She could have walked into GNC supplements over there at Cedar Hills Beaverton with her debit card and walked out in 5min with a high quality supplement that would do exactly what she wanted it to do - boost the bodies natural production of nandrolone.
But that wasn't the case here, as proven by the CIR test: the CIR was inconsistent with her own (and that of farm-fed boar), but it matched that of synthetic nandro.
She could have walked into GNC supplements over there at Cedar Hills Beaverton with her debit card and walked out in 5min with a high quality supplement that would do exactly what she wanted it to do - boost the bodies natural production of nandrolone.
But that wasn't the case here, as proven by the CIR test: the CIR was inconsistent with her own (and that of farm-fed boar), but it matched that of synthetic nandro.
Yes and no...
This is from the Tucker article....
"However, having explained what it is not, she then offers some insight into what the 19-NA may be. Her testimony, in Points 74 and 116, makes the fascinating observation that in recent years, they have begun noticing a new pattern of carbon isotope signatures in these 19-NA doping cases. She says that since 2018, 31 conclusive Adverse Analytical Findings for 19-NA can be divided into two distinct batches. One batch has an isotope signature around -29‰, while the other is clustered around -23‰. Presumably, the -29‰ is injected nandrolone, but the -23‰ belongs to what Ayotte describes as oral precursors of nandrolone. She even names two – 19-nor DHEA and nor-Andro, says they can be purchased on Amazon, and says that she has tested such a product and found that its isotopic signature was -23.8‰. Given that Houlihan’s 19-NA was measured at -23‰ , this is as close as Ayotte comes to offering what they believe to be the doping act in the Houlihan case, but of course, they never have to explain the origins of the 19-NA – that burden is on Houlihan."
For maximum results this product is designed to be stacked with other Andro products, and followed with a proper post cycle therapy (PCT). For Andro stacks: click here For Alpha-AF (PCT): click here For Andro Guide: click her...
This is just a simple OTC, nandrolone precursor supplement. It didn't match synthetic N, it just matched an isotropic signature of nandrolone stimulated by the precursor supplements such as the above.
While I see where you are coming from in principal, this sadly isn't how it works in reality. Is it plausible that SH was cheating prior to officially being caught? Well when you look at the change in appearance and how that coincided with the jump in performance it is plausible, in fact highly likely. But that's not the way this works unfortunately (most unfortunately for the athletes that now have to somehow break her American records that are more than likely doped). Trying to void those performances prior to the fact (of her positive test) is simply impossible for obvious reasons and would cause way more issues than it would solve.
Agreed. You can’t take away someone’s records if they tested negative when they broke them. What would that say about the sport’s own testing system?
Also: where do you draw the line. Shelby tested positive in December of 2020. Exactly how far before she tested positive do you want to punish her? Take away her 5,000 record set 5 months before that? Take away her 1500 record set over a year before her positive test? Take away all her US national titles dating back to 2017? Take away her NCAA championship? High school records?
It would say the testing system works and you have caught a dirty athlete. You might thinking cheating and getting away with it means it is ok. I think a lot of us disagree with it.
We all know that day of competition is only good for limited categories of PEDs. And of the subset that people use in training, you need to get lucky to catch someone given half lives in the body. Until the athlete screws up, it is almost impossible to get caught.
If you want to be generous, only go back 4 years...
Or go NFL/mlbs and have like a 90 day suspension and just ignore the problem...
Agreed. You can’t take away someone’s records if they tested negative when they broke them. What would that say about the sport’s own testing system?
Also: where do you draw the line. Shelby tested positive in December of 2020. Exactly how far before she tested positive do you want to punish her? Take away her 5,000 record set 5 months before that? Take away her 1500 record set over a year before her positive test? Take away all her US national titles dating back to 2017? Take away her NCAA championship? High school records?
It would say the testing system works and you have caught a dirty athlete. You might thinking cheating and getting away with it means it is ok. I think a lot of us disagree with it.
