I see your point, was CJ hunter found to have been injecting or ingesting? If she’s doping it’s clearly microdosing and whatever defense they came up with didn’t satisfy an independent body.
In regards to your minimum wage comment. I can say if the legal limit for drunk driving is .08 and you test .09 you’re still technically drunk and shouldn’t be driving.
Excellent? He basically just copied questions from that other thread (which actually was excellent), changed the format to “direct” questions aimed at certain folks (and even then, kept mixing up who he was asking what to), and indicated that Gault had some degree of prior knowledge or suspicion and stayed silent while blaming Hass for staying silent (reminder: Hass is the agent with a fiduciary relationship to a client; Gault is the journalist who should report on news, assuming it’s properly sourced).
Even though this latest piece is trying to be more objective than last week’s drivel, it still comes across as pro-Shelby. Which is fine, but I wish they would actually just say that they believe her rather than engaging in this faux both sides argument. It’s ok to believe her. Folks may disagree with you (I do) and accuse you of double standards next time you trash an East African who is banned (I will), but as editors of this site you’re entitled to your opinion on this.
Also, if you think prosecutors don’t routinely use witnesses with credibility problems (even in capital cases), you have no idea what you’re talking about. And, please god stop comparing this to a death penalty case. The State has not actually killed her as punishment. Oh no, she can’t run for a few years and has her athletic reputation ruined (or maybe only partially ruined since it seems that a sizable amount of folks believe her). She’s white, college educated, and not famous. She could pivot from this into tech or CS and nobody would give a toss. Even in an Olympic year, this story didn’t really break through mainstream media or, to the extent it did, it didn’t stay in MSM for long.
Literally look at the athletes who have taken Nandrolone over the years. If it does nothing do these athletes take it? More importantly why not just look at what the literature and evidence suggests are the key benefits of nandrolone
1) increased bone density = pretty sure that helps running (less stress fractures, significantly less injury risk)
2) increased lean muscle mass= sure that helps running have stronger muscles with less fat
3) increased red blood cell production = that seems to help oxygen carrying capacity
Ohh yeah and it’s out of the system in 4-12 hours. Take it at 6 and no testing til the next morning and gone
These are the ravings of a madman. I think Rojo might need to be drug tested.
It doesn’t look like a close call - it appears the doping test process worked as designed and implemented. The pork burrito thing is very unlikely and distracts from the big questions about the group and the PR campaign / press conference. The main question is: How can we have confidence that this is an isolated case?
When they look back on this, maybe they’ll conclude that the best course of action would have been to go public and say ‘we have no idea how this happened and here are steps we are taking to make sure this never happens again.’ She’s already suspended and this may have helped them keep credibility.
rojo wrote:
Sillyness wrote:
I’m not sure why you and others keep claiming 5ng is a low level. She’s testing for 2.5x the limit. That’s not low.
.
I almost put that in as a question. Do they consider it low?
I think the probably do, but that's why I asked about the values in the Kenyan cases so we could see if that's true.
But I think your logic is flawed. If the minimum wage is $1 an hour and you are making 2, it's still a very small salary.
I didn't put that in there because I read that when CJ Hunter - Marion Jones' husband at the time - tested positive for Nandrolone he tested positive at a level 1000x the limit.
😂😂😂
That might be the WORST analogy I have ever read anywhere.
This is a good start. Please don't let burrito fanboy Jon Gault within 10 feet of a computer. You should bench him for a month or so. Relegated to manning the coffee pot and loading the dishwasher.
On a related note, I have not heard a peep from USADA about this. What is their opinion?
rojo wrote:
Sillyness wrote:
I’m not sure why you and others keep claiming 5ng is a low level. She’s testing for 2.5x the limit. That’s not low.
.
I almost put that in as a question. Do they consider it low?
I think the probably do, but that's why I asked about the values in the Kenyan cases so we could see if that's true.
But I think your logic is flawed. If the minimum wage is $1 an hour and you are making 2, it's still a very small salary.
