You're trying to get into the mindset of an individual, a single case study. We could hypothesize a bunch of reasons why a cheater wouldn't wear super spikes--she thought it was just a gimmick, she wanted to seem like she wouldn't be interested in having an unfair advantage, they hurt her feet in some weird way, etc. We will never really know unless she tells us.
She did tell us. You're choosing not to believe her.
Big Juicy Steak wrote:
One of many puzzlements in this case. Anyone who has jumped to conclusions is not being objective. I'm in "what-and-see" mode
She objectively tested above the objectively set levels for banned substances. One court objectively ruled it was a ban. A second objective court upheld the ban.
No objective evidence has been given to show the scientific tests were wrong. The only evidence Shelby has given is completely subjective and emotional. Please explain how denying objective tests on objectively set standards ruled on by objective courts is "not being objective".
Wasn't it the case that she was a non-responders to the shoes/spikes so chose to stick with the victories? Different biomechanics and people get different improvements and/or advantages from the super shoes/spikes.
She has not told us why she would choose to use performance enhancing drugs but not use spikes that other people say make you faster.
Anyway, my larger point is just that the fact that she wears a certain spike doesn't mean that she wouldn't use PEDs.
She said she wanted her times to be her times, not the shoes' times. I'm not making any point re: whether she doped or not—but she has stated quite clearly why she didn't wear the new spikes. Believe her or not but, she has said why.
then why wrote:
fxhjb wrote:
No. She ran this on the 5th of October 2019. Super shoes as a spike (dragonfly) did not come out until August of 2020. The shoe that Kipchoge used in the sub 2 had not even been released yet (he ran his sub 2 on the 12th of October that same year).
Here is the reason she has not worn super spikes: she has not had an opportunity. Below is a list of her latest races:
07 AUG 2020 - 800m 2:01.08
21 JUL 2020 - 600m - 1:32.27
21 JUL 2020 - 1500m - 4:15.03
10 JUL 2020 - 3000m - 8:48.14
30 JUN 2020 - 5000m - DNF
15 FEB 2020 - 1500m (indoor) - 4:06.41
01 FEB 2020 - 800m (indoor) - 2:01.82
There are more but these are the latest in each distance.
In none of these races were super spikes available to even pro athletes. According to IAAF she has not run a race since Aug of 2020 and I'm pretty sure Dragonfly's weren't available until late August 2020 when Cheptegei used them. She has not run an any official race in 2021.
This is why she has not worn super spikes. They were not available. Absolutely no mystery here.
Her teammates were wearing in the race that she broke the American 5000m record.
Yeah, you're right. Did a little more research and learned that they had nike had prototypes floating around for some of their athletes back in 2019. Hassan looks like she has a pair on in the WC 1500m.
So, not sure why she isn't wearing them. Maybe the hype wasn't there until Cheptegei's WRs but who knows.
ShoesForThought wrote:
Completely setting aside the actual scientific evidence of the case, one thing really just doesn't make any sense to me.
Everyone is giving Nike's new spikes all the blame (credit?) for many of the crazy fast times being run in the past year, but Shelby Houlihan doesn't even wear them. She races in an ancient pair of Nike Victorys.
Why would someone trying so hard to gain possible little advantage that they risk their entire career to take an illegal substance not use a 100% legal pair of spikes that allegedly give a substantial advantage?
Possibly to reduce suspicion that she could be doping. Your post underscores this strategy: why would she dope if she's not even using the superspikes? Does not make sense, therefore she's probably not doping. Unless she's assuming this kind of thinking and wears the old spikes to keep suspicion of her to a minimum.
Caster Semenya wrote:
Do you believe that Caster Semenya ever ran all out and ran the fastest 800m she was capable of running?
She didn't. Why not? Because it already looked bad how much she was dominating, it would not have helped her to smash the record by Jamilia, who everyone thinks was a massive drug cheat. She did enough to win and tried to avoid what eventually happened anyway, being banned from the 800.
Shelby's times were already raising eyebrows. She set the American record, how much faster at that time, with Covid etc. did she need to run for her career? How much more of of a drop in time would have made even more people wonder if she was doping?