We all know that day of competition is only good for limited categories of PEDs. And of the subset that people use in training, you need to get lucky to catch someone given half lives in the body. Until the athlete screws up, it is almost impossible to get caught.
If you want to be generous, only go back 4 years...
Or go NFL/mlbs and have like a 90 day suspension and just ignore the problem...
Dude with all due respect, I don't interpret that post as "thinking cheating and getting away with it means it is ok".
The thing is, there are limited options on this - you either say "if you are ever caught cheating it is also taken as an indicator of inherent distrustfulness and therefore all your results as a professional are null and voided" or you have to stick with the current status quo of the test date being the "D day" for suspension and results from that point (if any) being the ones that are eliminated from record. It's not easy and I am with you in principal because do I believe Houlihan was clean when she ran those AR's over the 1500 and 5000m looking all gaunt and "man'ish" in her features? Not a chance.
But coming up with a time frame to back-date bans and void results is really tough and I could see countless roadblocks (mostly legal) to doing this given all the implications involved with sponsorships etc. So as much as I hate to say it seems the current way is kind of the way it has to be.
It would say the testing system works and you have caught a dirty athlete. You might thinking cheating and getting away with it means it is ok. I think a lot of us disagree with it.
We all know that day of competition is only good for limited categories of PEDs. And of the subset that people use in training, you need to get lucky to catch someone given half lives in the body. Until the athlete screws up, it is almost impossible to get caught.
If you want to be generous, only go back 4 years...
Or go NFL/mlbs and have like a 90 day suspension and just ignore the problem...
Dude with all due respect, I don't interpret that post as "thinking cheating and getting away with it means it is ok".
The thing is, there are limited options on this - you either say "if you are ever caught cheating it is also taken as an indicator of inherent distrustfulness and therefore all your results as a professional are null and voided" or you have to stick with the current status quo of the test date being the "D day" for suspension and results from that point (if any) being the ones that are eliminated from record. It's not easy and I am with you in principal because do I believe Houlihan was clean when she ran those AR's over the 1500 and 5000m looking all gaunt and "man'ish" in her features? Not a chance.
But coming up with a time frame to back-date bans and void results is really tough and I could see countless roadblocks (mostly legal) to doing this given all the implications involved with sponsorships etc. So as much as I hate to say it seems the current way is kind of the way it has to be.
Thank you, Salvitore. You and I are on the same page here. Of course I don’t think it’s ok for anyone to get away with cheating. But I strongly believe in the American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. Houlihan was only proven to be guilty in December of 2020. She has already been punished adequately for that in my opinion. Extending that punishment retroactively to time periods when she tested negative, which included out of competition testing, would violate the American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty.
We can only surmise when Houlihan started doping. Most people here believe she started leading up to her 2018 season when she made big improvements in her times. That’s reasonable. But it’s also plausible that she didn’t start until after the 2019 world championships when she ran her absolute best, set the American record, and that still wasn’t enough to medal. I could easily imagine her being frustrated by that experience, seeing Hassan run 3:51, feeling the heightened pressure of the upcoming Olympics, and thinking she needed to start doping so she could compete with Hassan (who many of us suspect is doping too). Or, maybe she was already doping by that point, and after seeing what Hassan and the other possibly-doped medalists did in that 2019 final, decided she needed to up her dosage. Who knows?
Dude with all due respect, I don't interpret that post as "thinking cheating and getting away with it means it is ok".
The thing is, there are limited options on this - you either say "if you are ever caught cheating it is also taken as an indicator of inherent distrustfulness and therefore all your results as a professional are null and voided" or you have to stick with the current status quo of the test date being the "D day" for suspension and results from that point (if any) being the ones that are eliminated from record. It's not easy and I am with you in principal because do I believe Houlihan was clean when she ran those AR's over the 1500 and 5000m looking all gaunt and "man'ish" in her features? Not a chance.
