If she knew some greasy pork from a food truck could possibly be an excuse for taking nandrolone, why not just intentionally get as much taco truck as you can for a built in alibi?
If she knew some greasy pork from a food truck could possibly be an excuse for taking nandrolone, why not just intentionally get as much taco truck as you can for a built in alibi?
rojo wrote:
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.
I’ll agree with you on that. Suspensions should be based on data, not stories. The data in this case is that she tested above a specified threshold for a known steroid byproduct. That’s it. She’s suspended.
Yes, the list of potentially contaminated foods would be great as well.
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.
How could you possibly know how long the steroids would have to remain in her system if you don't know when she took them? And did they even say what her levels were in January, or just that she was back under the legal limit?
Per Wikipedia, Nandrolone administered by intramuscular injection has "an elimination half-life of 6-12 days." I'm not sure precisely what this means and how it relates to testing, but it seems to suggest that after a month your levels would be 1/4 to 1/64 what they were a month earlier - which would put her back under the legal limit. I would love to see your sources on how long it takes to eliminate Nandrolone and what her actual levels were in January, though.
theathletenotsospecial wrote:
making a decision based on only one sides presentation of evidence has never, and will never be, a good idea. Now, letsrun is letsrun, but still, to hold some sense of credibility you can't reiterate nike press releases and call them columns. It's amateur hour at best.
For BTC's side of events to be true, it must be true that 1) The truck served pig with the substance, 2) they screwed up her order, 3) she ate there, and 4) WADA tested her after eating there. It seems highly unlikely (like less than 1% ) that all four events would happen, and that they would happen on the same day. Not to mention, if one wants to criticize WADA's past, it seems only appropriate to criticize Nike's prior misgivings.
So to believe WADA’s case you’d have to believe she took the drug orally the day she was tested. If you did this you would just refuse a test.
jamin wrote:
In the press conference she said the drug testers arrived at 6 a.m. and woke up she and her "then-boyfriend." Must be Centro?
Woke up she? Say what?
What an offal excuse
I'm curious how many of the people who believe the science and that Houlihan is lying also believe that Trump really won the election.
You and JG have made a number of sensible, logical points. This is the only way the truth can really be cleared up.
However, the emotional masses here aren't interested in discussing science.
I suggest a review of the 3 videos posted on social media by one of those YouTube body language gurus.
Rojo, make it happen.
lara_croft wrote:
GTT wrote:
"You'd also have to be an idiot to take nandrolone as a distance runner, because it would never help you." (52.15)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3141&v=isSRgPlX74s&feature=emb_titleThat is such a ridiculous comment.
If it is what information do you have to the contrary?
"Anabolic activity is what attracts the athletes to use nandrolone for its potential performance-enhancing effects, which include:
- Muscle-growth, creating strength and power gains.
- Tissue repair after damage, improving recovery from hard training, allowing for an increase in training load before injury and overtraining occur.
- Potential for increased red blood cell production, a commonly desired outcome for endurance athletes."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-9410437/Nandrolone-drug-choice-potential-performance-enhancing-effects.htmlThose seem like pretty good reasons to take it to me.
Agreed! Would be nice to hear from the other side. Why did Ajee get off relatively quickly? I’m just curious what made her situation different?
bnk wrote:
theathletenotsospecial wrote:
making a decision based on only one sides presentation of evidence has never, and will never be, a good idea. Now, letsrun is letsrun, but still, to hold some sense of credibility you can't reiterate nike press releases and call them columns. It's amateur hour at best.
For BTC's side of events to be true, it must be true that 1) The truck served pig with the substance, 2) they screwed up her order, 3) she ate there, and 4) WADA tested her after eating there. It seems highly unlikely (like less than 1% ) that all four events would happen, and that they would happen on the same day. Not to mention, if one wants to criticize WADA's past, it seems only appropriate to criticize Nike's prior misgivings.
this is the key to all of it.
its like when some of them kenyans got busted for EPO at the olympics.
jerry is shocked because he knows there is know way she was 2.5 as im sure they are monitoring the values. you dont take EPO during the olympics you take it during the build up base phase...so 3 things that can happen for the scenario.
1) EPO was taking during the base phase and blood was taken out then injected back during the month leading up to the olympics, classic blood doping but with the extra rocket fuel
2) athlete is feeling nervous cause times have been getting slower as the effects of EPO are wearing off and goes and does a dumb thing thinking the EPO is going to help on the day of the race
3) people know blood values are hot, give athlete 6 months to pay up and play along or get the bust at the big meet. Gatlin was ducking powell so boom nike pounded him in the bunz, kenyans arnt paying their bribes so they go down.
so that brings us to this situation.
jerry and the camp (docs, and physiotherapists etc) know how much to administer for micro dosing in order to stay under the glowing level. so how the f*ck did she burn so bright with a 2.5 or 5 or whatever it was? this is why they are shocked. her levels should have never ever been that high but somehow they were. no im not defending her doping, but this is a science at the pro level and getting busted it usually from someone not playing along or sabotage
So to believe WADA’s case you’d have to believe she took the drug orally the day she was tested. If you did this you would just refuse a test.
runderun wrote:
I had decided to join the LRC subscribers club but I'm re-thinking after thus piece. Do I want to support journalism based on one party's account and barroom hearsay?
