Shelby's side of the story from wapo

More white noise. You think repeating your losing arguments will make them right. It won't. Nothing you say changes anything - no matter how often you say it. In the world of antidoping no one is listening to you.

You always give up like this when faced with your ignorance and lack of arguments. Throwing a tantrum like a child, insulting others to get attention away from your loss.

I didn't lose those arguments. The arguments above stand completely unrebutted, and many arguments are not mine as such, but historical documented history. The best arguments you can come up with are things like "more white noise" and "I choose not to argue." These are not signs of a winning argument. You cannot win any argument because your posts are too feeble, and lacking in substantial content.

I can always trust you to fall for the endless waffle that is a rekrunner post.

Your arguments are rebutted by the fact that they have not resulted in the slightest change to the antidoping processes, and they will not. They are absolutely irrelevant - as you are.

this thread might have been interesting - instead it was killed because one person could not shut up. there was no room for anyone else's thoughts or opinions.

thanks dude

Blocking those two conveniently compresses all their contiguous inconsequential catfighting into a short subframe.

Strange logic. According to you, my as yet unrefuted arguments with anti-doping expert and documented support that shows the injustice for the innocent athletes is rebutted by the fact that the injustice still exists today and is already known by you to continue existing tomorrow in perpetuity.

Do you have any facts or evidence that suggest changes will never happen to correct these injustices?

Do you say that because the IOC and WADA and the CAS are intricately interdependent and that the athletes currently have too little input into the WADA Code?

I don't share your faith that Tygart will not be able to trigger some changes based on the repeated occurences of accidental ingestion by meat.

You are also not correct about today. Changes have already occurred and will continue. WADA has already increased the thresholds for many substances commonly found in meat. And the TD2021NA was already modified from the TD2019NA to explicitly address the possibility of intact pork meat and offal invalidating the carbon isotope test. This first revision is still ambiguous (2-1 vote among CAS Panelists that reporting it as an AAF didn't depart from the guidelines) and will likely need to be updated to clarify when it should not be considered exogenous.

???

What more could have been said that is interesting? Looks like the most common reaction to the WAPO article was to question why anyone is still talking about it.

But if you are referring to me, this is not a zero sum forum. I am only responding to other's expressed thoughts and opinions -- which means there is plenty of room.

1000 ⬆️ 0 ⬇️

The longest posts were rekrunner's. And then yours. No one apparently stopped you from posting. In fact no one is prevented from posting.

As for what you find "interesting" - rekrunner posting the same complaints about the Houlihan case that he has since the CAS verdict a couple of years ago doesn't really qualify as interesting. None of it is new. You're very late to that party. But go for it, by all means. You will get nowhere.

Your complaints are rebutted by the fact that no one heeds anything you have to say. You are completely ignored at any level that matters - by WADA and those who prosecute the dopers, and by those in the sport, like athletes and coaches. That is because you are wrong. If it were not so the system would change to reflect your concerns. But it hasn't - and it won't. Those in charge of antidoping clearly do not think the system is "unjust to innocent athletes". Antidoping catches the guilty. But not enough of them. If you had your way, it wouldn't catch any of them.

No reason to take rek seriously. The dynamic on this board is that there are a handful of diehards who obstinately try to deny the massive doping problem in distance running. That paints them into the corner of having to defend every dope cheat, even the ones who test positive like Houlihan, the ones whose doping progressions are laughably obvious (eg, Chemusto), and anyone else under a reasonable cloud of suspicion. Because if they have to admit that Shelby had to dope to run the times she achieved, then they have to admit that the East African runners they unconditionally support are doping also, which they are. That is rek's motivation. And he is hardly the only one. So they will defend every doper because to do otherwise admits the problem.

You are growing more and more peculiar than I could have ever imagined.

Do you believe that "not heeding" me, in and of itself, constitutes a "rebuttal" of my "complaints"? It would be a more powerful rebuttal if you, or anyone, could produce facts and evidence that contradict any of my claims and concerns.

