Since Shelby got busted, Karissa Schweizer hasn't come close to the 5000m times she ran with training partner Houlihan. Makes me think she was doing the same thing and then was forced to stop, so she wouldn't get banned.
Oh 100%! This was such a tell for me too. 14:26 in a race that had the energy of a high school scrimmage, and suddenly she lost all her shine.
One more thing about the article is Shelby's bizarre money situation.
Shelby hasn't had a job in 2 years. She says she rents out an apartment for money but where? How does she have all this money to travel to Europe and to altitude camps with BTC, pay her legal fees, and go to school? But she still grifted the running community for money?
Then let’s hear yours. I challenge you to explain:
1) Why did Shelby refuse to wear super shoes if she’s the type of person who would use drugs?
2) Why would Shelby refuse to say she was guilty even if a confession would allow her to compete at the 2024 Olympics?
3) Why should we believe the testimony of Christiane Ayotte?
1. Despite what some posters on LRC might think, super spikes just aren't that much of an advantage if at all. Super shoes for road racing are, but the spikes just add a thin layer of foam to already plated spikes.
2. If she confessed, she'd also have to explain what she used and how she got it. She was living in a house of other Nike athletes and dating another at the time. There's no way she could confess to using PEDs without implicating all of them, her coaching staff, and Nike. Taking down an entire program sponsored by the biggest corporation in the sport would tank her career and have her tied up in legal proceedings for the foreseeable future. She has a better chance getting a reduce ban with this nonsense PR campaign.
According to her, she earned a couple of $100,000 per year before getting popped. (Doping pays off, even when one gets caught later.) That should last for a while when living in Oregon or Iowa.
Plus potentially a loyalty bonus from BTC and Nike for, ummm, not making a fuss.
Her grifting is of course despicable, but what kind of character do you expect from a doper?
“She trains in isolation, coached remotely by her sister Shayla, a professional runner turned college coach.”…
how is this okay?? I know they are family, but still you now have a D1 university of Iowa coach, coaching a fellow distance runner who is still serving a doping ban??
It's simple: The NCAA is not part of the WADA/AIU doping control system.
Then let’s hear yours. I challenge you to explain:
1) Why did Shelby refuse to wear super shoes if she’s the type of person who would use drugs?
2) Why would Shelby refuse to say she was guilty even if a confession would allow her to compete at the 2024 Olympics?
3) Why should we believe the testimony of Christiane Ayotte?
1) any number of reasons, but I am going with her not thinking they were actually a significant advantage. Back in 2019 we didn't know how good they were - notice that by December of 2020 (the month she tested positive) Shelby was wearing Dragonflies for the 5000m in California. So answer one she just preferred the feel of the old victories and didn't realize how much better the new shoes were but she made the switch before she was banned anyway so she got over whatever objection she had. You can bet your house when she comes back in 2025 she'll be wearing Dragonflies.
2) Easy - because she didn't think she would actually lose. She thought no way would a big American, on Nike's biggest US team, repped by one of the most successful and expensive doping defence lawyers. Jerry and Shalane said they assumed she would win her case and couldn't believe she lost. Why would you plead guilty to a 3 year ban if you thought you were going to win and get zero years?
3) Why should we believe Ayotte? Because in the past where her testimony has been erroneous and suspect e.g. the Jarrion Lawson case, Paul Greene was successful in getting judges to throw out that testimony and showing categorically that she had made a clear error. Greene tried that this time and the judges were having none of it (even when Houlihan got to choose one of the judges). The AIU learnt from their past mistakes with Ayotte and made sure her testimony was watertight this time.
My question back - why should we believe someone who came out all guns blazing saying it was a burrito, with lawyers and coaches calling her case a "slam dunk," only to come out later and say "I'm not sure it was the burrito." The burrito case can't be a slam dunk if you aren't sure it was actually that - choose one of the two. There was nothing stopping her and her team from saying back in June 2021 that they weren't sure where the contamination came from but the burrito was the best bet. They chose to lie and say it was absolutely the burrito.