Gault is usually very good, but he's dropped the ball as a journalist here and he's basically writing as a fan. He hasn't waited to weigh the AIU evidence, he's taken the story of Houlihan's team and decided to believe it. Imagine judging a case in a court based on only one sides evidence.
LRC has seriously screwed the journalistic pooch here and descended into Fox News territory
I’m on vacation but he wrote an OPINION piece. You can disagree with it but don’t compare it to a news piece.
JKCarter wrote:
Nothing adds up to paint a complete picture here.
Let's say she's a doper. They already affirmed that the nandrolone wasn't injected as it wasn't detected later as such. The other route is oral, which everyone agrees is a stupid way to take it, and largely non detectable after an hour.
Let's say she's clean. The story they're giving is that a burrito that was allegedly carne asada was tainted with enough pig offal from a specific type of pig to trigger these levels. I've eaten a lot of food cart burritos, getting meat mixed isn't uncommon, but for that amount of coincidences to occur one after another.....
I keep thinking about a third option -- SH truly believes she is clean but someone has been popping nandro into her food or drink without her knowing. If done at the right times, it should be undetectable during the testing window. Oops, a few drops too many, now she's caught and the best excuse is a food truck. And why is an olympic athlete with the best nutrition guidance on earth eating from a food truck (or restaurant for that matter).
Nothing makes sense here.
This. Add in the fact that she refused to wear the vaporflys which would have been an easy cover for her improvements and a way easier way to get an advantage over someone than risking her career with drugs.
There are only 3 ways to be caught with nandrolone. Injection which has been ruled out. Orally which would be incredibly dumb because if you just took it you would just delay the test for a few hours. Or through food. The food option seems way more likely in this case.
umm, nope wrote:
He believes option 2 because LetsRun relies on positive performances by the biggest names in the sport to generate clicks. Mix that with the inherent racism in this case vs. the many African situations, and he'd probably get fired if it were any other way.
I don't mean that to say he's writing what he's told; I mean nobody who would ever believe #1 could have gotten a job at LetsRun in the first place.
Worst take of the night. Rupp/Salazar were basically hounded on here for years.
wejo wrote:
runderun wrote:
I had decided to join the LRC subscribers club but I'm re-thinking after thus piece. Do I want to support journalism based on one party's account and barroom hearsay?
Gault is usually very good, but he's dropped the ball as a journalist here and he's basically writing as a fan. He hasn't waited to weigh the AIU evidence, he's taken the story of Houlihan's team and decided to believe it. Imagine judging a case in a court based on only one sides evidence.
LRC has seriously screwed the journalistic pooch here and descended into Fox News territory
I’m on vacation but he wrote an OPINION piece. You can disagree with it but don’t compare it to a news piece.
Sorry, you really can’t have it both ways. If you are going to be digging into this issue, investigating and reporting, then you are not supposed to write opinion pieces up front. It just demonstrates your bias and undermines the credibility of the reporting. JG is more valuable to the community as a reporter than an op-Ed contributor.
Wise Old Man wrote:
There is no “journalism” on this site. Certainly not over the last day. No journalist relies on their, “bulls-it detector” to determine what’s true or not. I’m not saying intuition is not a journalistic tool, but it’s just an entry point for investigation and a determination of the facts. What was written was an opinion piece. Writing such an opinion piece permanently undermines any ability to execute true journalism on this story going forward, or even if done, to have people believe it. There has been an erosion in this regard across even the world of serious journalism, but what we are reading here on this site isn’t even close.
The piece was clearly labelled as an opinion piece. A jouranlist can't write an opinion piece.? Wh y not?
What was unique about this column was the fact that he actually broke some news in it which is unusual.
It doesn't undermine anything at all. All journalists have an opinion on things they cover. M ost of them are too cowardly to admit it. Jon admitted it here. We did contemplate putting "If she's innocent" into the title which woudl have softened it but we published it as is. I think it's more honest if he admits he's leaning towards #2.
It doesn't mean that he's right and he's not saying she's 100% clean. He wants to learn more.
I actually think this makes him a better journalist. Most journalists lie and act like they don't have an opinion. He was up front about it but showed both sides.
may be too stupid to be olympic champ wrote:
If you think you need to keep a receipt for it for later proof, you shouldn’t eat it.
It’s the Olympic year, you are an Olympic favorite. You train at the most scientifically advanced running center in the world and you are eating at an “authentic Mexican food truck” and order a burrito of mysterious meat. Idiot or cheat? Which one?
I can't believe this type of logic. You don't think Olympiasn go out and get drunk with their boyfriends and eat at a food truck in December when the Olympics may or may not happen the following August? They are human beings.
Maybe they shouldn't do that and wont' going forward but weldon weekly ate at del taco when he dropped his from 29:49 to 28:06. taco tuesday. 3 for 99 cents.
think first wrote:
burrito connoisseur wrote:
how much offal would you have to eat to trigger a positive, i.e. is the excuse plausible?
More than 10 oz. for levels found in Houlinan sample.
if this is true. Then the story is hard to believe. Very hard.
stop saying ‘oral’ — youre buying the line out of BTC
so you know gor a fact there’s no new gel or cream for delivery of nandro?
Narcos: Season 4