I didn't put that in there because I read that when CJ Hunter - Marion Jones' husband at the time - tested positive for Nandrolone he tested positive at a level 1000x the limit.
This logic is incredibly faulty. A better comparison is a BAC. Nandralone, like alcohol, shouldn't be present at all in your system. That it is there at all is a red flag of illicit behavior but still they put in limits, below which you are still deemed in compliance. She exceeded the limit and by a lot. Would you really claim that blowing a .2 BAC is just a little drunk, when that's 2.5 times the legal drink-drive limit? Houlihan shouldn't have had any nandralone in her system. That she had some is a big problem. That she exceeded the legal limit by 2.5 times, is a BIG issue.
I'm baffled by why you keep bending over backwards to say it isn't.
Do we know she tested at 5 exactly, or the limit for women is 5?
Some nandrolone can show up endogenously.
Brianruns10 wrote:
rojo wrote:
I almost put that in as a question. Do they consider it low?
I think the probably do, but that's why I asked about the values in the Kenyan cases so we could see if that's true.
But I think your logic is flawed. If the minimum wage is $1 an hour and you are making 2, it's still a very small salary.
I didn't put that in there because I read that when CJ Hunter - Marion Jones' husband at the time - tested positive for Nandrolone he tested positive at a level 1000x the limit.
This logic is incredibly faulty. A better comparison is a BAC. Nandralone, like alcohol, shouldn't be present at all in your system. That it is there at all is a red flag of illicit behavior but still they put in limits, below which you are still deemed in compliance. She exceeded the limit and by a lot. Would you really claim that blowing a .2 BAC is just a little drunk, when that's 2.5 times the legal drink-drive limit? Houlihan shouldn't have had any nandralone in her system. That she had some is a big problem. That she exceeded the legal limit by 2.5 times, is a BIG issue.
I'm baffled by why you keep bending over backwards to say it isn't.
^^^This
tradition wrote:
Do we know she tested at 5 exactly, or the limit for women is 5?
Some nandrolone can show up endogenously.
Yes we do, the results of her A and B sample are public information.
2 is the limit. She was two and half times OVER the limit.
devin wrote:
Basically what I got from this article was that JG knew about the positive test but didn’t publish it. Why? That looks suspicious for favoritism honestly.
Just to be clear: there is a difference between hearing tips/rumors about something and KNOWING it for sure 100%. I hear a lot of rumors in my job. Not all of them are true. If I'm going to publish an article that says that one of the biggest names in the sport has tested positive, you better believe I'm going to want to be 100% sure.
Trust me, I would have loved to have broken this story. But based on the information I had at the time, I did not feel confident enough publishing it (and potentially smearing someone's reputation) as I didn't have it 100% locked down.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
devin wrote:
Basically what I got from this article was that JG knew about the positive test but didn’t publish it. Why? That looks suspicious for favoritism honestly.
Just to be clear: there is a difference between hearing tips/rumors about something and KNOWING it for sure 100%. I hear a lot of rumors in my job. Not all of them are true. If I'm going to publish an article that says that one of the biggest names in the sport has tested positive, you better believe I'm going to want to be 100% sure.
Trust me, I would have loved to have broken this story. But based on the information I had at the time, I did not feel confident enough publishing it (and potentially smearing someone's reputation) as I didn't have it 100% locked down.
That’s fair, can we agree in the hindsight that your initial take after the news broke was embarrassing?
Yes and we move on 👍
Burrito man wrote:
When Jerry Schumacher said he had never heard of Nandrolone, I knew she doped.
Case closed.
+1
Ask Jerry this:
"Is it true that you have never heard of Nandrolone and if so, what illegal drugs besides EPO have you heard of? Do you agree that a lack of knowledge about illegal drugs demonstrates poor coaching and duty of care for your athletes."
BTC doped to the gills wrote:
Jonathan Gault wrote:
Just to be clear: there is a difference between hearing tips/rumors about something and KNOWING it for sure 100%. I hear a lot of rumors in my job. Not all of them are true. If I'm going to publish an article that says that one of the biggest names in the sport has tested positive, you better believe I'm going to want to be 100% sure.
