Keep digging, pal. Funny how you were champing at the bit to condemn Regina Jacobs back in the day and how you are madly grasping at straws for Shelby. Deleting posts here and fundraising for her defense are unforced errors that further poison your brand.
No idea why there's so much criticism of the questions they've asked. They have pretty explicitly gone down every single apologist line and gotten an expert to refute them all.
Let's play along and pretend they were just asking these questions to get answers to apologists' questions.*
Is the best use of resources, in the biggest doping case to hit T&F in the last few years, when you have access to a pre-eminent sport scientist who specializes in doping, to ask him FOURTEEN questions that imply she's innocent, just to get his reaction?
*They're the apologists.
Yes - because if you're trying to be an apologist you don't commission a pre-eminent sports scientist to systematically refute every single possible excuse and take apart every argument she made and then publish it as a feature story.
Let's play along and pretend they were just asking these questions to get answers to apologists' questions.*
Is the best use of resources, in the biggest doping case to hit T&F in the last few years, when you have access to a pre-eminent sport scientist who specializes in doping, to ask him FOURTEEN questions that imply she's innocent, just to get his reaction?
*They're the apologists.
Yes - because if you're trying to be an apologist you don't commission a pre-eminent sports scientist to systematically refute every single possible excuse and take apart every argument she made and then publish it as a feature story.
If you're actually trying to cover the story, you don't add a companion piece with 14 questions designed to inject uncertainty into an extremely-certain report.
I think Tucker surprised them with how throughly he refuted every claim, and they couldn't help themselves but try to find some holes to keep up the pro-Shelby discourse.
Let's play along and pretend they were just asking these questions to get answers to apologists' questions.*
Is the best use of resources, in the biggest doping case to hit T&F in the last few years, when you have access to a pre-eminent sport scientist who specializes in doping, to ask him FOURTEEN questions that imply she's innocent, just to get his reaction?
*They're the apologists.
Yes - because if you're trying to be an apologist you don't commission a pre-eminent sports scientist to systematically refute every single possible excuse and take apart every argument she made and then publish it as a feature story.
They’re not apologists in the sense that they’re aggressively trumpeting that she’s innocent.
but they are apologists in the sense that they keep trying to play both sides and imply that there is doubt in her guilt and/or reasonable possibility that her story is true. Their questions read like they’re latching onto him saying “there’s a chance,” when he’s really saying, “there’s technically an infinitesimally small chance, inasmuch as we can never truly prove anything 100%”
First post was deleted for acknowledging how many deleted comments there were and agreeing that their line of questioning was, and I quote, "disingenuous at best." The moderators reasoning was this was an "Personal attacks of another person/forum poster."
Second post was just deleted because, again, moderator's words, "Off-topic or thread-derailing post." All I did was agree with everyone that the moderation lacks consistency and their bias is clearly showing.
Moderators: I have read the article. I like Tuckers analysis and I am thankful that it exists, so I humbly bow before the gods of LetsRun. Please have mercy on me. Tucker shows that it's more or less impossible that Shelby did not cheat, whether intentionally or not. What I disagree with is the line of questioning. It's textbook leading the witness and again, shows extreme bias.
Rojo, please publish Ross Tucker’s original report. It may be too technical for you, but not for many of us. I for one would prefer to read through the technical details as is, unabridged.
The first piece was so long originally. You'd be like 6 pages in and Ross had pointed out how the arbitrators had confused some terms in their ruling but there was still a lot to analyze as he was going point by point through the ruling. We then shortened it and focused it more on the, but then we still had none of what Ross really thought on the case and his opinions.
Then we created the Q&A piece. Really pleased with that one, but I did have this thought, maybe we should have kept the length of the other one.
We did do it as a google doc so it might be possible to publish it if Ross agrees to it.
Keep digging, pal. Funny how you were champing at the bit to condemn Regina Jacobs back in the day and how you are madly grasping at straws for Shelby. Deleting posts here and fundraising for her defense are unforced errors that further poison your brand.
What are you talking about? I've always said , "In a lot of drug cases, I can tell you who is dirty as their times / actions don't make any sense.
With Regina Jacobs, the woman was a so-so runner in college who was suddenly breaking records in her mid to late 30s. Then the EPO test was announced and she promptly announced she was turning down her Olympic spot. Does that not scream, "I'm on drugs?"
Then no one in the sports media would even ask her about her pull out.
I did.
(Instead, they wanted to ask an American who set the world indoor 5000 record at 38 about how she trained with her poodle).
I never said she was on drugs. I just said I found her actions and improvement to be suspicious as hell. My hunch was subsequently confirmed by a drug bust.
With the BTC it's the opposite. They once were part of the NOP. Jerry S found the whole thing and Dr. Brown to be shady as hell so they split apart. I used to be at USA meets and the BTC guys would come up to me and say, "Hey have you heard anything about Alberto?I would reply, "You guys workout 10 feet from them, I want to ask you if you've heard anything."
