How fast will Shelby Houlihan run this weekend?

kvnaofin wrote:

rojo wrote:

Should we sponsor her? It would be epic if she broke 30:00 just to see all of the haters go ballistic. When I was younger, it was clear to me the world was black and white. Now I see lots of grey.

She very well could be a doper. There also is a possibility she inadvertently took a banned substance. Regardless, I like her time trials as it shows the problems inherent in our sport.

In football, a random person can't throw their own game and get people to pay attention. In track, they can.

One thing I do wish would happen. I wish WADA would show up at her door unannounced right now and offer to test her. If she denies the test, then well that speaks volumes. If she passes it, then it gets interesting.

Letsrun Dot Com 1999-2020: Holding Lance, Regina, Galen, Alberto, any foreign doper's feet to the fire even when it was unpopular, even when they were catching hell for it.

Letsrun Dot Com 2021-- "sHoULd We SpOnsOr HeR?"

At this point, just explain what it is about Shelby you love so much. She didn't inadvertently take nandrolone--as another poster mentioned, nandrolone isn't found in any random supplement. It didn't come from a burrito either, CAS debunked that ridiculous story 44 times over. It was synthetic. It wasn't a trace amount. Nandrolone helps distance runners recover.

There nothing about the case that would suggest Shelby was innocent. Literally nothing. What IS it about her that you and so many members of the running media love so much that you are willing to throw your reputations as clean sport advocates on the line for her?

If there is something I am missing, say so. None of you have managed to state clearly what is so unjust about her case. But to call people who don't want her in the sport "haters"? and that we'd "go ballistic?" Dude--we don't want dopers in the sport! That's not being a hater.

If you want to know what a hater looks like, search "Mary Cain" in the running forums. Or why don't you search the name of any female high school phenom on these message boards. Or how about, "Colleen Quigley". Actually Leah Falland had some screen shots in the past you might be interested in. But people angry that a BANNED drug cheat is sucking up attention and won't go away, while her former coaches are still coaching her? Yeah, I think we are legitimate in our feelings about that

kvnaofin wrote:

At this point, just explain what it is about Shelby you love so much. She didn't inadvertently take nandrolone--as another poster mentioned, nandrolone isn't found in any random supplement. It didn't come from a burrito either, CAS debunked that ridiculous story 44 times over. It was synthetic. It wasn't a trace amount. Nandrolone helps distance runners recover.

There nothing about the case that would suggest Shelby was innocent. Literally nothing. What IS it about her that you and so many members of the running media love so much that you are willing to throw your reputations as clean sport advocates on the line for her?

If there is something I am missing, say so. None of you have managed to state clearly what is so unjust about her case. But to call people who don't want her in the sport "haters"? and that we'd "go ballistic?" Dude--we don't want dopers in the sport! That's not being a hater.

rekrunner wrote:

kvnaofin wrote:

At this point, just explain what it is about Shelby you love so much. She didn't inadvertently take nandrolone--as another poster mentioned, nandrolone isn't found in any random supplement. It didn't come from a burrito either, CAS debunked that ridiculous story 44 times over. It was synthetic. It wasn't a trace amount. Nandrolone helps distance runners recover.

There nothing about the case that would suggest Shelby was innocent. Literally nothing. What IS it about her that you and so many members of the running media love so much that you are willing to throw your reputations as clean sport advocates on the line for her?

If there is something I am missing, say so. None of you have managed to state clearly what is so unjust about her case. But to call people who don't want her in the sport "haters"? and that we'd "go ballistic?" Dude--we don't want dopers in the sport! That's not being a hater.

I'd say the problem is not you missing something, but rather you adding some things.

There is nothing tangible in Houlihan's case that lets anyone conclude with any minimum level of certainty (let's say "balance of probability") that she deliberately took synthetic nandrolone. The CAS doesn't know. The AIU doesn't know. The AIU-hired experts don't know. And most certainly, posters here don't know.

The CAS didn't debunk her story 44 times over, but, maintained all along that it was always a possibility, and it still is, but that she failed to prove the source to the required standard of balance of probability. This could be possible to prove with more evidence, e.g. preserving and testing the uneaten portion of the burrito (similar to the case of Simon Getzmann), but that didn't happen, and the CAS was bound to make a quick decision base on the incomplete evidence and general population statistics before them, guided by WADA-customized definitions and presumptions written in the WADA code and related standards.

The AIU, the WADA lab, and the CAS also did not prove the source, nor intent, to any standard, so it is puzzling that fans who certainly know much less are so certain of conclusions presumed rather than proven.