But coming up with a time frame to back-date bans and void results is really tough and I could see countless roadblocks (mostly legal) to doing this given all the implications involved with sponsorships etc. So as much as I hate to say it seems the current way is kind of the way it has to be.
Thank you, Salvitore. You and I are on the same page here. Of course I don’t think it’s ok for anyone to get away with cheating. But I strongly believe in the American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. Houlihan was only proven to be guilty in December of 2020. She has already been punished adequately for that in my opinion. Extending that punishment retroactively to time periods when she tested negative, which included out of competition testing, would violate the American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty.
We can only surmise when Houlihan started doping. Most people here believe she started leading up to her 2018 season when she made big improvements in her times. That’s reasonable. But it’s also plausible that she didn’t start until after the 2019 world championships when she ran her absolute best, set the American record, and that still wasn’t enough to medal. I could easily imagine her being frustrated by that experience, seeing Hassan run 3:51, feeling the heightened pressure of the upcoming Olympics, and thinking she needed to start doping so she could compete with Hassan (who many of us suspect is doping too). Or, maybe she was already doping by that point, and after seeing what Hassan and the other possibly-doped medalists did in that 2019 final, decided she needed to up her dosage. Who knows?
Yeah and I guess to kind of put this one to bed, it's the concept of "absolute truth" at play here. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence with respect to when she might have been cheating - as you said, the big jump in performance and from my side just the optical difference we could see in physical attributes BUT, and there's always a but, we could not say definitively she had violated any rules until she was caught with that amount of nandrolone in her piss on that particular day. And as much as I personally would love to tie in the reality she's a pathological liar and borderline psychopath to her verdict and say "all results disappear" you just can't and it's kind of obvious why if you think about it rationally and take the emotion out of it - which sadly is what most rules and laws boil down to. Good chat.
Dude with all due respect, I don't interpret that post as "thinking cheating and getting away with it means it is ok".
The thing is, there are limited options on this - you either say "if you are ever caught cheating it is also taken as an indicator of inherent distrustfulness and therefore all your results as a professional are null and voided" or you have to stick with the current status quo of the test date being the "D day" for suspension and results from that point (if any) being the ones that are eliminated from record. It's not easy and I am with you in principal because do I believe Houlihan was clean when she ran those AR's over the 1500 and 5000m looking all gaunt and "man'ish" in her features? Not a chance.
But coming up with a time frame to back-date bans and void results is really tough and I could see countless roadblocks (mostly legal) to doing this given all the implications involved with sponsorships etc. So as much as I hate to say it seems the current way is kind of the way it has to be.
Thank you, Salvitore. You and I are on the same page here. Of course I don’t think it’s ok for anyone to get away with cheating. But I strongly believe in the American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty. Houlihan was only proven to be guilty in December of 2020. She has already been punished adequately for that in my opinion. Extending that punishment retroactively to time periods when she tested negative, which included out of competition testing, would violate the American legal principle of innocent until proven guilty.
We can only surmise when Houlihan started doping. Most people here believe she started leading up to her 2018 season when she made big improvements in her times. That’s reasonable. But it’s also plausible that she didn’t start until after the 2019 world championships when she ran her absolute best, set the American record, and that still wasn’t enough to medal. I could easily imagine her being frustrated by that experience, seeing Hassan run 3:51, feeling the heightened pressure of the upcoming Olympics, and thinking she needed to start doping so she could compete with Hassan (who many of us suspect is doping too). Or, maybe she was already doping by that point, and after seeing what Hassan and the other possibly-doped medalists did in that 2019 final, decided she needed to up her dosage. Who knows?
She was innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is dqing her for appearance. She is being punished for getting caught doping. The question is what do you do after she is found guilty. You want to let her gain material benefit from her fraudulent performances. You can stick with the idea that cheating is OK as long as you don't get caught. Others think that is garbage.