Do you believe, if my intended audience were "WADA and those who prosecute the dopers", I would post my concerns in letsrun forum threads?

Do you believe anyone posts here expecting to be heard by and influence "WADA and those who prosecute the dopers"? How bizarre.

You claim, without ever providing specificity, that I am wrong about something, but you can never actually say what, and you cannot disprove and have never disproved any of my statements with tangible facts and evidence that actually contradict any claims that I make. At best, we have a difference of opinion, but my opinions are supported by facts, while yours are supported by imagination.

In most cases, these are not just my claims, but claims that are shared by, or originate from, prominent anti-doping voices like Tygart, and long time sports integrity journalists like Andy Brown and anti-doping watchdog Hajo Seppelt. Or my claims come directly from authoritative sources like the WADA Code, its TD's, CAS reports, scientific papers, or organization websites, etc. It's hard to know what you believe I am wrong about, but it's even harder for you to claim that, even assuming I am wrong about all of my own original ideas, that all these other authorities are wrong.

You say WADA hasn't or won't do anything, but you are demonstrably wrong again. They have already acted on concerns of meat contamination, modifying their guidelines for "potential meat contamination cases involving clenbuterol, ractopamine, zeranol, or zilpaterol", placing a higher burden on the Testing Authority to investigate before declaring an AAF. I don't claim responsibility for that (that was never my goal -- just your strawman), but I suppose they have acted at least in part on Tygart's repeated criticisms. There is a precedent that WADA does listen, and will create workgroups to investigate and make recommendations for changes to their system, based on ambiguous cases. Regarding nandrolone, they have already updated their TD on nandrolone to better reflect the specific case of confounding effects of intact boar offal ingestion identified in recent research. We see that the first iteration is still toothless and ambiguous, allowing the WADA Lab to treat the changes as optional, but we can hope for better clarity.

If I had my way, I would not reduce the number of genuinely guilty convictions, contrary to your worst fears, but I would have anti-doping make a reasonable effort to better identify the innocent, rather than charge the innocent with an AAF and presume them guilty, and convict them with rule violations.

Help me take you seriously.

You keep suggesting that oral ingestion of low (NB: "low" is WADA's word) quantities of nandrolone can possibly explain the times that Shelby achieved. Can you, or anyone, explain why? Do any athletes or coaches believe that ingesting low doses of nandrolone orally can produce such improvements in time for distance running events? Most research says that oral ingestion of steroids is mostly filtered out before it gets into the blood, rendering it largely ineffective. Nandrolone has been available since the 1950s.

Regarding East African runners, if doping were a realistic explanation, then it would be a simple matter for non-Africans to replicate the same quality of performance, especially in countries like Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, China, Morrocca, etc. who were known to be doping in great numbers, often with the aid of their national federations, even sometimes sabotaging their national anti-doping enforcement. I've seen no such patterns. On the contrary, East Africans that emigrate to countries with effective doping control tend to dominate their new host countries as well, while subject to the same testing.

I know the previous response will be too many words for you, and you will make up some lame excuse and insult to hide your inability to read more than two sentences.

TLDR; Essentially none of this matters, because this is not my goal in posting. Also you are wrong, as WADA has changed already, setting a precedent.

Also forgot one more counter example which proves you wrong, again: Tygart is someone "in charge of antidoping (who) clearly (thinks) the system is "unjust to innocent athletes"".

I actually think Rek is more like the election deniers in Georgia. He sees results he doesn't like, looks at the information that backs up the result, and doesn't understand it, so he misinterprets the information and decides he's correct.

Every argument he makes cascades from that initial misinterpretation, which is why he never backs down - he fundamentally misunderstands an issue from the absolute beginning, and can't process information that proves him wrong.

It's also why he repeats the same talking points over and over - he can't separate a concept from the first couple of points he misinterpreted.

What makes you think I care the slightest about being taken seriously by you? Mr. "Steroids are not performance enhancing"?

Well said. I am tempted to register just to be able to block this troll:

Block rekrunner
Register and sign in to block users and
avoid seeing their posts.