I’d bet my left nut that 95% of Btc athletes are on thyroid.
-
132
-
Btc shell corp wrote:
I’ll give a couple multiple choice options but I’m mostly looking forward to the discussion that follows.
A) Shelby’s innocent, so nothing changes.
B) Shelby’s one bad apple, so nothing changes.
C) I was not skeptical before, but I’m skeptical now.
D) I was skeptical before, and I’m (still/more) skeptical now.
For me, it’s D. I was skeptical before and I’m more skeptical now. The difference is, the original source of my skepticism was mostly based on the fact that I think all professional runners have the ability to cheat coupled with Jager’s likely doping leak.
Now, Shelby’s weak excuse that was shot down by 2-3 different groups of experts, Jerry’s stance that he’s some naive coach (allegedly didn’t know what he was doing sending his athletes to Dr. Brown, allegedly never heard of nandrolone). Also, no one in the group has spoken out and the group is still letting her train. The optics of it all look extremely bad. Not to mention, the group has had the most outlier improvements seemingly in history in the last few years.
Would love to get a pulse of the board on this.
I still believe that Jerry may not have known about the performance enhancing drug because maybe he isn't trying to use it lol
43 -
No, and I don't follow all of the clubs. Tinman, BTC, I can't keep track of them all.
00 -
So what's the result of your survey so far?
00 -
Jack Frost wrote:
I’d bet my left nut that 95% of Btc athletes are on thyroid.
So who wins your left nut?
12 -
Sedona AZ squirts from burrito?
11 -
E: The Awful response from the club and Nike’s continued support confirms they are drug cheats with little regard for anything but personal accolades and money, respectively.
110 -
D for me. I probably would have considered it just one bad apple, but there was something about way that the coaches and teammates all had the exact same, obviously scripted statements about never having heard of nandrolone beforehand. This was despite Schumacher having competed in gold medalist Linford Christie's era and then Christie getting popped for nandrolone. There is absolutely zero chance he's telling the truth about never having heard of nandrolone if I, as someone much more casually involved in the sport have heard of it in that context and multiple others. If the whole team is lying about this, it makes it seem unlikely to me that Shelby was the one bad apple.
100 -
It didn't bother me to much. I figure any track club is bound to have a few dopers.
What really negatively affected my view of BTC is when they started taking dumps on tracks.
101 -
casual obsever wrote:
LOL. Her lawyer was Paul Greene, who already managed to get Lawson off, among others.
Her experts? She had to go shopping abroad, and finally found two in Switzerland and Norway who'd make favorable comments about the American pork market...
Her American experts used all the tricks in the book, such as not checking for the relevant prohormones in the hair analyses or asking whether she ever used any steroids or PEDs in the lie detector test.
Fortunately none of their tricks helped in this too obvious case.
Who besides Lawson has Greene "managed to get off"? He wasn't even able to make a persuasive case out of the fact that WADA had previously warned its labs about steroids and dietary pork intake. That tells me he's incompetent.
And Lagat's hired expert was German, so apparently he "had to go shopping around abroad" too. But it didn't take much expertise to recognize that leaving Lagat's unrefrigerated samples in a boiling hot car would render the test results meaningless. In that case, the testers were blatantly incompetent.
By the way, looking for "relevant prohormones" is hardly a "trick." It's science. Hence the adjective "relevant."
As in the Lagat case, WADA screwed up and vilified an innocent athlete, Houlihan. Lagat was lucky to have competent legal representation and a more obvious screwup by the testers. Good thing for the United States, too, because Lagat was able to return to competition quickly and represent the U.S. very nicely. Having been banned during her peak years, though, Houlihan won't be so lucky.19 -
Taro wrote:
Who besides Lawson has Greene "managed to get off"? He wasn't even able to make a persuasive case out of the fact that WADA had previously warned its labs about steroids and dietary pork intake. That tells me he's incompetent.
It's not Greene's fault that Shelby was caught with synthetic nandro, and too much nandro to have come from stomach muscle, and other too high androgen levels (pointing to a designer cocktail). Open and shut case.
By the way, looking for "relevant prohormones" is hardly a "trick." It's science. Hence the adjective "relevant."
Exactly my point. They really should have done that.How do you call then "not checking for the relevant prohormones"? I call that a trick.
WADA screwed up and vilified an innocent athlete, Houlihan.
Is this a joke?41 -
casual obsever wrote:
It's not Greene's fault that Shelby was caught with synthetic nandro, and too much nandro to have come from stomach muscle, and other too high androgen levels (pointing to a designer cocktail). Open and shut case.
Exactly my point. They really should have done that.How do you call then "not checking for the relevant prohormones"? I call that a trick.
Is this a joke?WADA recommends that its labs perform further tests when the athlete says they consumed pork. The lab didn't do that in this case. So the WADA-approved lab failed to comply with WADA recommendations. Greene ought to have driven that point home more forcefully than he did before the CAS. The entire case hinged on it.
