Shelby 800m time trial on strava

The thing I find baffling about Shelby's eventual return to the sport is that she'll have to submit to the same doping control processes that she's complained are unfair and should be changed. She's repeatedly denied knowingly taken nandrolone and suggested that she's a victim of the strict liability aspect of the doping control process.

Yet, in the 4 years that she's been banned from the sport, she's done nothing to advocate for a fairer/different doping control process. While she's been on various podcasts, we haven't seen/heard her attempting to have a considered, nuanced conversation about the topic in anyway that could bring change (e.g. she's not trying to rally other athletes with similar stories, she's not lobbying people who have an influence on USADA/WADA, she's not trying to bring attention to this topic beyond her own plight.)

While we're unlikely to ever know if she intentionally took drugs, we have to decide whether to give her the benefit of the doubt. I expect (and I acknowledge it doesn't mean this is true) that victims of injustice, who will have to submit to the same systems that perpetrated the injustice, will take action to try and change those systems. Shelby's lack of action on this front, makes me err away from giving her the benefit of the doubt.

You could argue that she's still the victim and that I'm punishing her for not being the perfect victim that rises up against her oppressor. However, I think her other dishonest behaviour does enough to overcome that argument:

1. The phrasing chosen in the original press conference was dishonest. The wording was chosen to get the public on side by implying she'd eaten a pork burrito when there was no evidence she had. My recollection is the wording was unequivocal in saying the test outcome was a result of the burrito.

2. She entered the US Olympic Trials while knowing she was ineligible to compete and that her actions could lead to the suspension of her competitors. She was then dishonest in saying she never intended to compete unless she could get her case heard by the Swiss Tribunal immediately. Her lawyers wouldve advised her that it was going to take at least a year for her case to be heard.

3. She was disingenuous with her approach to ongoing training with the Bowerman TC. Sure, it makes sense that she should be allowed to run with people she "bumped into" on the trails but it was clear her "bumping into" people was pre-meditated which is not within the spirit of the rules.

She was a tenacious athlete who I enjoyed watching compete. I acknowledge that she should be allowed back on the start line when her ban is over, but as someone who believes in clean sport, I can't give her the benefit of the doubt and cheer for her again.

What Shelby thread would be complete without some anonymous poster trolling me for a post I didn't make? My only "joke" is to follow the facts and evidence, without presumptions.

I consulted the CAS report again just to confirm my ideas are in line with the original facts of the case made public. No party ever established the likely source of the nandrolone. No party established any speculated alternative was more likely than pork offal ingestion.

The CAS report also makes it clear she was convicted and sanctioned on the strength of two unrebutted presumptions. Yet in light of these presumptions, should we conclude with certainty that the AAF was properly reported by the WADA Lab? Apparently one of the CAS panelists could not. I found the lack of unanimity on this basic point concerning, given the high stakes for athletes. Can we conclude "intent" with any certainty based, on a determination of "probably not not intentional based on the limited evidence before us"? I cannot conclude intent when lacking any supporting data of intent.

LOL no, your "joke" is that you keep pretending the synthetic roids were in her burrito, despite all the evidence, despite literally everyone who isn't part of Shelburrito's PR saying it wasn't, including the AIU + WADA + WA + CAS + SCF + the independent scientists consulted by Runner's World and letsrun and USADA head Tygart.

Face it, your repetitive distortions notwithstanding: she was caught doping, and her ludicrous excuse declared null and void in an unanimous (!) decision and laughed about. That burrito excuse will be one for the ages, along with the toothpaste and the vanishing twin and the sex with the wife.

Oh, yeah, That Shelby: To the Gills!🍸

I only know this woman through reading letsrun but she seems annoying and agressive.

LOL. No. Don't believe these lies. I never once "pretended" that "synthetic roids" were in her burrito. If literally everyone else is saying they know for a fact what the source of Houlihan's nandrolone positive result was or wasn't, then literally everyone else is ignorant or dishonest.

