Malcolm Gladwell: Why Was the Decision in Shelby Houlihan’s Doping Case So Unsatisfying?

Gladwell is correct that it is unsatisfying.

Here is why, though.

We all know the top runners are using performance enhancing drugs. Nandrolone is something very minor. We know they are using far more than this. But we get a positive for Nandrolone?

This is like an NFL player, who is using insulin, growth hormone, anabolic and androgenic steroids …. Getting caught using a hormone precursor. That’s nice, but we know they are using more. We know the governing bodies either aren’t testing, ignore the results, or other dishonest things. We know Usain Bolt was on every PED around, he wasn’t magically clean while others weren’t. We know that women cannot run <14:30 5k’s.

We know.

Yet all we get are Nandrolone positive tests.

DorkyDinkles wrote:

Gladwell is correct that it is unsatisfying.

Here is why, though.

We all know the top runners are using performance enhancing drugs. Nandrolone is something very minor. We know they are using far more than this. But we get a positive for Nandrolone?

This is like an NFL player, who is using insulin, growth hormone, anabolic and androgenic steroids …. Getting caught using a hormone precursor. That’s nice, but we know they are using more. We know the governing bodies either aren’t testing, ignore the results, or other dishonest things. We know Usain Bolt was on every PED around, he wasn’t magically clean while others weren’t. We know that women cannot run <14:30 5k’s.

We know.

Yet all we get are Nandrolone positive tests.

OK but then your analogy is a bit like Richardson getting busted for weed when she is allegedly taking something more performance enhancing, which seems plausible. Of course everything is ultimately unsatisfying, so there is that.

If you have a civil dispute or criminal and you decide to go in court pro se, do not argue in this manner. You may be fined by judge if you try this approach.

xczvzxcv wrote:

I personally thought that she was doping when she destroyed the 1500m field at nationals a few years ago with an unbelievable burst of speed with about 120m to go. She went from low level American pro to all-timer like that. However, I don't see the totality of the circumstances around the bust as indicative of cheating. The dosage is low. The group hadn't had any positives or suspicion that was justified before. They are a group that is generally very successful because of the training and coaching. They don't dominate the world. They peak once or twice a year and can't hold the peak to compete outside of champs much. She went to eat at a food truck where you just don't know what's in the meat or where it comes from.

That race was incredibly suspicious. She was prancing down the stretch. I was shocked. She didn't look like an American. I remember using that summary on several sites including perhaps here. I've never seen an American middle distance runner with a late turn of foot like that.

If she was doping then it was going on for several years. But the entire process is indeed satisfactory. It was difficult not to laugh months ago while reading that the pork/nandrolone study was 3 samplers 20 years ago. I worked in sports stats for a long time. If I handed in a finding based on 3 they would have handed it back and told me not to return until the number was 3000.

I saw somebody in the comments say that Shelly's team misjudged the variation from normalcy in terms of how long nandrolone would linger. Meanwhile the sample of 3 didn't have to representative of normalcy in the first place. I'm not insisting the likelihood of doping one way or another. I'm interested in broader application not Shelly Houlihan. The study is inadequate and therefore the findings not as definitive as insisted. Let's just say I'd love to bet the over whenever the claims of 1 in 10,000 are made. If there's a newly discovered oddball relationship between pork and testing positive for nandrolone then it's going to be considerably more complicated and multi pronged than that three-man bobsled revealed.

All the cynics around here every day on every topic. Millions of fraudulent votes. Yet now everybody is fully confident we can rely on the stated supply chain of a Mexican food truck.

Unsatisfactory not satisfactory. I keep forgetting there's no edit button

Stop pushing an agenda.

High hopes wrote:

The thing is, Gladwell's whole grift is being deliberately obtuse. The decision is only unsatisfying if you want something more than "athlete cheated to try and gain an advantage." It's an old story, but one repeated often. Personally, I found the decision and reasoning to be very satisfying, but then I enjoy seeing obvious lies pulled apart by skilled professionals, experts in their field. Gladwell enjoys counterintuitive stories, even if they fall to pieces under light scrutiny.

I don't think obtuse means quite what you think it does. (Hint - try abstruse, instead)

U. Raynuss wrote:

Gladwell created a "strawman" argument that posits in essence how "implausible" it would be for

Houlihan to have taken Nandrolone because it would prove that she's essentially "a self sabotaging idiot".

People, even smart ones, do really dumb things all the time, especially under duress.

It's extremely flawed, facile argument, not surprising considering the source.

Agreed.

It has been very frustrating watching smart people try to do mental gymnastics to defend Shelby. Dopers never think they will be caught.

I'm so sick of hearing this is not a drug that will help. DECA is beneficial to joint recovery/healing, pretty important to distance runners.

If Shelby was innocent, even if she was not sure how exactly DECA got in her system, we never would have been treated to the absurd burrito gate story. Even if you want to give Shelby reasonable doubt which is only because you are a homer you have to accept there are only two possibilities. 1 the Burrito story, 2 Or she is guilty. Unfortunately, the Burrito story is beyond plausible, and likely scientifically impossible given the levels she tested positive for. Or you can create a fantasy world where some new possibility that Shelby and team Nike were not smart enough to think of occurred and she is innocent.

So many doping experts here. Whoda thunkit?

It was SO satisfying it gave me an enormous justice b0ner.

High hopes wrote:

The thing is, Gladwell's whole grift is being deliberately obtuse. The decision is only unsatisfying if you want something more than "athlete cheated to try and gain an advantage." .

Here's the thing, rojo's whole grift is being undeliberately obtuse.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

[

I'm so sick of hearing this is not a drug that will help. DECA is beneficial to joint recovery/healing, pretty important to distance runners.

But you don't even know what Deca is.

ofa lon teh wrote:

High hopes wrote:

The thing is, Gladwell's whole grift is being deliberately obtuse. The decision is only unsatisfying if you want something more than "athlete cheated to try and gain an advantage." .

Here's the thing, rojo's whole grift is being undeliberately obtuse.

Bingo

I'm always satisfied when cheaters and evaders get caught. Don't take band at substances and don't miss tests. Simple.

For those of us with a distaste for doping it was a very satisfying decision.

hobbyjogger1 wrote:

Unprotected sex with a stranger is "stupid" yet people do it.

Has the theory that she maybe got too much cilantro on her burrito been explored. The transcripts show she spent the night with Centro before her test. PEDs have been shown to be sexually transmitted. I'm not sure what kind of dosage you would get from that, but if her lawyers weren't paid for by Nike, they might have brought up that defense too. That would be more plausible to me than the burrito defense. She also claims she doesn't take supplements, so that's not a valid explanation.

Exactly this. The athlete is mad because they got caught while they know the majority of top athletes are doing it and getting away with it either cuz of lax testing or better microdoser or combo. With the frequency of WR falling these days and not just due to shoes, it is sad to watch sometimes feeling like you cannot trust results.

I noticed malcom gladwell didn’t produce a strident piece until another yawningly annoying writer in abrahamson beat him to it.

So now malcom is in a tizzy!

Here’s what happens with microdosing;

Last week I made a chili that was phenomenal; everything was balanced and each spoonful was great, not too spicy, not too sweet, not too savory.

In fact, my last two years of chili making was damn good!

Building on my rave reviews from last week (and the previous two seasons) this week I decided to just put in a little more cumin. A little more cumin is harmless right? Who would notice a little more cumin?!

What could a little more cumin (nandrolone) do to make this chili different from the last two seasons?!

Umm, it exceeded the allowable cumin level apparently.

Exactly what I am saying