jackamo wrote:
Attorney's have to ask the tough question though: what shoes were you wearing at the time?!
"How many seconds do you think this burrito took off your 5k time?"
jackamo wrote:
Attorney's have to ask the tough question though: what shoes were you wearing at the time?!
"How many seconds do you think this burrito took off your 5k time?"
Medical doctors & natural scientists ... wrote:
Counselor, an attorney at press conference sans biologist(s), bio-chemist(s) or medical doctor(s) says a lot without saying a word. Houlihan's attorney had appeal process to hire private detective and prove Houlihan bought tainted meat from a particular food truck. Burden of proof counselor was an WADA to prove Houlihan tested positive; burden of proof during appeals process was on Houlihan to prove she ate tainted meat at a licensed restaurant/food truck. Where were the private investigators at new conference to prove Houlihan bought tainted meat in Oregon? Where were the medical doctors and natural scientists to prove Houlihan's consumption of tainted meat from a licensed food truck made Houlihan test positive? If I were an attorney, I would not argue that my client is innocent, I would attempt to negotiate only a one year ban from T&F. Attorneys look foolish when they try to argue there is no such thing as gravity. This is a case screaming for a negotiated deal not stating Houlihan is innocent.
For what it is worth, I am on the "she got busted for doping, and this is not a case of an unintentional corruption" side of things.
Negotiating down to a year sounds great. Unfortunately, the way negotiations tend to work is that both parties need to be willing to move off of their initial positions. When one party has the facts and authority on their side, and the other side has no leverage and poor facts, the first party has very little incentive to negotiate.
Commercial parties might because for them this is simply an issue of math - is the cost of sticking to my guns going to be greater than the cost of compromising? But for administrative parties, who are not incentivized to maximize financial returns, but rather to serve some other purpose (like administer some form of justice or to root out bad actors and make an example of them), there is very little incentive to negotiate when you have the person dead to rights.
There's an old saying in the practice of law: When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. When the law is on your side, pound on the law. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound on the table. Team Shelbo seems to be resorting to pounding on the table.
The Dirty Duck wrote:
Dwightarm wrote:
I feel the opposite, I guess.
1. She got busted for taking a PED that isn't as effective for her events as others out there. There's no indication she had the PED in her body beforehand which just doesn't make sense.
2. She could've easily eaten chorizo from a janky food truck that was contaminated.
To me, #2 seems more believable than #1.
You think she's innocent because she was busted for a drug that is more popular among bodybuilders and sprinters than distance runners -- even if it works great for 1500 meter runners?
Her devastating kick is everything. That is the edge that she has everyone over everyone else.
big apple dan wrote:
I have eaten that much carnitas. Shes a pro athlete. I think she could do it. But I couldnt personally do that much organ meat. Does it have to be organ meat?
What a funny world. Most athletes at the top of any sport dope, but there seems to be no way to know who. We just try to keep it to low levels I guess. But then you still get your Chris Froomes, your Shelly Anne Fraiser- Prices. Eye popping performances and physiques, no positive tests.
That's just the meat part.
Usually that is not the largest part of the meal
Dwightarm wrote:
jackamo wrote:
Occam's razor -- which is more likely:
1. She got busted for taking a PED that was exactly the PED she was already suspected of taking
2. She ate some janky road-side Mexican food that was 'tainted' with a high enough level to get digested and still show up at unallowable levels?
I doubt she even eats pork
I feel the opposite, I guess.
1. She got busted for taking a PED that isn't as effective for her events as others out there. There's no indication she had the PED in her body beforehand which just doesn't make sense.
2. She could've easily eaten chorizo from a janky food truck that was contaminated.
To me, #2 seems more believable than #1.
There were a few runners in the 90s that got busted for nandrolone. A couple names are Ali Saidi-Sief and Dieter Baumann. A study in rats showed that trained rats receiving nandrolone ran 46% longer than trained rats without although nandrolone had almost no effect on non-trained.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15292741/runnER/DR wrote:
Houlihan definitely doped. Check out this study.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8018865_Pharmacokinetic_Evaluation_of_Three_Different_Intramuscular_Doses_of_Nandrolone_Decanoate_Analysis_of_Serum_and_Urine_Samples_in_Healthy_MenSubjects that were injected with 150 mg nandrolone IM had PEAK levels similar to Houlihan(5ng/ml was their peak at 30 hours). The drug has <3% oral absorption. She would have had to taken a GIANT dose of oral drug to get her levels that high.
Maybe someone injected her without her knowledge, told her it was something else. But she's absolutely dirty.
this saga is weird, you can't make this sh**t up.
a liar tester, a coach that never heard of main steroids, and the need to mega dose injection of roids to achieve the levels tested.
none of the above is legit.
no one injects 150mg and then goes straight into testing.
i'm thinking simple microdosing for a long period. as most likely.
then again, since when does logic work here, or on the planet in general.
