Big development: Woman who falsely testified in Jarrion Lawson case is one who popped Houlihan. Houlihan ordered a carne asada b

David1 wrote:

Letsrun is not objective. You guys went all out on Christian Coleman, and now you are defending a doper? If you dope or commit crime you should be punished.

That's just a fasle statement. Jonathan Gault has said he thinke Coleman is clean. I said on the podcast I wanted Coleman cleared.

When he got off the first time, I said that Coleman should be drug testede very day for the rest of his career if he wants to receive the benefit of the doubt. I would say the same thing here with Houlihan here.

It's not a suggestion, but fact. WADA testing regimen for women indicating pregnancy bumps the NA19 cutoff cutoff from 2 ng/mL to 15.

VroomeFroome wrote:

DanM wrote:

Spanish Olympic Gold Medalist Race-walker Daniel Plaza also brought sex into his defence, explaining his positive test for the banned steroid nandrolone by saying he had had prolonged oral sex with his pregnant wife, a defence based on the suggestion that pregnant women can produce nandrolone naturally. Plaza, too, received a two-year ban, although he was later exonerated.

At least this sounds more plausible than the burrito. Guess I will need to build up a harem.

If Coleman is clean, he's an idiot.

When you've got multiple whereabouts failures, with your career and all that comes with that in the balance, you'd think you could straighten up and fly right.

Rojo, I respect that you're on the boards asking questions, trying to learn more, sharing your skepticism. Thanks for doing that.

I disagree with your perspective that JG is a better journalist because he has an opinion on this case.

No one is saying he can't have an opinion. JG is totally entitled to believe that Shelby is clean, that Jerry would never lie about this, and that BTC is a class act. I understand why he would have those beliefs, and I do not blame him.

But JG simply watched an hourlong press conference that was produced by the most resource-rich company in all of sports (hint: the company is based in the same town as this steroid-laden pork taco truck). There are clearly TONS of unanswered questions, as evidenced by the fact that you're on the message boards asking them. The CAS has not yet issued their detailed rationale. And despite all of this, JG declared this "A Track and Field Tragedy."

Do you seriously not understand why this is problematic? If not, let me explain. As a consumer of journalism, I have the expectation that the person writing the articles has done their due diligence and is presenting the facts in an impartial manner. What if CAS releases their findings next week and JG writes an article (not a column, but a news piece) about it? Do you honestly expect me to trust what he writes when a week prior he declared the entire situation a "tragedy"?!

rojo wrote:

Liberal fact checker wrote:

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.

Well of course he's biased. What's wrong wiht being biased based on past actions. I mean if Jimmy Carter issues a statement or Donald Trump isssues a statement, who are you more likely to believe?

If the Russian press issues a statement or the BBC issues a statement who are you more likely to believe?

Your reputation matters. That's why we pointed out Ayette's past testimony. I loved the guy/gal who said she should have been banned for 4 years herself.

But going with who has the best reputation is how you end up with stories like COVID definitely didn't come from a Chinese lab, which most of the media has parroted for months and has now had to acknowledge as a possibility (didn't want to make this another COVID thread, but this was the best example I could think of). I don't like Trump, but their position was ultimately misinformation brought about because of a dislike for the sitting president. Believing who you want to based off of their reputation doesn't always provide the correct facts.

Barry Badrinath wrote:

The answer is #1, Bob. Rojo, you're buying this Nike PR crap hook, line, and sinker. Multiple people would have reviewed the test results. If there was any reasonable doubt, Nike has more than enough influence to get the test thrown out.

Yeah, no need to read further than the first reply.

bkrunner wrote:

Do you honestly expect me to trust what he writes when a week prior he declared the entire situation a "tragedy"?!

In defense of Gault, even if you believe Houlihan is guilty (and I do) it still can be a track and field tragedy--someone so driven to succeed that she feels she has to use performance enhancing drugs. I always think that's pretty tragic, because the very drive that made her great also led to her downfall. As Gault says, a four year penalty at age 28 is pretty much the end of her career as an international elite.

Liberal fact checker wrote:

But going with who has the best reputation is how you end up with stories like COVID definitely didn't come from a Chinese lab, which most of the media has parroted for months and has now had to acknowledge as a possibility.

The lab in Wuhan was under contract to a University of North Carolina lab. The UNC lab was playing around and creating virulent strains of COVID from bat samples obtained in the Wuhan region of China. It contacted with the Wuhan lab (paid them) to collect, store, and play around with covid samples as well. The UNC lab also had a classified "side" contract funded by the U.S. Army; supposedly to develop and antidote to American soldiers safe.

Ask yourself, WTF was the U.S. creating highly contagious version of samples from a place on the opposite side of the globe? Was the intent to create a vaccine to save the Chinese in case they got infected? How many other countries is the U.S. paying to collect samples of viruses for U.S. researchers to play around with? And, exactly why is the U.S. Army funding labs to create dangerous versions of viruses, and working to create antidotes to protect U.S. soldiers?

LRC is not, and never has been, a journalistic outlet. It's an anonymous discussion forum with front-page that contains just enough outside info to keep the rumors going. It's a business based on clicks, which are cheapest to produce with scandal, speculation, and so-called hot takes—not serious reporting.

If folks like Jonathan Gault and Robert Johnson do not even make the effort to find and call a scientist for independent background on the substance, its effects, and testing, that's all you need to know. Opinion is cheap; reporting is hard.

If you're looking for solid sports reporting that is carefully investigated, fact-checked, and independently sourced, look elsewhere.

rojo wrote:

my local taco truck is better wrote:

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?