Is this a joke? Only if you have a really sick sense of humor.08 -
Collin wrote:
D for me. I probably would have considered it just one bad apple, but there was something about way that the coaches and teammates all had the exact same, obviously scripted statements about never having heard of nandrolone beforehand. This was despite Schumacher having competed in gold medalist Linford Christie's era and then Christie getting popped for nandrolone. There is absolutely zero chance he's telling the truth about never having heard of nandrolone if I, as someone much more casually involved in the sport have heard of it in that context and multiple others. If the whole team is lying about this, it makes it seem unlikely to me that Shelby was the one bad apple.
Did it say nandrolone on the charge sheet or some very complicated and long scientific words that no one has heard of.
That is the way the case goes.
01 -
It’s D. But this goes beyond BTC. In order to be on the world level there is no way the majority are clean. Just haven’t been caught. Especially those that came out of nowhere in one season to get into world champs. Beyond sus
81 -
I see you ignored that they were "not checking for the relevant prohormones", and that it was synthetic nandro etc. You also ignored the above-mentioned trick with the lie detector.
As for the WADA recommendation:
a) that became only valid after all the tests and reporting were done (April 1st, 2021);
b) that concern was about "the varying diets of migrating wild boars", not about commercial pork as in this case.
All of that is discussed at length in the CAS decision.
After all that, sorry, I simply can't take claims of her "innocence" serious anymore.
30 -
In January of this year, I was notified that Shelby had recorded a positive drug test in December 2020. The positive test was for a substance called nandrolone, something that neither Shelby nor I had ever heard of.
Try harder.
30 -
casual obsever wrote:
I see you ignored that they were "not checking for the relevant prohormones", and that it was synthetic nandro etc. You also ignored the above-mentioned trick with the lie detector.
As for the WADA recommendation:
a) that became only valid after all the tests and reporting were done (April 1st, 2021);
b) that concern was about "the varying diets of migrating wild boars", not about commercial pork as in this case.
All of that is discussed at length in the CAS decision.
After all that, sorry, I simply can't take claims of her "innocence" serious anymore.
The CAS said a few of things lacking specific information and with insufficient evidence, siding with the AIU, also lacking specific evidence. Because the actual evidence is missing, it would be premature to conclude that the nandrolone was synthetic as suggested by the AIU-expert, or that soy-fed "commercial" pork sourced during the pandemic wasn't the most likely source of the nandrolone, as argued by Houlihan. It would also be premature to conclude that Houlihan's violation wasn't "innocent".
The only thing relevant in the CAS decision was a ruling that 1) the WADA labs acted within the procedures (not a unanimous ruling), and 2) Houlihan did not prove "not intentional" on the balance of probability.
While WADA rules and expanded definitions allows the AIU to build a weak case propped up with presumptions and the principle of "strict liability", to convict athletes guilty of accidental and unknowling ingestion, the case that Houlihan intentionally doped with synthetic nandrolone has not been established to any legal, scientific, or intellectual standard.
19 -
casual obsever wrote:
https://www.bowermantc.com/new-blog/2021/6/14/statement-from-coach-jerry-schumacher
In January of this year, I was notified that Shelby had recorded a positive drug test in December 2020. The positive test was for a substance called nandrolone, something that neither Shelby nor I had ever heard of.
Try harder.
Inconsistent as Nandrolone would not be on the charge sheet.
Thy much harder.
01 -
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
I see you ignored that they were "not checking for the relevant prohormones", and that it was synthetic nandro etc. You also ignored the above-mentioned trick with the lie detector.
As for the WADA recommendation:
a) that became only valid after all the tests and reporting were done (April 1st, 2021);
b) that concern was about "the varying diets of migrating wild boars", not about commercial pork as in this case.
All of that is discussed at length in the CAS decision.
After all that, sorry, I simply can't take claims of her "innocence" serious anymore.
The CAS said a few of things lacking specific information and with insufficient evidence, siding with the AIU, also lacking specific evidence. Because the actual evidence is missing, it would be premature to conclude that the nandrolone was synthetic as suggested by the AIU-expert, or that soy-fed "commercial" pork sourced during the pandemic wasn't the most likely source of the nandrolone, as argued by Houlihan. It would also be premature to conclude that Houlihan's violation wasn't "innocent".
The only thing relevant in the CAS decision was a ruling that 1) the WADA labs acted within the procedures (not a unanimous ruling), and 2) Houlihan did not prove "not intentional" on the balance of probability.
While WADA rules and expanded definitions allows the AIU to build a weak case propped up with presumptions and the principle of "strict liability", to convict athletes guilty of accidental and unknowling ingestion, the case that Houlihan intentionally doped with synthetic nandrolone has not been established to any legal, scientific, or intellectual standard.
Still could be from farmers enhancing their stock; well documented.
01
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.