For example who do you think should have the 2012 woman's 1500m medals? You happy giving it to Aslı Çakır Alptekin cause she passed the test on that day? I have no clue how Rowbury would have felt about being given a silver in 2016 after half the field got caught doping but I have no problem removing all those names from the record books.
From a practical point going back more than 4-8 years gets complicated (see all those east German dopers) to undo. But a record from 18 months ago? That is trivial... As it is when someone runs close to these times we we have to go 'fastest time by a nonDoper' instead of going American record holder...
But that wasn't the case here, as proven by the CIR test: the CIR was inconsistent with her own (and that of farm-fed boar), but it matched that of synthetic nandro.
Yes and no...
This is from the Tucker article....
"However, having explained what it is not, she then offers some insight into what the 19-NA may be. Her testimony, in Points 74 and 116, makes the fascinating observation that in recent years, they have begun noticing a new pattern of carbon isotope signatures in these 19-NA doping cases. She says that since 2018, 31 conclusive Adverse Analytical Findings for 19-NA can be divided into two distinct batches. One batch has an isotope signature around -29‰, while the other is clustered around -23‰. Presumably, the -29‰ is injected nandrolone, but the -23‰ belongs to what Ayotte describes as oral precursors of nandrolone. She even names two – 19-nor DHEA and nor-Andro, says they can be purchased on Amazon, and says that she has tested such a product and found that its isotopic signature was -23.8‰. Given that Houlihan’s 19-NA was measured at -23‰ , this is as close as Ayotte comes to offering what they believe to be the doping act in the Houlihan case, but of course, they never have to explain the origins of the 19-NA – that burden is on Houlihan."
This is just a simple OTC, nandrolone precursor supplement. It didn't match synthetic N, it just matched an isotropic signature of nandrolone stimulated by the precursor supplements such as the above.
This substance is a derivative of DHEA which is already on the prohibited list.
"and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)." is very conveniently included at the bottom of the androgen list so it doesn't need to be listed explicitly.
So even if she was taking something like this instead of nandrolone it doesn't make her any less guilty.
Anywho... yes testing continues and of course the guilty stop using (but miraculously they don't come across any contaminated food anymore either)
If they make the consequences bigger (repayment of prize money and removal of results 2 years prior of the positive, for example), the idea is the risks are too high and the losers will choose not to start a Program.
But that wasn't the case here, as proven by the CIR test: the CIR was inconsistent with her own (and that of farm-fed boar), but it matched that of synthetic nandro.
Yes and no...
This is from the Tucker article....
"the -23‰ belongs to what Ayotte describes as oral precursors of nandrolone. She even names two – 19-nor DHEA and nor-Andro, says they can be purchased on Amazon, and says that she has tested such a product and found that its isotopic signature was -23.8‰. "
Yes, that's what I meant: likely a synthetic oral precursor that then turns into synthetic nandrolone. I wouldn't call that "boost the bodies natural production of nandrolone", which sounds harmless: intentionally taking a nandro precursor results in a 4-year ban.
Btw, I am still laughing at Shelby's biased "expert" who claimed that this stuff is hard to get: your link and Amazon say otherwise.
And as much as I personally would love to tie in the reality she's a pathological liar and borderline psychopath to her verdict and say "all results disappear" you just can't and it's kind of obvious why if you think about it rationally and take the emotion out of it - which sadly is what most rules and laws boil down to. Good chat.
Agreed (though she obviously is "a pathological liar" as reality shows).
But it is sad reality that we now again - after Decker for years - have a banned drug cheat hold these American Records. And of course those two cheats aren't the only dirty American Record holders (Gay, Gatlin, Rodgers, ... and I am not even including athletes from the dirty past like FloJo).
It would also be neat IF one could use such a retroactive punishment as a deterrent: "if you ever get caught doping, you lose all records and titles (since turning 18 or going back 4 years)". Btw, Shalane Flanagan suggested that too, but for some reason never repeated it after Houlihan got caught.