Unlike Regina, there is a rationale way to explain the improvements. You take some of the nation's most talented runners, have them go 100% all in in on running as well as altitude training and see what happens. My genetic equal improved a ton post college when he did that and many of the BTC runners do the same.
If Evan Jager at 32 starts running 15 seconds faster than ever before, I'm going to be suspicious as hell.
I'm not fundraising for her defense. I made a shirt mocking her excuse and felt bad about profiting about her personal downfall so decided no one should be upset if she gets a $1000 for her defense.
I'm glad to see some real analysis by someone with credentials contributing to the site. You can disagree with Tucker, but you know that he speaks from a position of knowledge and experience, unlike Twoggle, who was the main LRC source for Shelby's defense.
I've always believed that Houlihan is guilty but I now wonder whether she is guilty by intent, or guilty by virtue of making a dumb mistake. One theory I think is plausible is that she bought DHEA as a recovery supplement. She was obviously involved in the lifting world to some degree, just look at her change in muscle tone in recent years. When you go down that rabbit hole, looking on forums for recommendations then these supplements will come up. And if you can buy them over the counter, then you might think they're not illegal. She then has the problem that even if she bought this supplement, apparently, her coaches had no idea what nandrolone was so didn't know it was a banned substance. So even her coaches couldn't have stepped in to stop her taking it.
That wouldn't excuse her, she still doped, but the defense would be stupidity rather than malice.
Even this is disingenuous framing though. a DHEA supplement that generates a carbon isotope signature over the limit is, by definition, doping. And there's zero chance a runner with BTC "accidentally" buys a recovery supplement that would produce a positive test that's consistent enough in the doping world that testers have established a pattern of their consumption.
Yes, exactly. Taking one of those steroid precursors, like the one's linked in the Q&A is still by definition doping. You can't chalk it up to an honest mistake. There's a very specific list of what supplements are allowed, pretty much every athlete who is in the testing pool is aware of this. And if you are unsure, you run it by your coaches. Assuming this is what she was taking (and I think there's a good chance it is), there is a good reason why she didn't present this as her defense.
Let's play along and pretend they were just asking these questions to get answers to apologists' questions.*
Is the best use of resources, in the biggest doping case to hit T&F in the last few years, when you have access to a pre-eminent sport scientist who specializes in doping, to ask him FOURTEEN questions that imply she's innocent, just to get his reaction?
*They're the apologists.
Doping apologist #3 here :)
I thought the whole way this thing came about was pretty interesting. When we first talked to Ross about the case it took him like over a week to email me back a response because he pointed out it was complicated.
I almost expected a more a quick "She's dirty" or "She's clean" but instead got back a very detailed email that showed this was complicated.
Then I said, "Hey what if hired you to analyze the case" and he agreed.
Then we got the technical document. We had a lot of questions on it, and I wouldn't say it came across as, "Shelby's defense was obliterated" .
Then we decided the document at the very least needed a conclusion, but what people really wanted to hear were Ross' opinions on the case. After comprehending the more technical document, I knew Ross agreed with the ruling but what did that mean in terms of what he thought Shelby actually did or what he thought in terms of if she intentional doped or took a supplement or whatever.
So then we suggest the Q&A opinion piece. Not sure who came up with the idea for that one. We threw a lot of questions at him and all sort of contributed them at once. I said to him "some of these questions seem similar to one another, so feel free to answer what you feel is necessary."
I think nearly all of them got answered. There was slight nuance in each question and each answer so we pretty much just edited the answers and that is the article you see.
I was pleased with the end product.
I felt it took a lot of conversation to get everything flushed out and the stronger opinions he expressed in the Q&A.
To some who felt it was a bit repetitive I can see that especially knowing how the story came about.
If this guy is being wrongly accused it would be a travesty.http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1055133/edwards-re-launches-fight-against-doping-charges-through-new-facebook-page
With Regina Jacobs, the woman was a so-so runner in college who was suddenly breaking records in her mid to late 30s. ...
Unlike Regina, there is a rationale way to explain the improvements. You take some of the nation's most talented runners, have them go 100% all in in on running as well as altitude training and see what happens. My genetic equal improved a ton post college when he did that and many of the BTC runners do the same.
Rojo,
I think many of us are looking for two things from you.
1) Consistency in who and how you jump at as seeming suspicious. I've been on these boards since I was 13 back in the early 2000s. You have been inconsistent in your suspicions. If you were so suspicious about Regina, why aren't you suspicious about Keira D'Amato?
2) An explanation to why you are still seemingly siding with BTC/Jerry. You've admitted that Jerry is handling this poorly from a PR standpoint. Make a statement that says he should not be coaching Shelby alongside the BTC athletes. If not, explain why, please.
If you're actually trying to cover the story, you don't add a companion piece with 14 questions designed to inject uncertainty into an extremely-certain report.