Interesting theory. If you are going to take this drug. why not just go eat pork on purpose the n ight before you cycle up. THen you have a perfect excuse for getting off. My god all dopers should do it.

Injected nandrolone will spike your levels way, way higher than eating it will and apparently has a much, much longer half life.

I guess it would work if you ate pork offal daily. Gross.

Also you better make sure the isotopic ratios of your injected and consumed nandrolone aren't too weird compared to your innate rations. 3 different ratios is one person is a big, big red flag, I'd imagine.

These guys are not journalists. A journalist would pour through the WADA testing documents and present an informative and reasoned picture of the process, the science and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

Here is a review on urinalysis of nandrolone written by the head of the lab who handled her sample. It's quite old but a good starting point for someone interested in more detailed methods:

I'm the research scientist who posted above. I work in a Federal lab and this is not how it works. Congress has banned us from collaborating in any way, shape, or form with Chinese scientists. No Federal money can flow to China to fund anything research-related. Furthermore, we are also required to comply with the new John McCain National Defense Authorization Act, in particular section 889. We (and every Federal agency) can't have any covered telecommunications equipment (including computer components) sourced from China. If the US military were to engage in anything like what you describe above (unlikely), they would use their internal scientists. They would never contract with a university lab in such an uncontrolled environment. And researchers don't "play around" with anything. Everything requires detailed research proposals that are reviewed by external panels and it is highly competitive and difficult to get selected and funded.

Barry Badrinath wrote:

Yup, LetsRun is literally the only place reporting anything nefarious about Christiane Ayotte. All it takes is a quick search of European news sources to see how horrible of a look this is for the US Track and Field team and Nike. If they want to save face, USATF and a bunch of athletes will come out with statements feeling sorry for Shelby but stating they are glad clean sport is being upheld.

+1

VroomeFroome wrote:

Rojo, don't you think the simplest explanation for all this is that Shelby is micro-dosing orally and messed up the dosage one day and took too much? Of course she wouldn't year positive in a later test once she learned she got popped and stopped her dosages.

It’s gotta be by far the most plausible explanation. It sucks to say it because I was hopeful all of BTC was clean. I don’t think theories about screwed up orders and possibly doped up pigs are good enough. You’d better prove it and they sure didn’t.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

VroomeFroome wrote:

Rojo, don't you think the simplest explanation for all this is that Shelby is micro-dosing orally and messed up the dosage one day and took too much? Of course she wouldn't year positive in a later test once she learned she got popped and stopped her dosages.

It’s gotta be by far the most plausible explanation. It sucks to say it because I was hopeful all of BTC was clean. I don’t think theories about screwed up orders and possibly doped up pigs are good enough. You’d better prove it and they sure didn’t.

I don't think this works given the extremely low efficacy orally and the rapid clearance. If you are taking nandrolone every few days orally you're going to be peeing most of the metabolites out rapidly. You'd have to take a very small amount to avoid spiking over the legal limit and I see zero evidence that would actually do anything. Maybe she was being extra dumb and taking an ineffective, banned substance?

Harambe wrote:

rojo wrote:

Great post. can you email us? I'd like to know what questions to ask of people to get this info.

robert@letsrun.com

Here is a review on urinalysis of nandrolone written by the head of the lab who handled her sample. It's quite old but a good starting point for someone interested in more detailed methods:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2657496/

Thank you. I will look at this. I also pulled up a review article from 2013 summarizing techniques for analyzing exogenous steroids, but it's also a bit dated. They did note that they were optimizing for high throughput given that they do these analyses in commerical labs (not research labs). In general, that's not always best because they're shortening the runs, which adversely affects the chromatography and can cause overlapping peaks, which makes the quantification difficult. I would hope that current WADA methods are freely available and published somewhere.

Robert, all you have to ask for are what would routinely be reported in a scientific journal article:

1. Type of instrument

2. Column, eluent, chromatographic conditions

3. Sample preparation method

4. Number of replicate injections on the instrument from the A sample and B sample to assess accuracy and precision.

5. Raw chromatograms showing the steroid peak, and any characteristic mass fragmentation data from that peak.

6. Internal standard used for quantification (or method used for quantification -- should include a NIST internal standard or equivalent)

7. Reporting of all of the raw data from all of the replicate runs. I'm particularly interested in the variability of the data and how they calculated the final reported concentration.

Speaking of which, I have to run into the lab now to check on some stuff. Signing off for now.

People are arguing about the reaction, saying that a debate over whether or not she is guilty or innocent is even fair given how we write off African and black American athletes who dope, or that we've been suspicious of NOP, and that we'd basically throw a party if this were Galen. I think there is a lot of fairness in these arguments but there is also nuance. There are reasons I believe Shelby is innocent. Those reasons (I hope this goes without saying) has nothing to do with her being white and a part of the "good group".

When Ajee Wilson tested positive and blamed it on tainted meat, I laughed and dismissed her as an obvious cheater. Then it was found she was telling the truth. She was innocent. I was floored. Isn't this excuse as stupid as Tyler Hamilton's twin in the womb? no. Our meat sources are tainted. Then Brenda Martinez. Innocent. Jarrion Lawson. Innocent. If Shelby was the first person to blame a burrito for her positive test, I would have laughed and laughed and laughed and I would have wondered how she pulled the wool over our eyes for so long. But she's not the first person. It's plausible to me that she too could be innocent.

Shelby to my knowledge had no rumors circulating over her. She chose BTC over NOP because she didn't want to be affiliated with bad people. She doesn't wear the magic shoes. I don't know her. But she took actions to prove she was clean. I don't think that was an act.

Can we see the polygraph posted to YouTube? Like in the Chris Watts case?

https://youtu.be/s_pvB97zZdg

Thank you