What would have been interesting was her choice of footwear in the Olympic finals.
Shelby wasn't so dominant that she was unstoppable. There were still moments where she was beaten by Americans (Colleen and Karissa) and hasn't even earned an outdoor medal. I feel as though you are overstating the amount of suspicion she had garnered before this.
Her Nike's have pork implants that her feet absorb as she's running.
ShoesForThought wrote:
Completely setting aside the actual scientific evidence of the case, one thing really just doesn't make any sense to me.
Everyone is giving Nike's new spikes all the blame (credit?) for many of the crazy fast times being run in the past year, but Shelby Houlihan doesn't even wear them. She races in an ancient pair of Nike Victorys.
Why would someone trying so hard to gain possible little advantage that they risk their entire career to take an illegal substance not use a 100% legal pair of spikes that allegedly give a substantial advantage?
She could be looking forward to a promising career in Real Estate...
NOP: Salazar banned.
BTC: Houlihan banned, with coach looking VERY BAD.
OTC: ???
There seems to be a culture of doping among the Portland-based groups.
When the same stories come out of some province in Kenyan, we are suspicious of the whole camp/community around the cheaters.
The same applies here.
Anyone who isn't speaking against these cheaters is suspect.
rupp-certified burritobar wrote:
NOP: Salazar banned.
BTC: Houlihan banned, with coach looking VERY BAD.
OTC: ???
There seems to be a culture of doping among the Portland-based groups.
When the same stories come out of some province in Kenyan, we are suspicious of the whole camp/community around the cheaters.
The same applies here.
Anyone who isn't speaking against these cheaters is suspect.
Are the runners training in Africa subjected to randomized tests 20+ times a year? Are most runners there trying to get out of poverty? It is obvious why people training in Africa are more suspicious than people training in the US. I am way more suspicious of a US runner running fast after training in Kenya than a Kenyan runner running fast after training in the US. So shut up about it already!
rupp-certified burritobar wrote:
NOP: Salazar banned.
BTC: Houlihan banned, with coach looking VERY BAD.
OTC: ???
There seems to be a culture of doping among the Portland-based groups.
When the same stories come out of some province in Kenyan, we are suspicious of the whole camp/community around the cheaters.
The same applies here.
Anyone who isn't speaking against these cheaters is suspect.
Goes back to the 1970s and 80s with Nike's Athletics West club that Salazar ran for.
Ha I missed this entire thread, you somehow came up with the same question that I did, why would she not use "legal" shoes for a free second per lap but instead take a huge risk being so heavily tested with an obscure drug with little benefit?
There must be a dozen samples from her over the past few years, show me the pattern of behavior, show me another sample that is questionable, or this is just AIU being unfair when others were given a pass by USADA
Wise words
Wise words--to wait till we get all (or at least more) of the facts. In the meantime, it's hard to think this does not damage the reputation of track and field. This process looks unprofessional.
SH is a liar. She's probably lying about the shoes too... just like her coach Shalane Flanagan that qualified for the Olympics with illegal shoes and then lied about it.
This isn't AIU being unfair. She failed a drug test and lost her appeal to CAS. If you're a drug cheat, the goal is to not fail any drug tests, so saying she's tested negative before is meaningless
Cornhole burritos wrote:
ShoesForThought wrote:
Completely setting aside the actual scientific evidence of the case, one thing really just doesn't make any sense to me.
Everyone is giving Nike's new spikes all the blame (credit?) for many of the crazy fast times being run in the past year, but Shelby Houlihan doesn't even wear them. She races in an ancient pair of Nike Victorys.
Why would someone trying so hard to gain possible little advantage that they risk their entire career to take an illegal substance not use a 100% legal pair of spikes that allegedly give a substantial advantage?
Possibly to reduce suspicion that she could be doping. Your post underscores this strategy: why would she dope if she's not even using the superspikes? Does not make sense, therefore she's probably not doping. Unless she's assuming this kind of thinking and wears the old spikes to keep suspicion of her to a minimum.
On the other hand running fast times in super spikes can serve as a cover for a sudden big drop in times.
