby/Bowerman social media posts, or telling people to be nice to Shelby even though she's already being treated as good as anybody to ever face a 4 year ban.
WHy arent we hearing their side? Becuase they haven't issed the damn report. It's pretty simple.
Why aren't others ripping shelby? Because those they have a great reputation within the industry. In all insiders, everyone knows who they really trust, who they don't etc. No different here.
This is why athletes, coaches, clubs, and national teams can't enforce PED rules and testing themselves. Swift condemnation of strangers and blind understanding of friends and those with power and money. You should be celebrating that Shelby was caught instead of condemning it. The natural question is why she wasn't caught before.
GF> wrote:
I can honestly say (and I don't say it lightly, as I've generally been a fan of his work) that this article made me lose respect for Jonathan.
The inability to recognize bias here is astounding -- take, for example, his own question:
Jonathan Gault:
Why, you might ask, didn’t I write this column defending Asbel Kiprop? Or Cyrus Rutto? Or Daniel Wanjiru?
I think it's clear why he would feel the need to include this question and the subsequent explanation: Anyone who has followed the work of LetsRun for any extended amount of time knows that this is an unusually supportive response to a doping ban. So, indeed, it's likely a question that many of us had in one form or another.
The explanation itself, though, is where he loses me:
Jonathan Gault:
The answer is because I have not covered their careers as closely as Houlihan. I have not interacted with as many people close to them.
I get it. This is fair.
You didn't think you were educated enough on individual/case to write an article.
Fine.
But you go on to say that:
Jonathan Gault:
And because, frankly, Houlihan’s explanation is more plausible than the defense levied by any of those three men.
No, it's not. At all, actually.
You spent three paragraphs explaining how your proximity to the people involved here (hearsay in "watering holes" and all) allowed you to frequently hear the sentiment that "I’d be surprised if she was doping."
Maybe if you hung around establishments in Kenya you'd find equal amount of blind faith (or "respect") for the athlete, coach, and training group involved in Kiprop's case.
It's all so ridiculous. You can't say that one explanation is more "plausible" because you're more familiar with its details and the people involved. If you had the same level of familiarity with the other cases, maybe they'd become even more "plausible" to you.
You're clearly biased toward Shelby -- you haven't even heard the full story yet and you're already making a case for her innocence, for crying out loud!
Embarrassing.
Jonathan finds Shelby's more plausbile as a single test is easier to excuse away. An ABP violation is hard to explain away as you need to explain away literally years worth of tests.
rojo wrote:
Liberal fact checker wrote:
Yeah, this article basically says "if we like you, we'll believe whatever you say and claim you're clean. If we don't like you, we're getting the pitchforks out no matter what defense you present."
It really amazes me that people like you are so lazy. Jonathan Gault wrote a similar piece about Jarrion Lawson, whom he doesn't have a relationship with. Contaminated food is a real problem in this country whether you want to believe it or not.
But yes, it also is an easy excuse for dopers to make.
I suggest you read this.
We had Jonathan spend a lot of time and resources on that article. Not many people read it at the time but the fact that we wrote it about a black sprinter disples the argument that we only care about a) whites or b) pepole we cover regularly.
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2020/04/the-amazing-story-of-how-jarrion-lawson-cleared-his-name-he-showed-that-the-head-of-a-wada-lab-provided-false-testimony-against-him/
I read the piece around the time it was written. I don't think LRC is racist at all. My point is that this would get very different coverage if it happened to a group you were actively suspicious of. Saying you wrote an article about Lawson (even ignoring that this was written after he was cleared), who I presume you didn't have strong opinions about the guilt of either way, doesn't dispel that critique. Namely, were this to happen to a Salazar athlete while he was still allowed to coach, I don't think you guys would spend much time entertaining their story. You can argue that's justified, and maybe it is as Salazar was probably up to no good as a coach, but you can't pretend you aren't biased.
Rojo - 12 facts, ok, but let me add some more:
1) Nike's Athletics West - Nike's NOP - Nike's BTC
2) Despite America's many dopers, only two showed up on the infamous 2016 IAAF list as likely dopers: Rupp and Farah
3) The IAAF ranked Jager with five priority stars out of 3, and Rupp with 3 out of 3.
4) Jager explained that with altitude - not believable, as altitude is factored in, and if not, 100s of Americans would get the same ranking.
5) Jager went downhill after getting target-tested in early 2016 at age 25.
6) Houlihan took the 1500 m AR from NOP athlete Rowburry.
7) Rowburry took the 1500 m AR from banned drug cheat Slaney, another Salazar athlete.
8) Houlihan's 5000 m AR is the 2nd fastest ever of a non-African woman, 14:23 like banned drug cheat Shobukhova.
9) Houlihan had huge career jumps in her mid 20s.
rojo wrote:
Jonathan finds Shelby's more plausbile as a single test is easier to excuse away. An ABP violation is hard to explain away as you need to explain away literally years worth of tests.
That would be fine (as an opinion, I suppose), but he didn't say that.
He said that he didn't write articles on Asbel Kiprop, Cyrus Rutto, and Daniel Wanjiru because he hasn't "covered their careers as closely," while dismissively saying that all three of their defenses were comparatively implausible.
I'm a research scientist who routinely uses GC-MS and LC-QTOF-MS to analyze trace amounts of organic compounds. However, I do not measure steroid compounds from humans/animals (I measure from plants and other organisms). I read that apparently both the A and B sample tested positive (see pdf posted above). I'd like more detail on the analytical protocol (replicates, standard deviation, etc.). I'd be less inclined to believe a single measurement on one sample. Yes, these instruments can theoretically detect to the picogram range, but everything has to be optimized and that generally refers to single compound standards on something like an LC-triple quad MS. Natural samples with a mixture of compounds are more difficult to analyze, and the limit of detection is generally not as low. I'd also like to see protocols for how they quantified the steroid via internal standards, and assurance that the quantities being analyzed are within the linear range of the instrument. For our applications (analysis of steranes), it's more difficult to quantify on an LC-MS/MS compared to a GC-MS. I have to assume that all of these protocols have been worked out given that it's a WADA-certified lab. But because I've spent over 20 years doing measurements on natural samples, I deal with natural variability in my daily life. Having the full reporting of A and B results and replicates (how many injections on A and their values, how many injections on B and their values) results would be illustrative. I don't necessarily trust anyone's conclusions without seeing the raw data.
And speaking of data, more is generally better, so I'm a bit troubled by the hair follicle results. I'm not familiar with that technique and am not really qualified to comment, but wouldn't a short- or long-term ingestion show up in the hair follicle record? The lack of detection in the hair follicle as a secondary piece of evidence seems key to interpreting the A/B results.
From the PDF, CAS apparently did not take these extra pieces of data under consideration. They just asked Shelby to name the source of the steroid, she said burrito, and they laughed and said nope (jk).
Sorry not sorry Shelby!!