Malcolm Gladwell: Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying?

There’s an inherent contradiction in this line of reasoning from Gladwell and others.

On the one hand, they’ll say X Person can’t be guilty of cheating because they should have known they’d get caught and this would be self-destructive. On the other hand, they’ll say the only cheating that matters is the kind that helps a lot.

There arguments don’t make sense when taken together. Every prohibited substance carries a risk of “getting caught” and a likelihood of obtaining benefit. It’s a matter of balancing those probabilities.

On one end of the spectrum, you have EPO, which is highly effective and very hard to detect. However, it’s not necessarily easy to obtain, so the methods of acquiring it run you a relatively high risk of “getting caught.”

On the other hand, you have supplements and medications that are VERY easy to obtain, have varying levels of efficacy, and varying levels of detectability. Shelby Houlihan was found guilty of taking nandrolone orally. This method would have the benefit of 1) ease of access to the substance and 2) low likelihood of detection (as the substance clears your system quickly), but a downside of relatively low efficacy. Sure there are other substances that would have higher efficacy, but they are not equally replaceable given the relative access and likelihood of detection.

Given that fact pattern, Houlihan wouldn’t need to be “stupid” at all to want to dope with nandrolone. Micro-dosing via oral ingestion of nandrolone might actually be quite smart — as long as you don’t make a mistake, your likelihood of getting caught is virtually zero. If that is indeed what she was doing, then it was poor planning and extraordinarily bad luck that got her caught.

Giddy wrote:

I think most people here are misinterpreting Gladwell's tainted supplement argument. He isn't suggesting that as the likely reason for a positive test, he's simply stating there are other plausible ways for her to have tested positive.

The concept here is no different than any other "crime" that's been committed, it's a combination of physical evidence and a narrative that determine a desired outcome, whether that's to convict or to defend. Example, there's a dead body, a gun with ballistics matched bullet that was found in the victim, and your fingerprints on the gun... did you murder someone or did you protect yourself? The story matters.

I don't think he's supporting her innocence, I think he's simply suggesting the exact title of the article... it's unsatisfying because we'll never get the story... guilty or not. Bummer.

That's not really a fair comparison. There's no gray area with doping violations, you are guilty or you are not. To be equivalent, the law would have to be " the taking of another life, under any circumstances is illegal". In that case, the story has not bearing at all.

You're right though, we will never get the full story, unless Oprah interviews her in a few years.

Giddy wrote:

I think most people here are misinterpreting Gladwell's tainted supplement argument. He isn't suggesting that as the likely reason for a positive test, he's simply stating there are other plausible ways for her to have tested positive.

The concept here is no different than any other "crime" that's been committed, it's a combination of physical evidence and a narrative that determine a desired outcome, whether that's to convict or to defend. Example, there's a dead body, a gun with ballistics matched bullet that was found in the victim, and your fingerprints on the gun... did you murder someone or did you protect yourself? The story matters.

I don't think he's supporting her innocence, I think he's simply suggesting the exact title of the article... it's unsatisfying because we'll never get the story... guilty or not. Bummer.

Stop it with criminal intrigue as if this is a clandestine government plot. There is about as much intrigue in S. Houlihan case as occasional d.u.i. arrest that goes to trial. Full story is never known. We never know exactly why a person drank as much as they drank day of arrest. We never know if we should buy the Jack Daniels Burger at T.G.I.F. paid with cash defense. If the pinch of alcohol from Jack Daniels Burger contributed a bit to d.u.i., contribution was slight and the defense will not work. THE BEST DEFENSE FOR D.U.I. IS OFTEN FAULTY MACHINE. I DO NOT BELIEVE S. HOULIHAN ATTACKED METHODS AT LAB SO ... . Move on. S. Houlihan knowingly doped. Her body changes look like a doper. S. Houlihan's performances look like a dopers, so ... .

High hopes wrote:

The only people still buying the BTC line that "nandrolone doesn't help a distance runner" are the Brojo's and Jonathan.