Many are fooled by statistics that most pork burritos wouldn't produce a positive result, but these general statistics are irrelevent in this specific instance, where an athlete produce a positive result. If you put a black swan together with 100 white swans, the likelihood that any swan is black decreases, but the likelihood that the black swan is black remains unchanged.

What happens generally across the USA and Canada over time cannot change what specifically happened in one instance at one point in time. What is missing is evidence specific to the case of Houlihan.

As far as something in the case suggesting she is innocent, Prof McGlone, expert for the accusers, estimated (less than) 1 in 10,000 cryptorchid pigs would make it to market, and conceded that pigs were fed soy during the pandemic at about the right time. Using his figure as the right order of magnitude, in a market that slaughters 121 million pigs a year, that is up to 12,000 intact pigs getting on the market, each year, according to the accuser's expert. Given enough opportunities, while most burritos in the USA and Canada would likely produce a negative result, it is just a matter of time before an athlete produces a positive result from pork ingestion. In fact, scientists have known this and studied this for decades, with the AIU's own expert Prof. Ayotte producing pork ingested positive nandrolone results more than 20x higher Houlihan's test result. She also co-wrote another publication ("Half-truths vs. Facts") that said that Houlihan's delta-C13 values were about the same as the average of those measured in "our lab", and not above a maximum range as she testified to the CAS.

What is unjust about her case, is that she is presumed guilty of actions and intent that no one has any burden to prove, on the strength that the accused couldn't meet her burden to prove otherwise. These are the current rules, but the rules themselves, written by anti-doping body lawyers, are not designed for bring justice to the accused athletes, or determining truths with certainty, but rather designed to make prosecution easier and cheaper and quicker for anti-doping bodies who have no real power to compel production of evidence.

dogbert wrote:

rojo wrote:

Should we sponsor her? It would be epic if she broke 30:00 just to see all of the haters go ballistic. When I was younger, it was clear to me the world was black and white. Now I see lots of grey.

She very well could be a doper. There also is a possibility she inadvertently took a banned substance. Regardless, I like her time trials as it shows the problems inherent in our sport.

In football, a random person can't throw their own game and get people to pay attention. In track, they can.

One thing I do wish would happen. I wish WADA would show up at her door unannounced right now and offer to test her. If she denies the test, then well that speaks volumes. If she passes it, then it gets interesting.

LR should certainly offer to sponsor her. I'd be curious to see if she would accept it.

kvnaofin wrote:

rojo wrote:

Should we sponsor her? It would be epic if she broke 30:00 just to see all of the haters go ballistic. When I was younger, it was clear to me the world was black and white. Now I see lots of grey.

She very well could be a doper. There also is a possibility she inadvertently took a banned substance. Regardless, I like her time trials as it shows the problems inherent in our sport.

In football, a random person can't throw their own game and get people to pay attention. In track, they can.

One thing I do wish would happen. I wish WADA would show up at her door unannounced right now and offer to test her. If she denies the test, then well that speaks volumes. If she passes it, then it gets interesting.

Letsrun Dot Com 1999-2020: Holding Lance, Regina, Galen, Alberto, any foreign doper's feet to the fire even when it was unpopular, even when they were catching hell for it.

Letsrun Dot Com 2021-- "sHoULd We SpOnsOr HeR?"

At this point, just explain what it is about Shelby you love so much. She didn't inadvertently take nandrolone--as another poster mentioned, nandrolone isn't found in any random supplement. It didn't come from a burrito either, CAS debunked that ridiculous story 44 times over. It was synthetic. It wasn't a trace amount. Nandrolone helps distance runners recover.

There nothing about the case that would suggest Shelby was innocent. Literally nothing. What IS it about her that you and so many members of the running media love so much that you are willing to throw your reputations as clean sport advocates on the line for her?

If there is something I am missing, say so. None of you have managed to state clearly what is so unjust about her case. But to call people who don't want her in the sport "haters"? and that we'd "go ballistic?" Dude--we don't want dopers in the sport! That's not being a hater.

If you want to know what a hater looks like, search "Mary Cain" in the running forums. Or why don't you search the name of any female high school phenom on these message boards. Or how about, "Colleen Quigley". Actually Leah Falland had some screen shots in the past you might be interested in. But people angry that a BANNED drug cheat is sucking up attention and won't go away, while her former coaches are still coaching her? Yeah, I think we are legitimate in our feelings about that