I think Tucker surprised them with how throughly he refuted every claim, and they couldn't help themselves but try to find some holes to keep up the pro-Shelby discourse.
I actually view this the complete opposite. The more technical piece didn't have Ross' opinions on the case overall. After flushing everything out and answering a lot of questions it became clear he felt CAS ruled the right way, but that still didn't provide a lot of context.
What did Ross if anything think actually happened? How crazy was it to think a burrito was the cause?
The more technical piece actually didn't have a conclusion until two nights ago.
So a few weeks ago we said, "Ross people want your opinion on this". What if you express it in a Q&A style where we ask you questions? and he agreed. I see how some are repetitive (we just put a bunch of Qs in a google doc and acknowledged there might be overlap) but I think the end results is actually stronger against Shelby than if we just ran the technical piece.
We didn't get our subheadline of the Q&A piece until the very end "“The contaminated food explanation doesn’t stand up to basically any level of scrutiny.”
Honestly, I know it’s stupid but Shelby was so incredible that I believe a fellow bowerman woman sabotaged her food. They all make meals for each other and Shelby was clearly on a different level than the rest. When contracts and Olympic spots are on the line, I could see this being a rational move by a teammate (since the article noted you can buy the oral steroid on Amazon fairly easily)
If you're actually trying to cover the story, you don't add a companion piece with 14 questions designed to inject uncertainty into an extremely-certain report.
I think Tucker surprised them with how throughly he refuted every claim, and they couldn't help themselves but try to find some holes to keep up the pro-Shelby discourse.
One more point on this how I felt Shelby's defense was hurt a lot more from the 2nd piece (the 14 Questions). After reading it I joked that Jon (who I joke is the apologist) wouldn't want it published.
I think many of us are looking for two things from you.
1) Consistency in who and how you jump at as seeming suspicious. I've been on these boards since I was 13 back in the early 2000s. You have been inconsistent in your suspicions. If you were so suspicious about Regina, why aren't you suspicious about Keira D'Amato?
2) An explanation to why you are still seemingly siding with BTC/Jerry. You've admitted that Jerry is handling this poorly from a PR standpoint. Make a statement that says he should not be coaching Shelby alongside the BTC athletes. If not, explain why, please.
1) I can't speak for Rojo but the consistency is Rojo is expressing how he feels. He looks at each case and gives his thoughts on it. Not each drug case is the same. You should look at the evidence and try and form an opinion.
2) If Jerry thinks Shelby didn't intentionally dope and wants to keep coaching her, apparently that is not an anti-doping violation so then it just becomes a matter of public relations right? The easier course for him would be to cast her aside but that isn't what he believes.
Let's play along and pretend they were just asking these questions to get answers to apologists' questions.*
Is the best use of resources, in the biggest doping case to hit T&F in the last few years, when you have access to a pre-eminent sport scientist who specializes in doping, to ask him FOURTEEN questions that imply she's innocent, just to get his reaction?
*They're the apologists.
Doping apologist #3 here :)
I thought the whole way this thing came about was pretty interesting. When we first talked to Ross about the case it took him like over a week to email me back a response because he pointed out it was complicated.
I almost expected a more a quick "She's dirty" or "She's clean" but instead got back a very detailed email that showed this was complicated.
Then I said, "Hey what if hired you to analyze the case" and he agreed.
Then we got the technical document. We had a lot of questions on it, and I wouldn't say it came across as, "Shelby's defense was obliterated" .
Then we decided the document at the very least needed conclusion, but what people really wanted to hear were Ross' opinions on the case. After comprehending the more technical document I knew Ross agreed with the ruling but what did that mean in terms of what he thought Shelby actually did or what he thought in terms of if she intentional doped or took a supplement or whatever.
So then we suggest the Q&A opinion piece. Not sure who came up with the idea for that one. We threw a lot of questions at him and all sort of contributed them at once. I said to him "some of these questions seem similar to one another, so feel free to answer what you feel is necessary."
I think nearly all of them got answered. There was slight nuance in each question and each answer so we pretty much just edited the answers and that is the article you see.
I was pleased with the end product.
I felt it took a lot of conversation to get everything flushed out and the stronger opinions he expressed in the Q&A.
To some who felt it was a bit repetitive I can see that especially knowing how the story came about.
So, what did he think was complicated? I assume he means the scientific evidence because he seems absolutely unequivocal about the reasoning and conclusion.
With the Q&A, you must see how the tone, and even content, of every question is pushing in one direction - looking for that tiny possibility that this is a huge miscarriage of justice. Nobody asked any questions along the lines of "why are you so convinced of her guilt?" or "what is the single most convincing piece of evidence that convinces you of her guilt?" Every question is along the lines of "well, is it remotely possible, etc, etc". He even started trolling you guys by repeatedly using the Dumb and Dumber line, "so, you're saying there's a chance..."
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.