So if she was willing to lie to you then, why should I take anything she says at face value?
A terrible read. Poorly researched and extremely one-sided and biased. Doesn't matter, that cheat was caught and banned, fortunately, and remains banned.
This.
She is nothing more than another cheat.
Because she is a white American woman with PR resources (Nike), we are still hearing her "perspective" long after the fact. Countless other banned athletes have spun excuses, too, but they aren't getting sympathy years later.
By now it should be clear she's slow-playing this - keeping her name out there with occasional woe-is-me drivel like this, beer miles, and etc... all with only one real purpose - to prevent the public from completely forgetting her and moving on. Hate to say it, but it seems to be working.
She’s still the most talked about runner here. For good reason: deep down everyone knows she’s a victim of a flawed system that’s not designed to protect the innocent.
You're a troll, but the reason why she's the most talked about athlete on here is because people hate being lied to, and deep down everyone knows she's lying to them.
Also, the media gives her pass after pass, article after article, podcast after podcast. They aren't doing their jobs properly with her story, so the fans have to make their voice known. Had they done so, she wouldn't be discussed.
It's just wild that Shelby chose to go to Budapest while the world champs are happening. Like why can't you go to the other places, and cut that leg of the trip out?
Since Shelby got busted, Karissa Schweizer hasn't come close to the 5000m times she ran with training partner Houlihan. Makes me think she was doing the same thing and then was forced to stop, so she wouldn't get banned.
Oh 100%! This was such a tell for me too. 14:26 in a race that had the energy of a high school scrimmage, and suddenly she lost all her shine.
A terrible read. Poorly researched and extremely one-sided and biased. Doesn't matter, that cheat was caught and banned, fortunately, and remains banned.
/end of thread!
Honestly makes me lose respect for WaPo for publishing this fluff piece on a convicted *white woman* doper. Why not write about someone who hasn’t tested positive and is running well like Alicia Monson…….
With the recent testing of positives and then reinstatements i had a feeling Shelby would surface to restate she's innocent. I'm sure there's more to come.
I do think they could’ve interviewed more people who are opposed to Shelby (they mostly just interviewed her friends and supporters).
It's a shameful puff-piece by an otherwise reputable news source. I would have expected something like this from Sports Illustrated.
It's ridiculous that they didn't interview more people. You don't think the Washington Post couldn't have found someone to explain the test results? No one to explain that the nandrolone clearly came from an artificial source because the chemical isotopes don't match animal sources?
The most likely case IMHO is that it was either in some supplement (i.e., oral delivery) or she was microdosing and got caught.
LetsRun was able to get Ross Tucker to write a pretty clear Q&A about it.
You don't think WaPo could have found Ross or some other expert to explain the results? The nandro was definitely from an artificial source. You can't fake isotope ratios. Draw your own conclusions.
But enough about her - we have an entire meet of great athletes.
That's true that I'm surprised WaPo couldn't find more sources that weren't merely on her side.
I will read the link you sent. Thanks for posting!
It’s a well-known phenomenon that people will think a news source to be knowledgeable a trustworthy. However, when the news source does a piece on a topic that a person knows well, the person will think the news source really bungled that one because they got it all wrong! However, the person will assume that this was an extremely rare and coincidental anomaly, and that the news source is practically always right. The reality is that the news source gets it wrong almost all the time!
This instance with Shelby and the degree that they got it right is emblematic of virtually all the WaPo stories. I’m shocked that anyone would trust any of these news sources.
"World Athletics argued that Houlihan’s explanation “presupposes a cascade of factual and scientific improbabilities, which means that its composite probability is (very) close to zero.” She would have been served pork even though she ordered steak; that pork would have come from boar, which constitutes a tiny percent of pork in the United States; and that boar, to produce nandrolone in a person’s system, would have been uncastrated or have had undescended testicles."