Nandrolone helps build lean muscle, if lean muscle is of no use to a distance runner, then what's the point of all the lifting that they do? Kate Grace attributed her improvement this year to increased lifting. The BTC men are always talking about how much time they spend in the gym. So, does lean muscle help distance runners or not? Does Jerry need to tell his boys to get out of the weight room?

Body builders and power lifters were on let'srun immediately after we knew of S. Houlihan verdict this summer stating primary reason some athletes take nandrolone. Nandrolone or deca is primary taken to aid in quickly healing damaged cartilage, an issue for body builders and powerlifters. All T&F athletes from jumpers, runners, sprinters and throwers have reason to quickly heal damaged cartilage.

xczvzxcv wrote:

She went to eat at a food truck where you just don't know what's in the meat or where it comes from.

This is just factually untrue. If you had read the CAS report, or anything that discusses it, you would know the meat came from Tyson, one of the largest food distributors in the country, and one that has zero boar processing plants, which means there is a literal 0% chance that if she had a pork burrito, it would have any chance of having trace nandrolone in it.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

oinion wrote:

2. Sure they have more physical ability and they eat generally better than most but remember that all Shelby had to eat on that fateful day before the burrito was a piece of cheese cake.

Yes and for someone who thinks they need a huge treasure trove of vitamins/supplements, what you eat on a typical day is cheesecake and a beef burrito?

“We tested all of my vitamins and supplements which all came back negative. Unfortunately, there were a couple that we didn’t have the original batches of because I was notified a month later and those supplements were already consumed,” shared Houlihan.

-So much for your body is your temple.

When I was in the testing pool I took a multi-vitamin, an iron supplement and vitamin d. And even though these were basically cvs brand and unlikely to be laced with anything performance enhancing, I kept the empty bottles for months so that I would have the batch numbers. Once the panel rules out Shelby's explanation it doesn't matter AT ALL how the drugs ended up in her body. That isn't the standard nor should it be.

Ooh look folks, a real Nandrolonologist.

Giddy wrote:

I think most people here are misinterpreting Gladwell's tainted supplement argument. He isn't suggesting that as the likely reason for a positive test, he's simply stating there are other plausible ways for her to have tested positive.

I think just about everyone who posted on this thread understands that.

High hopes wrote:

The thing is, Gladwell's whole grift is being deliberately obtuse. The decision is only unsatisfying if you want something more than "athlete cheated to try and gain an advantage." It's an old story, but one repeated often. Personally, I found the decision and reasoning to be very satisfying, but then I enjoy seeing obvious lies pulled apart by skilled professionals, experts in their field. Gladwell enjoys counterintuitive stories, even if they fall to pieces under light scrutiny.

Gladwell used to be great in the outlier days. But he has really fallen in the past couple years. He has essentially become a woke/socialist activist at this point. Leave it to the American left to continue to hold this guy up as a trough leader who either does not understand or does not like the founding principles of America. The breaking point for me was when he used his platform to start pushing Ibram X Kendi. At that point you're basically telling roughly half of all American's I have no problem showing you the middle finger as long as I make my coastal elitist friends happy.

This is an area where I unfortunately have a lot of experience (through cycling) and it's clear Malcolm and the Letsrun overlords don't. Your comment touches on the key issue they're missing. People (including handlers/coaches) are looking for marginal gains and willing to try things that are supposedly undetectable or less detectable in the hopes of getting that edge. That is the case even if there is no proven benefit to particular drug or the method of administration, like micro-dosing. We were injecting L-Carnitine in cycling in Europe in the mid-90s, even though there was no evidence that it actually did anything. But someone thought it might, so we were like, what the hell, let's try it. Same went for other drugs, and then other techniques. You can't look at the science, then say because the science doesn't support the benefits of that drug, or that method of administration, they're no way they'd do it, because that's just not how it works in practice.

Shelby (or her handlers/close confidants) in all likelihood just screwed up on the timing and got unlucky. But to say there's no reason she'd be orally taking steroids demonstrates a lack of understanding of the doping culture.

