Shelby did her time. Just let her run. All this speculation and debate is not going to ever solve this for anyone. This season, both indoors and out should prove to be very interesting and fun to watch unfold. So, give it a break. BTW- I hope she does get a sponsor. Again, she did her time.
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
So just to clarify, the LRC "executive consensus" on Shelby Houlihan is that she didn't intentionally dope, but unintentionally doped? I guess I've never really been able to figure this out so maybe you could help clarify. Maybe this isn't the case but guys, it comes off this way so again maybe you could set the record straight.
In the event that is this case let me ask you a similar "but why would you this and not this" style question with respect to the topic because really the spike thing is kind of minor in comparison (I'll touch on that briefly at the end).
So the question. If she was not intentionally doping, why would she craft and stick to a story so implausible it basically got her an extra 2 years on her ban, and not just be honest?
Because I would tell you this - if she had said "hey I started taking this supplement because I read it could help with recovery, lean muscle mass etc and I stupidly didn't check or realize how it might compromise me", not only would she have probably been running in Paris, but the majority of track fans (myself included) would probably have landed on "my god how can you be so careless BUT hey mistakes happen and we are all human, take your lumps and welcome back".
Except people don't like having their intelligence insulted - and especially not by athletes who at times can be guilty of believing their athletic prowess translates directly to intellectual prowess and that whatever comes out of their mouths should simply be accepted as truth by default. You guys respect Ross Tucker right? I mean in your own words you "turned to a man who knows running, science, the global anti-doping system, and most importantly, how to explain scientific concepts to the masses — Ross Tucker", and he basically blew up the Houlihan account.
"Q: You’ve spent the last month studying this case in-depth. Gut feeling: is Houlihan innocent or guilty?
A: With confidence, I’d say “not innocent on the basis of pork burrito ingestion.” Which of course, in doping cases, means guilty. There is much unknowable in between, but the contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny."
So if they story doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny, why stick with it if it was simply carelessness?
As for "superspikes" vs illegal substance "aid", uhh, I'm not sure we have enough facts or even basic anecdotal evidence to suggest they are even on the same plateau. Because we do know that dopers - even in middle distance events and short as the 1500m have been able to garner considerable performance drops even across timespans as short as a season. We know the names - Ramzi, Katir and I would even look at Dibaba who despite not failing a test herself, had her coach arrested with a refrigerator full of goodies and from that moment was never the same again. Spikes are still a total unknown. So unknown that unlike road product which was quantifiable in a lab environment, the very brands that makes these products have never put a number or claim to any benefit even though they are the ones with the biggest incentive to do so. A "couple" of seconds is a massive and unsubstantiated claim especially over a distance as short as the 1500m. Like there is no doubt she has at a point in her career worn and tried a "superspike" - maybe she was an athlete that simply valued weight and better force transfer to the track vs more cushioning and a softer ride?
I personally would see that as a weak out - but that's just my opinion.
Excellent post, I feel wasted on a thread and forum like this.
Princeton logic...."why would you have curry and not a roti"?
"Your honour, my client never ate the curry, here is the roti"
Wejo, the really big question is; why Nandrolone? It's been detectable since 1983.
Why??
Because nandrolone helps improve lean muscle mass, improves bone density, increases red blood cell, increases muscle power and muscle endurance, and speeds recovery from hard work outs.
It's been detectable for a long time and is known to be on the banned list by all athletes and coaches. ... But in December of 2020 when Shelby was popped it was in the height of Covid shut down and there were no competitions. Like most track athletes at that time, she was only running time trial style events contrived as meets (her last meet before the positive was at a high school track) The combination of Covid closures, lack of real competitions and seemingly less out of competition testing gave Houlihan a sense of confidence that no one was actually watching what athletes were doing during this time.
The timing of Covid shutdowns and the benefits of an anabolic that she (and others?) probably wouldn't try taking during "normal" times combined for her to give into the temptation. Nandrolone is now a schedule 3 controlled substance and is not available medically in the US any longer. ...only illicitly. The amount she had in her system suggests intermuscular or subcutaneous injection, not oral. If it was taken orally, then she was big doses.
She is guilty. Stop with all the nonsense. Four years was appropriate. Any apologist for her will always be convinced otherwise...and the media may buy into it too, but any rationale, reasonable survey of the facts only points to her guilt.
Doesn't matter now. She's competing again. But she'll never regain her former legacy.
Did rojo get you to post a new thread with a stupid idea because you're getting absolutely anihilated in the other thread about Hiltz?
Surprised you haven't limited this to registered accounts, being the bastions of free speach that you are.
You could get Ross Tucker back to discuss the benefits of super shoes but you'd twist/ignore his work again. He put more thought into the nuanced breakdown of Shelby's POSTIVE test that you've done your entire journalistic careers so it's quite clear why you discounted it.
One thing that popped into my mind on the podcast that I can't square my head around is for those of you think she was doping intentionally, why would you do that and not use super shoes?
Super spikes are a much easier way to get a couple of seconds in a 1500.
Ok, so I'm late to this thread and I have not read through all the answers, so forgive me if someone already said this, but there is a certain mentality to people that dope and then swear they are not doping. That person has sociopathic tendencies and is a narcissist. Shelby didn't wear super shoes because she wanted everyone to think she was clean and wholesome in a - hey look at me I'm so clean I don't even wear the shoes to gain an advantage - sort of way. It's pseudo reverse psychology for the low IQ bunch and I find it easy to believe Wejo fell for it, but harder to believe Galt did. I might have to reevaluate my thinking on him.
The last thing a cheater wants you to think is that they are cheating, so they overcompensate. Dopers are calculating and manipulative and they very much want you to like them and believe they are clean. I'm surprised she doesn't have a "clean sport" tattoo.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
Not everyone responds to, or gets the same benefit from, super shoes, right? I’m sure she’s tried many different kinds of shoes. Not using super shoes before or after her ban isn’t proof, or hard proof, that she’s not justifiably referred to as a doper. All the sympathizers should drop the “intentionally or not” bs.