According to this list, there have been 45 track athletes (not including Houlihan) who have been banned for Nandrolone: 14 distance runner, 16 sprinters, 11 throwers, 2 vertical jumpers, and 2 race walkers. A full third of the busts are distance runners so there is precedent for use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics
you should post that on the main thread
What was the WADA legal limit of nandrolone and what was Houlihan positive test result..? I’ve read it somewhere in all of this stuff but recall where to find it again.
above 2 ng/dl is the threshold. She was at 5ng/dl. They leave room for minor contaminants. This was fsr above the threshold.
What I don't understand is this: if it possibly came from a burrito, couldn't that be proved? There is some dispute about whether she got carne asada or a pork burrito. Regardless, if the food truck sells pork, test the pork and see what's in it. I understand that the total amount in the pork is not equivalent to what would be excreted in urine 10 hours later, but it would give you some indication as to whether it was even possible, wouldn't it? My guess is that they did get some samples of the meat and couldn't produce any tests indicating that it could be the source. So basically that leads them to the argument that there was a batch of bad burritos tainted with pig balls the one day that Shelby ate from the truck....she, Jerry, and Shalane seemed sincere, but I have to say that I'm becoming more doubtful as time goes on.
jcaban wrote:
What I don't understand is this: if it possibly came from a burrito, couldn't that be proved? There is some dispute about whether she got carne asada or a pork burrito. Regardless, if the food truck sells pork, test the pork and see what's in it. I understand that the total amount in the pork is not equivalent to what would be excreted in urine 10 hours later, but it would give you some indication as to whether it was even possible, wouldn't it? My guess is that they did get some samples of the meat and couldn't produce any tests indicating that it could be the source. So basically that leads them to the argument that there was a batch of bad burritos tainted with pig balls the one day that Shelby ate from the truck....she, Jerry, and Shalane seemed sincere, but I have to say that I'm becoming more doubtful as time goes on.
The pig was eaten back in Dec. How are you going to get pork from that pig and test it? At best the truck can say we are buying our pork from the same guy but you have no clue how similar the source meat is.
But yeah making a meal, feed it to SH and let's see what her levels are. Not really conclusive proof either way but would be interesting.
longjack wrote:
runnER/DR wrote:
Houlihan definitely doped. Check out this study.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8018865_Pharmacokinetic_Evaluation_of_Three_Different_Intramuscular_Doses_of_Nandrolone_Decanoate_Analysis_of_Serum_and_Urine_Samples_in_Healthy_MenSubjects that were injected with 150 mg nandrolone IM had PEAK levels similar to Houlihan(5ng/ml was their peak at 30 hours). The drug has <3% oral absorption. She would have had to taken a GIANT dose of oral drug to get her levels that high.
Maybe someone injected her without her knowledge, told her it was something else. But she's absolutely dirty.
this saga is weird, you can't make this sh**t up.
a liar tester, a coach that never heard of main steroids, and the need to mega dose injection of roids to achieve the levels tested.
none of the above is legit.
no one injects 150mg and then goes straight into testing.
i'm thinking simple microdosing for a long period. as most likely.
then again, since when does logic work here, or on the planet in general.
For the record, oral nandrolone seems to have markedly different ADME than injected:
https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/50/2/355/5639637See figure 4 in that paper. Much quicker half-life of urine concentrations than injected.
So the model of: eat a little bit, pee it all out over the next few hours is at least somewhat plausible.
razorback3 wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
We need to track down this burrito stand in Beaverton. Do we have boots on the ground?
And then do what?
Uhh...order a burrito.
pass the muster wrote:
razorback3 wrote:
And then do what?
Uhh...order a burrito.
And don't ignore the possibility that the pig himself was using banned supplements.
Victoria statos wrote:
razorback3 wrote:
And then do what?
See if their cameras show that Houlihan was there that day buying a burrito from the stand.
Pretty unlikely a food truck would keep 6+ months' worth of footage!
I'm just here to read and laugh at the mental gymnastics her defenders are having to go through.
I have a feeling she's guilty but found this 2002 article interesting.
In this article, Christiane Ayotte says that the two nanogram threshold is based on a study where, "After a two-year study, we found in males, including sportsmen, there was never more than 0.6 nanogrammes per millilitre of nandrolone precursors in the sample as a result of environmental factors."
I'm guessing that 2 nanograms represents 2SD or 3SD from the 0.6 value? Can anyone find this study? Given the changes in the food supply in the last 20 years, perhaps this study should have been repeated?