Flew the coop wrote:
jamin wrote:
Intercepted text message from Matthew Centrowitz to Houlihan:
Lol but that relationship was over way before the positive test right?
In the press conference she said the drug testers arrived at 6 a.m. and woke up she and her "then-boyfriend." Must be Centro?
Clean sport is the new white supremacy group. She's guilty, career over, what a shame and waste of talent.
Now is a good time to sell those Burrito Mafia pins.
BoA wrote:
colorunner123 wrote:
Her lawyer is quoted in Jonathan's article as follows: "'She actually ordered a carne asada burrito [the night before the test],' Greene says. 'But based on what she ate, it was very, very greasy. The description of the others who actually ate with her was the same. We don’t know what she was given.'"
So her own lawyer is not saying that she ate a pork burrito. He is saying he doesn't know. Yet Slippery Shelby implied she had eaten a pork burrito.
She got carne asada. Are they saying they all got the wrong meat in their burritos? Unless somebody misspoke or mistook the order, messing up beef and pork is no no in food industry.
They are saying that she ORDERED carne asada but they do not know what she was GIVEN.
Shelby and her supporters aren't denying the conclusion that there was nandrolone in her urine. They're presenting a very thin explanation of how it got into her body. Why have a press conference to defend Shelby that doesn't do that at all? There's no outcome that will get her into the Olympics.
It's an attack on the anti-PED structure ans sports governance. The single argument is that it's unfair to athletes like poor Shelby. One doesn't have to go far to see Nike behind this with the benefit not only being able to juice up it's athletes with much better funded doping (and also attracting athletes that want it) but also weakening governing organizations power to regulate super shoes.
Well, one thing that rings true to me is getting the wrong thing in your burrito. Those burrito guys never get it right! I mean seriously: I love food cart burritos in general, but sometimes it seems like they only understand the word "burrito", and put whatever they want in there. And I'm not talking about complicated, custom-made burritos or anything like that, but just simple things, like no onions. I'm, like, literally 0 for my last 8 on ordering a chicken burrito, no onions.
Barry Badrinath wrote:
Wejo, you guys are horrible for this sport. You can't pick and choose who you want to defend for positive tests. Either you support clean sport or you don't. It's clear that you don't.
Then, what do you say about all the athletes who responded to Shelby's IG post by supporting her?
burrito connoisseur wrote:
Well, one thing that rings true to me is getting the wrong thing in your burrito. Those burrito guys never get it right! I mean seriously: I love food cart burritos in general, but sometimes it seems like they only understand the word "burrito", and put whatever they want in there. And I'm not talking about complicated, custom-made burritos or anything like that, but just simple things, like no onions. I'm, like, literally 0 for my last 8 on ordering a chicken burrito, no onions.
Re burritos, you have to bring Scott F to testify.
sleazazar wrote:
BoA wrote:
She got carne asada. Are they saying they all got the wrong meat in their burritos? Unless somebody misspoke or mistook the order, messing up beef and pork is no no in food industry.
They are saying that she ORDERED carne asada but they do not know what she was GIVEN.
All this because the meat was greasy? I order tacos off carts all the time. Sometimes it's dry and sometimes it's juicy. It depends on which cheap meat they were able to procure for the day.
Barry Badrinath wrote:
The answer is #1, Bob. Rojo, you're buying this Nike PR crap hook, line, and sinker. Multiple people would have reviewed the test results. If there was any reasonable doubt, Nike has more than enough influence to get the test thrown out.
This is where I'm at mostly because it has been less than 24 hours. I would expect the testers to have thought about anything thrown into a reaction article or IG post. I get that Bowerman has this established reputation where they're supposed to be the ones doing things right in sport. But Nike is 100% (strategically, purposefully) exploiting that and self-described people who are against doping like the people who run this website are eating it up.
Why aren't we getting articles from the viewpoint of the testers and clean sport? Everything is being framed pretty favorably for Shelby which is a problem for clean athletes whether she is guilty or not.
A lot of the big names in the sport who are usually staunch anti-dopers are silent, or are liking Shelby/Bowerman social media posts, or telling people to be nice to Shelby even though she's already being treated as good as anybody to ever face a 4 year ban.
henrik wrote:
Barry Badrinath wrote:
Wejo, you guys are horrible for this sport. You can't pick and choose who you want to defend for positive tests. Either you support clean sport or you don't. It's clear that you don't.
Then, what do you say about all the athletes who responded to Shelby's IG post by supporting her?
I would say that it's in their best interests to perpetuate the narrative that doping is an African/Russian problem.
A doping bust of a high profile white American is understandably threatening to other white American athletes. They don't want to believe it because it would be bad for them if it was true.
Oh Please wrote:
[quote]VroomeFroome wrote:
One way to remove all arguments is to just say that ultimately she is responsible no matter how it got there. Now it doesn't matter whether the burrito story is true or not. We know she tested above the published limit.
Kinda like how Semenya tests above the testosterone limit, even though she ultimately is not a doper.
My point is that the athlete is responsible, regardless of the "why." It's like those people that go to some other country and get arrested for doing something that "they didn't know was against the law." We are always told that "not knowing is not an excuse."
At this point, without actually having WADAs report, this is the only good answer. Anyone claiming to know 100% that she’s guilty is just as much of a jackaas as someone claiming 100% she is innocent.
As much as it sucks if you’re not actually cheating, the athlete is responsible.
As someone else said, the fact that the lab admitted it wasn’t injected makes me very skeptical that she was actually doping.