In any case, I am not so gullible as to be persuaded by a popular uninformed vote, including from everyone collectively in your lengthy appeal to authority fallacy. Your appeal to "all the evidence" equally falls short, as "all the evidence" failed to establish the source.

Face it. Your emotional appeals and lies notwithstanding, the CAS did not find or rule what was or wasn't in the burrito, but only that Houlihan failed to establish it on the balance of probability. She couldn't prove it one month after the fact. I do not find that suprising. The CAS did not declare Houlihan's "excuse" "null and void", but on the contrary, confirmed it remains possible. There are other unexplored possibilities, e.g. unlabeled supplement contamination, or an oral nandrolone precursor, but the likelihood of these alternatives were not assessed for any genuine apples to apples likelihood comparison.

Great post.

That's your sexism speaking.

(And I say this as someone who doesn't support Houlihan at all.)

american women are not exactly running much better right now (with Mu on sidelines). She runs 1:59 she'll make a team.

What a dumb post.

Let's look at Nuguse's times: 1500, mile, 5000.

2022: 3:33:26, 3:53.34

2023: 3:29.02, 3:43.97

If you think a 3:33 1500 man can't run faster than 3:53, you know nothing about track. A 3:33 1500 is equivalent to a 3:50 mile.

But since you are obsessed with him, of course you know he wasn't a "3:53" man in 2022, and that he was faster than that.

It just suits your sad little story to ignore the fact he raced the 1500 six times outdoors in 2022, and the mile only once. (Duh.)

And his 2022 mile PR was simply racing to win the Sir Walter Miler over scrubs, while his 2023 mile PR was racing the Olympic champion to the line in a actual fast race. Golly, Becky, you think there are any differences there?

You are a clown to talk about a nine-second improvement when anyone with a brain knows he dropped four seconds in the 1500, the real event that he actually races frequently.

? She's training? Does she not work now? How does she afford this and long term isn't it disastrous for any hopes of for a career and income earning, especially to put off getting on with that career path and normal life?

A person having to take four of their best years off and then returning with a reputation as a doper can't be a big draw to get a pro contract. I mean wouldn't the smart move with all of this have been be to just get on with her work career (that she got her college degree in)? So much income loss with running being a poor choice at this point to make a livable lifelong career out of. Unless you have some other source of income, it makes no sense?

Don't forget, Nike/BTC owe her big time for her silence.

I think the heat is off Hoolihan a bit after the preposterously dope-aided ESP performance the other day. It's hard to argue Shelby is iffy but ESP is squeaky clean beating Beatrice and outsprinting the top Ethiopian.

How much income is she really losing by training? Does she have a discernible skillset to monetize, other than running??

I am no fan, but making the best comeback possible seems like a smarter move than getting out of shape, especially if you literally have nothing else to do.

Me, I would have gone to law school and still trained.

Is this post satire ?

You weren't paying attention. She spoke in many podcasts about the doping control issues. She spent a lot of money trying to fight this but at some point you run out of money and have to accept your suspension. Do you think challenging these decisions is cheap and free? Just because you don't pay close attention doesn't mean that she wasn't trying. You just made all of that up without knowing what's going on in her day to day life.

The original phrasing in the press conference was basically them grasping at straws trying to figure out HOW the substance got into her system. They revealed that they believed it could be from that burrito. They didn't unequivocally state that it was 100% the burrito. They were at a loss for words and this was the only thing she could think of. I'm not saying they were telling the truth, but this is just what was said at the start. The media and forums took it and ran with it.

If you were waiting on an appeal, you would enter the trials as well. You never know if it gets uplifted quickly and then you'd feel really dumb if it was and you weren't entered in the trials on time. It was a "doesn't hurt to try" scenario...OBVIOUSLY.

The whole training stuff with BTC was shady and it seemed like eventually they realized it wasn't going to work. Not sure why they attempted that but I guess when all of your teammates are on your side they're mostly okay with you coming around. The people with issues left.

Now that she's served her ban she deserves to race. That's the penalty. I can't wait to see her race again. I also don't really care if she does or not. So much has happened in the sport during her ban that I'm not sure if she'll get back on top.