She was innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is dqing her for appearance. She is being punished for getting caught doping. The question is what do you do after she is found guilty. You want to let her gain material benefit from her fraudulent performances.
How do you know her 2019 performances were fraudulent if she never tested positive that year?
She was innocent until proven guilty. Nobody is dqing her for appearance. She is being punished for getting caught doping. The question is what do you do after she is found guilty. You want to let her gain material benefit from her fraudulent performances.
How do you know her 2019 performances were fraudulent if she never tested positive that year?
It's illogical to think they weren't fraudulent. No one seriously believes the one time she tested positive is the only time she doped.
"However, having explained what it is not, she then offers some insight into what the 19-NA may be. Her testimony, in Points 74 and 116, makes the fascinating observation that in recent years, they have begun noticing a new pattern of carbon isotope signatures in these 19-NA doping cases. She says that since 2018, 31 conclusive Adverse Analytical Findings for 19-NA can be divided into two distinct batches. One batch has an isotope signature around -29‰, while the other is clustered around -23‰. Presumably, the -29‰ is injected nandrolone, but the -23‰ belongs to what Ayotte describes as oral precursors of nandrolone. She even names two – 19-nor DHEA and nor-Andro, says they can be purchased on Amazon, and says that she has tested such a product and found that its isotopic signature was -23.8‰. Given that Houlihan’s 19-NA was measured at -23‰ , this is as close as Ayotte comes to offering what they believe to be the doping act in the Houlihan case, but of course, they never have to explain the origins of the 19-NA – that burden is on Houlihan."
This is just a simple OTC, nandrolone precursor supplement. It didn't match synthetic N, it just matched an isotropic signature of nandrolone stimulated by the precursor supplements such as the above.
This substance is a derivative of DHEA which is already on the prohibited list.
"and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)." is very conveniently included at the bottom of the androgen list so it doesn't need to be listed explicitly.
So even if she was taking something like this instead of nandrolone it doesn't make her any less guilty.
Hey man, I'm not saying that this get's her off at all - absolutely not. And if anything taking something like a precursor supplement knowing that it will lead to the synthesis of a substance that could be over a legal limit is possibly even worse because it adds the element of deceit into the mix and it's also a classic way to throw some ambiguity into the situation.
Like if you get caught with the -29% signature isotrope in you then it's clear cut that you cheated because you stuck a needle into yourself. This other way there is always the whole "it's not really my fault it's a "bad" supplement excuse" or in this case (hilariously) it was an "incorrectly filled burrito order of disgusting tasting boar offcuts I chose to eat anyway" misdirect.
How do you know her 2019 performances were fraudulent if she never tested positive that year?
It's illogical to think they weren't fraudulent. No one seriously believes the one time she tested positive is the only time she doped.
Totally agree with you - but unfortunately proof of some description matters. Just think about this for a second. So WADA/USADA/AIU takes your POV here and says "Given the suspension of Ms Houlihan we have looked at her performances over the years and decided that in the year 2018 when she first broke an American record that she must have been breaking the rules because it would seem illogical she wasn't, and so we are backdating the suspension to this date and her performances post this date are voided". Like let's imagine this happens and we are all happy. You know what happens? Nike comes looking for their money (contract and the heavy bonuses), so does the IAAF/WA because they have a clause about repayment of prize money under the event of suspension and where does this end up? In court. And the first f--ken question the judge asks is "do you have any proof Ms Houlihan was actually doping in 2018?" and the answer is "uhh, well, no - not really". And the first thing her defense gets up and does is slap a big folder on the table with a bunch of passed tests in it. This "case" ends right there.
So we can all sit around and (probably rightly) hypothesize that she was cheating or doing what she was doing for a long period of time before she messed it up and found herself above a limit, but the sad reality is it doesn't mean anything at all other than to us.
There is a difference between strongly suspecting something on an anecdotal basis and a factual basis. Sucks but it's the way it is.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