End of story. This chick cheated. It's just such a ridiculous story.
I do think they could’ve interviewed more people who are opposed to Shelby (they mostly just interviewed her friends and supporters).
The nandro was definitely from an artificial source. You can't fake isotope ratios. Draw your own conclusions.
Just wanted to point out that there are at least two studies showing isotope ratio results producing false positives with uncastrated pig pork ingestion — one small study with 40% false positive and one study showing 12.5% false positive (and high urine nandroline metabolite despite waiting 16 hours until the test was conducted). Smaller studies, but still much larger than some of the studies WADA relied on.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
wording
Then let’s hear yours. I challenge you to explain:
1) Why did Shelby refuse to wear super shoes if she’s the type of person who would use drugs?
2) Why would Shelby refuse to say she was guilty even if a confession would allow her to compete at the 2024 Olympics?
3) Why should we believe the testimony of Christiane Ayotte?
1. Despite what some posters on LRC might think, super spikes just aren't that much of an advantage if at all. Super shoes for road racing are, but the spikes just add a thin layer of foam to already plated spikes.
2. If she confessed, she'd also have to explain what she used and how she got it. She was living in a house of other Nike athletes and dating another at the time. There's no way she could confess to using PEDs without implicating all of them, her coaching staff, and Nike. Taking down an entire program sponsored by the biggest corporation in the sport would tank her career and have her tied up in legal proceedings for the foreseeable future. She has a better chance getting a reduce ban with this nonsense PR campaign.
3. Why shouldn't we?
We are still talking about this S almost two years later?
A story of ‘access journalism’ more than anything which is why you here zero debate outside of this site on the matter
Then let’s hear yours. I challenge you to explain:
1) Why did Shelby refuse to wear super shoes if she’s the type of person who would use drugs?
2) Why would Shelby refuse to say she was guilty even if a confession would allow her to compete at the 2024 Olympics?
3) Why should we believe the testimony of Christiane Ayotte?
1) any number of reasons, but I am going with her not thinking they were actually a significant advantage. Back in 2019 we didn't know how good they were - notice that by December of 2020 (the month she tested positive) Shelby was wearing Dragonflies for the 5000m in California. So answer one she just preferred the feel of the old victories and didn't realize how much better the new shoes were but she made the switch before she was banned anyway so she got over whatever objection she had. You can bet your house when she comes back in 2025 she'll be wearing Dragonflies.
2) Easy - because she didn't think she would actually lose. She thought no way would a big American, on Nike's biggest US team, repped by one of the most successful and expensive doping defence lawyers. Jerry and Shalane said they assumed she would win her case and couldn't believe she lost. Why would you plead guilty to a 3 year ban if you thought you were going to win and get zero years?
3) Why should we believe Ayotte? Because in the past where her testimony has been erroneous and suspect e.g. the Jarrion Lawson case, Paul Greene was successful in getting judges to throw out that testimony and showing categorically that she had made a clear error. Greene tried that this time and the judges were having none of it (even when Houlihan got to choose one of the judges). The AIU learnt from their past mistakes with Ayotte and made sure her testimony was watertight this time.
My question back - why should we believe someone who came out all guns blazing saying it was a burrito, with lawyers and coaches calling her case a "slam dunk," only to come out later and say "I'm not sure it was the burrito." The burrito case can't be a slam dunk if you aren't sure it was actually that - choose one of the two. There was nothing stopping her and her team from saying back in June 2021 that they weren't sure where the contamination came from but the burrito was the best bet. They chose to lie and say it was absolutely the burrito.
So if she was willing to lie to you then, why should I take anything she says at face value?
this post is just a brutal takedown of the half truths and whataboutism this site has perpetuated around this case
she got popped. shes american. deal with it.
she probably got anonymously blown in by a teammate. look at that disaster of a group ffs
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.