Is she at all related to the Famous Dodge Ball Coach Patches O'Houlihan? The reason I ask is because minus the "O" the name is spelled the same. If she is related, WADA might throw a wrench in these time trials she is doing.

GREAT post Anon Rex...

as for this rebuttal, I'll take a stab at responding:

"You weren't paying attention. She spoke in many podcasts about the doping control issues. She spent a lot of money trying to fight this but at some point you run out of money and have to accept your suspension. Do you think challenging these decisions is cheap and free? Just because you don't pay close attention doesn't mean that she wasn't trying. You just made all of that up without knowing what's going on in her day to day life."

If she was actually trying to change something, we might hear something about that. But the truth is, the system is fair. She tested positive. Nothing nefarious. Just a positive test for a commonly used banned drug. In a podcast she argued her "character" should be taken into consideration. No it shouldn't. That's bias. She argued that they should be "working together to figure out the truth". Why would they when the truth could very well be that she cheated? And then she advocated for mental health resources for cheaters. Yawn.

The original phrasing in the press conference was basically them grasping at straws trying to figure out HOW the substance got into her system. They revealed that they believed it could be from that burrito. They didn't unequivocally state that it was 100% the burrito. They were at a loss for words and this was the only thing she could think of. I'm not saying they were telling the truth, but this is just what was said at the start. The media and forums took it and ran with it.

The media and forums ran with what exactly? I don't recall them saying they were grasping at straws. I recall them fully backing the burrito excuse as if it was something that absolutely should have been accepted and it was a total injustice it was not. They didn't say "this might be what it is" they stated it WAS. It was such a stupid excuse that of course it was going to be clowned.

If you were waiting on an appeal, you would enter the trials as well. You never know if it gets uplifted quickly and then you'd feel really dumb if it was and you weren't entered in the trials on time. It was a "doesn't hurt to try" scenario...OBVIOUSLY.

It was a stupid rule and I blame USATF mostly for this. But I think that was the moment that really a lot of people turned on Shelby.

The whole training stuff with BTC was shady and it seemed like eventually they realized it wasn't going to work. Not sure why they attempted that but I guess when all of your teammates are on your side they're mostly okay with you coming around. The people with issues left.

The people with issues were there and were bothered by it and appealed to the coach for another solution, and were not heard. They didn't leave. they had to train with her. Then they left, exposed the situation, and after it was made public, Shelby cut ties.

Now that she's served her ban she deserves to race. That's the penalty. I can't wait to see her race again. I also don't really care if she does or not. So much has happened in the sport during her ban that I'm not sure if she'll get back on top.

I think she can race again too, but I'm not excited about it.

Nice story, but is it really true that "they stated it WAS"? Fortunately we do not have to rely on your ability to recall such details from a nearly 3-year old press conference, as it is still online.

Here is what Houlihan said about two minutes into her opening statement: "... we concluded that the most likely explanation was .... I notified the AIU that I believe that this was the source."

Note the use of the phrase "most likely", suggesting the awareness of other possibilities that they concluded were less likely. Note also the use of the word "believe".

However, the pork burrito "excuse" has always been a pork herring. Paul Greene hits the nail on the head of the real injustice in his opening statement with "It actually says the urinary origin may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis, and that is exactly what they used for Shelby's case, only the GC/C/IRMS analysis." This statement is applicable before the athlete is burdened with providing an "excuse" establishing non-intent, or the source.

Both of these statements were before the CAS, and are essentially unrebutted by all parties. No party established, and the CAS did not find, that any possible alternative explanation was more likely. And the CAS's ruling falls short of explaining why GC/C/IRMS can be used to establish the "exogenous" urinary origin in Shelby's case, contrary to this language in the TD2021NA.

Shelby is paying the highest price for a conviction which the CAS explains rests solidly on two presumptions, not only with the full 4-year ban equivalent to intentional use, but also in the minds of many fans who want to "clown" the burrito excuse.