LRC “interviews” Shelby about burrito defense and doping

I don’t think strong criticism of this interview is justified. Robert was too accommodating and explanatory on behalf of Shelby, and to some extent he was putting words in Shelby’s mouth, but in general, the right questions were asked. Shelby gave her answers, and Robert and Jonathan can only push back so much because there are no new facts. Shelby is not denying nandro was in her system, so it’s the question of intent, and there is nothing new out there on this one way or another. The interview tone was friendly and not confrontational, but the latter does not equal good journalism necessarily.

Burrito-gate is a very complicated subject, yet simple minds think they have simple answers.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Unintentional doping through the use of contaminated nutritional supplements - PubMed

The results of this study showed that the intake of microgram amounts of a prohibited substance in a nutritional supplement could cause an athlete to fail a dope test.

Open link

keithmoulton.com

The CAS Report on Shelby Houlihan

Keith

A case of misleading analysis, inaccurate statements, and bogus evidence For those unfamiliar with the case, American 1500 meter runner Shelby Houlihan revealed in a press conference on June 14th, …

Open link

https://twoggle.github.io/DopingFiles/Article.html

I agree with this. The Shelby alternate explanations that she presented were honestly kinda weak, which is always going to be her problem. The burrito, as implausible as it was on a million levels, remains her best theory. Contaminated gummy vitamins? Unless I missed something she took dodgy supplements completely off the table. There was some birth control idea that seemed maybe like something, but you'd have to assume it was nothing because a) nothing came of it b) how many female athletes are on birth control.

There's three ways of thinking about Shelby kinda giving herself fewer and fewer outs with how she says things:

A) She's telling the truth to her detriment because she is just 100% trying to be honest

B) She's telling the truth to her detriment to seem 100% believable while withholding information and lying

C) She's just straight-up lying and wants to form a better story. "Look at me I don't even use supplements or want to use superspikes, I have no idea what nandrolone is, that burrito was so insane I knew it was off."

I don't really know why she'd add extra, unhelpful details like I didn't even finish the greasy burrito (so you'd have a lower nandrolone level, dum dum), or I don't even do supplements (taking off one of the best ways to get off).

The one question I would've liked to see from the Jon and Rojo was probably around the crazy post-mile at BU interview where she's talking about setting an indoor mile WR.

Shelby and her team have never eliminated supplement contamination as a possibility. She was unable to test all of the same batches — that is my understanding.

There are two ways I can think of that birth control can lead to a positive test. One is well-known, expected in some cases and spelled out in the WADA technical document. Shelby’s team seems to think this was considered sufficiently … and maybe it had been, but I have some skepticism.

It still doesn't and didn't help Houlihan get over a pretty low bar, which was that accidental contamination was more likely than not. She couldn't. Case over.

It is case closed. She was banned and served her time out of the sport. Now she’s back and everybody needs to deal with it. People can root for her or hate her, believe her or not. None of it matters. She’s allowed to compete, unless and until she fails another test, case closed.

Leave the virtue signaling at home lmao getting banned is a bad thing happening to you objectively speaking

Depends on your point of view. For the sport, banning dopers is a good thing. They got what they deserved. Objectively speaking.

That's all I meant I guess it was too much to infer for the other poster. I'll be more explicit next time.

when is this available to the public

She couldn't because they notified her 30 days after the sample was collected. She didn't have the same bottles any more.

In the case of Jarrion Lawson they notified him 62 days later. The game is to screw the athletes by putting the burden of proof on them (guilty unless proven innocent) and using delay tactics.

Lawson won which is rare and likely only because the lab data obtained by subpoena showed that professor Ayotte had not been truthful. The same professor testified in Houlihan's case, and her lab tested the sample. Does that not raise any red flags for you?

Being a banned doper and conspiracy nut, is better than just being a banned doper?

It's naive to say sabotage couldn't happen. What world do you live in? Happy land?

Of course she wasn’t sabotaged. There would be no motive, the logistics would be close to impossible, and it would truly be insane. You must live in bizarro land.

my previous question still stands, can't form an opinion until I hear it.

We have never referred to Shelby as "the victim". If you can't see the differences between Regina and Shelby you're not being honest. Or if you don't understand nuance there isn't help fo you.

Regina was busted at the height of the Balco scandal. I just see now she ran her lifetime PB at 1500 indoors at the age of 39. She then tested positive soon after for a designer steroid. She accepted her suspension and disappeared from the sport.

Shelby had a banned substance and was not able to prove how it got in her system so she served a 4 year drug ban. Meanwhile her coach and teammates nearly universally all rallied behind her and said they didn't think she was doping.

Of course I'm open to the possibility she was, but the cases aren't similar.