On a slightly separate rant - I am much more understanding when it comes to foreign dopers that are trying to provide for their families and create generational wealth than I am for college-educated Americans who don't have to go farm potatoes or goats (if they don't want to) if they don't make it. I've seen first hand European cycling almost-pros and understand why they might want to not lay bricks forever. Only in the US can you move back and forth between white-collar and sport; other parts of the world you pick one or the other.

you don't say wrote:

Giddy wrote:

I think most people here are misinterpreting Gladwell's tainted supplement argument. He isn't suggesting that as the likely reason for a positive test, he's simply stating there are other plausible ways for her to have tested positive.

I think just about everyone who posted on this thread understands that.

Actually it's the exact opposite. Most people here don't understand Gladwell's argument. This evident by the fact that none of them actually have researched the subject on which they endlessly pontificate.

Gladwell created a "strawman" argument that posits in essence how "implausible" it would be for

Houlihan to have taken Nandrolone because it would prove that she's essentially "a self sabotaging idiot".

People, even smart ones, do really dumb things all the time, especially under duress.

It's extremely flawed, facile argument, not surprising considering the source.

You're right about the lack of real knowledge of supposed efficacy of preparation x etc. But for your conclusion to be correct, someone has to step forward with the smoking gun. Remember THG?

you don't say wrote:

I think just about everyone who posted on this thread understands that.

It doesn't read that way to me... it reads to me that trying to understand the story behind the downfall of an American Track star isn't overly important to the mob... 100% guilty, black and white, full stop.

From a procedural standpoint, agreed. I, nor I think Gladwell, are arguing the evidence, simply wishing to get a fuller picture of it... and like an above poster stated, you never will know the full story. I find it unsatisfying, not right or wrong, just unsatisfying.

I thought nandrolone was common as a trace drug when you take low quality testosterone. I think that's the most likely reason she tested positive. And why she can say on a lie detector test she had never heard of it before.

Article:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/9app8z/starling-marte-tests-positive-for-nandrolone-the-kiss-of-death-drug

rojo wrote:

Malcolm Gladwell's latest column is out and about the Shelby Houlihan case.

…

We need a story. And right now we don’t have a story.

…

“We” meaning Gladwell needs a story because his view is that “ You can’t rely on conventions and codes in a case that requires a story.”

That is a postulate spun out of whole cloth. We certainly need codes and conventions, and no system of justice or fairness enforcement can work without clear codes (rules or laws) as the primary determiner. In the legal system, one often also tries hard to establish a motive for a crime, but that (1) is secondary to evidence of the crime itself; and (2) doesn’t rely on discounting the most obvious motivation as being “really stupid”.

“I did not commit that crime because I’d be too stupid to do it” is simply not a relevant consideration in any judicial process.

Giddy wrote:

From a procedural standpoint, agreed. I, nor I think Gladwell, are arguing the evidence, simply wishing to get a fuller picture of it... and like an above poster stated, you never will know the full story. I find it unsatisfying, not right or wrong, just unsatisfying.

While this is correct, it is also the sad normality in doping cases. See for example Kiprop or Gatlin - we don't know since when they doped, how often, with which amounts, and how much the doping helped etc.

Could or did Kiprop run sub-3:30 clean? Gatlin sub-9.8? Houlihan sub-15?

Even if - and that is a big if - Houlihan would now admit to have doped since for example early 2019, would you then believe that she ran her 14:34 in 2018 clean?

Houlihan, 1500 and 5000 m progression

2013 4:13.64 16:15.85 age 20

2014 4:10.89 16:11.63 age 21

2015 4:09.62 15:49.72 age 22, moved to BTC

2016 4:03.39 15:06.14 age 23

2017 4:06.22 15:00.37 age 24

2018 3:57.34 14:34.45 age 25 5000 m American Record

2019 3:54.99 15:15.50 age 26 1500 m American Record

2020 4:02.37 14:23.92 age 27 5000 m American Record, popped for roids

(and banned from January 2021 - 2025)

Kvothe wrote:

I found the CAS decision in the Houlihan case very satisfying and I imagine those who actually care about clean sport did as well.

+1

Sharpen them pitchforks.