I own Nike stock (NKE) for 20+years & as long as the kids continue to buy LeBron James’ shoes who gives a fck about this woman
Pre-news release I had no opinion at all about SH being a doper. Some people who run fast are dopers but just because they run fast doesn't mean they are... folks can improve with training. I've seen it in real life.
After the announcement my initial thought about all of it was, unsure.
I thought those who thought she was doping before this happened think 'there's the proof, I'm right'.
I then watched the entire press conference and afterwards I thought 'she sure sounds innocent to me'... lawyers are always convincing but to me she looked and sounded very genuine.... her coach sounded mad which is exactly how I would react if I was her coach (I wouldn't distance myself if I believed she was innocent as some seem to think should be the proper reaction)....
in any case, after the news conference I thought that the penalty seemed really harsh for the crime, which means there might be more to the story, but that she sure was convincing and believable so at that point I'm thinking she got screwed by bureaucracy (happens all the time).
Now after it comes out she didn't order a pork burrito, she actually ordered a carne asada burrito but they fail to tell us that and just imply that the burrito she ate was a pork burrito well now I think maybe they are not clean...
If you are clean tell the whole story... it would have been simple to do that... it would make them sound more honest and it actually would have explained why Wada didn't believe them...
instead they dance around it and let everyone think she ate pork because telling the truth that they can't prove it yet they think that's what happened wouldn't create as strong of a case for her... not a good move in my opinion.
all in all they lost me with that move... now I think well maybe she isn't clean
BoA wrote:
She got carne asada. Are they saying they all got the wrong meat in their burritos? Unless somebody misspoke or mistook the order, messing up beef and pork is no no in food industry.
Yes they are alleging she got the wrong order. Which happens literally all the time at grease trap food stands.
burrito connoisseur wrote:
Well, one thing that rings true to me is getting the wrong thing in your burrito. Those burrito guys never get it right! I mean seriously: I love food cart burritos in general, but sometimes it seems like they only understand the word "burrito", and put whatever they want in there. And I'm not talking about complicated, custom-made burritos or anything like that, but just simple things, like no onions. I'm, like, literally 0 for my last 8 on ordering a chicken burrito, no onions.
I also find that the Chiptole assembly line workers have horrible memories, or are trained to only absorb one variable at a time.
Every time I go there:
* What are you having?
* Pork burrito
* Black or pinto beans?
* Black, please
* And what type of meat?
rojo wrote:
1) The head of the Montreal lab, Christiane Ayotte, who was proven to have provided false testimony in the Jarrion Lawson case, was actually the one who labeled Houlihan's test as a positive. After a subpoena of her lab's records, Ayotte was shown to have provided false testimony in the Lawson case that resulted in him getting cleared. She said it was impossible to determine based on testing if someone had taken a drug through food or not by mistake as everyone who tested positive did so at a similar tiny level as Lawson. She testified that in recent years, positive tests for trenbolone in her lab had always featured low concentrations of the substance, making it impossible to separate intentional cheaters from those who had ingested contaminated meat.
You know what's funny ?
The woman mentionned in your post, C. Ayotte may have posted on this forum, under her real name in a thread about nandrolone, about 16 years ago ?
letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=886533#928862henrik wrote:
Barry Badrinath wrote:
Wejo, you guys are horrible for this sport. You can't pick and choose who you want to defend for positive tests. Either you support clean sport or you don't. It's clear that you don't.
Then, what do you say about all the athletes who responded to Shelby's IG post by supporting her?
No surprise that athletes will support her, but the LR hacks pretend to be journalists. They are really just Homer's after all. Very disappointing and hypocritical, I expected better - seem to be Trumper's who think truth is just what the ex-President says it is (in this case what the BTC people say it is), not something we are all subject to, even if it isn't what we want to hear.
Dr Yuengling wrote:
henrik wrote:
Then, what do you say about all the athletes who responded to Shelby's IG post by supporting her?
I would say that it's in their best interests to perpetuate the narrative that doping is an African/Russian problem.
A doping bust of a high profile white American is understandably threatening to other white American athletes. They don't want to believe it because it would be bad for them if it was true.
+1 and they might be doping too!
Hardloper wrote:
colorunner123 wrote:
The problem with this argument is that less than 24 hours ago Shelby and Jerry both strongly implied she had eaten a pork burrito.
They are claiming she ORDERED carne asada but ATE pork. Not that hard to understand.
They never explicitly said this. also they dont look,taste, or smell the same. ASU education shining!
frail martini wrote:
Oh Please wrote:
[quote]VroomeFroome wrote:
One way to remove all arguments is to just say that ultimately she is responsible no matter how it got there. Now it doesn't matter whether the burrito story is true or not. We know she tested above the published limit.
Kinda like how Semenya tests above the testosterone limit, even though she ultimately is not a doper.
My point is that the athlete is responsible, regardless of the "why." It's like those people that go to some other country and get arrested for doing something that "they didn't know was against the law." We are always told that "not knowing is not an excuse."
At this point, without actually having WADAs report, this is the only good answer. Anyone claiming to know 100% that she’s guilty is just as much of a jackaas as someone claiming 100% she is innocent.
As much as it sucks if you’re not actually cheating, the athlete is responsible.
As someone else said, the fact that the lab admitted it wasn’t injected makes me very skeptical that she was actually doping.
Again, where are people seeing that the lab admitted anything about injections? Seriously - is everyone just taking BTC's word for this? We haven't heard from the lab, right? If not, pretty irresponsible for Gault / Letsrun to take this as fact.