Trust me, I would have loved to have broken this story. But based on the information I had at the time, I did not feel confident enough publishing it (and potentially smearing someone's reputation) as I didn't have it 100% locked down.
That’s fair, can we agree in the hindsight that your initial take after the news broke was embarrassing?
Yes and we move on 👍
I generally like Gault's work, but 100% agree here. The more info that come out, the worse that opinion piece looks.
Read the posts on the Paul Edwards case to see how flawed the system is and how the evidence can be changed and how the Doping control world conspire to protect itself..
This article still seems pretty pro-Shelby…
At this point, it seems to me that the only credible pro-Shelby argument is ‘I know and trust her and therefore believe her’ and that’s fine.
If you look at the facts objectively and have no relationship with her, the case seems very clear IMO.
The only question that needs to be answered is how many other US (and globally) athletes are doping the same way Shelby was?
*Geoff Capes* wrote:
This article still seems pretty pro-Shelby…
At this point, it seems to me that the only credible pro-Shelby argument is ‘I know and trust her and therefore believe her’ and that’s fine.
If you look at the facts objectively and have no relationship with her, the case seems very clear IMO.
Absolutely true. This is why she got a 4 year ban. They’ve been investigating this for 6 months and it only recently became public when the appeal was denied. You think they didn’t cover every single angle in the 6 month investigation? They’ve looked and researched every single thing Letsrun thinks is “new information” for 6 months.
I don’t know why Letsrun is giving so much time and effort to a doper. I thought Letsrun had a zero tolerance policy for dopers? That policy must only apply to sprinters and foreigners. I’ll let you figure out why that is ;)
Nothing taco wrote:
Burrito Picante wrote:
The #1 question Track and Field needs to ask itself is:
-Is drug testing athletes worth it?
The answer is no.
There’s a major PR problem when the major assumption is even with drug testing every athlete dopes, everyone microdoses, I saw so and so at the taco truck earlier, yada, yada, yada.
As a spectator it takes away from the enjoyment of watching athletes do some superhuman stuff.
Go down to your local track and run the straight away as fast as you can. These athletes are doing faster than that pace for 25 laps without stopping!
I just want to enjoy these people racing and competing at the highest levels. I don’t care if they like their burrito grande and their salsa muy picante!
TLDR: Drug testing takes the fun out of athletics. Stop drug testing and let’s see some amazing stuff!
Bad idea. Advocating for no drug testing is essentially advocating for a complete drug binge free-for-all. Do you really think athletes would just continue with the same kind of doping they are currently doing (micro-dosing, taking only as much as can be cleared out of their system in a relatively short time)? Not a chance. The sport would become unrecognizable. I mean, c'mon. If you are a track and field athlete, and all of a sudden doping is legalized, what are you going to do if you want to stay competitive? You're going to take all the EPO, testosterone, HGH, stimulants, and whatever else you can get your hands on. Some would undoubtedly die. Remember how cycling put the 50% hematocrit limit on cyclists? That was their way of saying, we don't have a test to prove you're using EPO, but we know you are, so let's make sure you at least don't kill yourself, okay?
Also, how do you get to be a sponsored athlete? For most (in the US at least), they do it by being an outstanding college athlete. So drugs would inevitably take over the college scene. How do you get a college scholarship? By being really good in H.S. Drugs would take over that scene, too. Great - a PED arms race on the H.S. track scene!
Bottom line: doing away with testing for PEDs is a bad idea.
The consequence of death from doping to race extraordinary times is probably much more exciting than a minor slap on the wrist 18-24 month suspension for getting caught in the current system.
Push the limits. Eff up your body and deal with serious side affects later on if winning is worth it. Not like the money and attention and resources put into athletics is advancing humankind as much as if that energy went somewhere else. Don’t get me wrong, I love sports, but it’s not bringing the best out of people