Grant Fisher/Shelby Houlihan disconnect?

By far the most likely scenario imo. The conspiracy theories are laughable

But I have to add two things...

Granted, women in the 1500m used to run closer to 4:00 in big races, barely under; and now they all seem to have sub-4 PRs. Is it all due to doping? I doubt it.

In recent decades, the tracks have all been boosted with super surfaces, the shoes have become spring-loaded, and the training has gone from short, insanely hard intervals to double thresholds at altitude. If that gets three or four Americans down from 3:58 to 3:55, that doesn't surprise me.

Secondly, it isn't just suspected dopers and pros who got faster. Everyone in the world got faster: high school kids, master runners, random college kids, Japanese half-marathoners, Boston Marathon qualifiers, etc. Everyone is running faster than a decade ago. Something has changed in the sport and it can't all be drugs because I know a lot of runners (at every level) and they are getting faster and none of them are doping.

I agree that the pros dope. We all know that. But that is not the only answer here. Other things are happening at the same time.

This is the final finding of the panel. I just read the whole thing during dinner (not burritos):

• First, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the Athlete’s burrito contained boar offal.
• Second, the Panel finds it possible but unlikely that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the urinary concentration of 19-NA found in the Athlete’s A- and B- Samples.
• Third, the Panel finds it possible but not probable that the ingestion of boar offal would have resulted in the Athlete’s reported urinary concentration of 19-NA or her carbon isotope ratio of -23‰.
• Fourth, the Panel finds that neither the [negative] hair analysis nor the polygraph results [which she passed] are sufficient
• Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Athlete has not satisfied her burden of proof on the balance of probabilities that the ADRV was unintentional, and the ADRV must be deemed to be intentional.

I was surprised that they admitted her explanations were "possible" and that they ruled against her based on probability, not some fact that was set in stone. That was news to me. I assumed they had some kind of smoking guy, not just a "likelihood of doping." It is also weird to me that she has to prove her innocence (burden of proof is on the accused) rather than them needing to prove her guilt.

p.s. I still think "other tainted supplement" would explain why she tested positive but had no Nandro in her hair tests. Those pros are probably taking so many supplements they can't even keep track of what is what. And a bunch of them are doping too!

if you listen to ross tucker the 'possible but unlikely' thing is just legalese.

They won't go further than they have to.

i can't remember if 'unlikely' or 'not probable' is more damning, but no-one is buying her BS (apart from Jon Gault).

Also - she doesn't have to 'prove her innocence' she has to not get caught doping in the first place

You should be careful what you wish for. For a while now, I have been letting threads like this run a natural course before responding, as a courtesy to those who have already made up their mind.

My repeatedly expressed concern in Shelby threads has never been about Shelby's case per se, but about what can be robustly concluded by the public from convictions necessarily based on and not possible without presumptions inherent in the WADA Code. Can we the people reliably conclude from a conviction deemed as intentional doping that she intentionally doped, when the likely source was never established by any party?

Shelby is simply one vehicle to make this point, and the same point is confirmed by the cases of other athletes like Jarrion Lawson, or Simon Getzmann, or at least 27 athletes convicted by USADA of no-fault violations since 2015. Whether an athlete is deemed "innocent", or at "no-fault", or "no significant fault", is a essentially a subjective assessment of both the "prosecution" and the "judges" based on an incomplete set of facts collected in a rush (because the athlete is also suspended and unable to compete and earn a living). This is hardly a robust basis to determine absolute truths. We can also consider and include the EPO cases of Colvert, Sommer, and Karus, where difficult to execute and interpret urine EPO tests were possibly misinterpreted by the WADA Lab but WADA standards prevent athletes from obtaining the evidence being used to convict them despite the athlete being burdened with a policy of "strict liability", and dare I say, the double-jeopardy case of Mary Decker Slaney, whose conviction was not possible without a policy of "strict liability", and whose excessive T/E ratio can indicate high T, or low E. Low E is a known side-effect of some types of birth control, especially for women in their 30s with fluctuating hormones. (I also wonder if Prof. Ayotte was involved in this re-prosecution.) Since then, we can also look at cases like Asinga, where a likely source of contaminated gummies was actually found with testing, but the athlete still has the burden to establish how the gummies were contaminated in a factory that no longer exists, in the context of guilty if not proven innocent.

Someone above linked to the detailed CAS report where, with careful reading, and an understanding of the context created by the WADA Code and related standards and guidelines, we can find the following:

- One sample (split into two A and B samples) of Houlihan's urine, collected in Dec. 2020 (in the off-season), contained low amounts (WADA's characterization of less than 10 ng/ml) of nandrolone, above the 5 ng/ml threshold used to trigger potential AAFs.

- The WADA Lab, and/or the AIU, treated this as an AAF, rather than an ATF. An ATF would require further testing for confirmation before any charges. An AAF completely shifts the remaining burden onto the athlete to identify the source (often recognized by tribunals as a difficult if not impossible task), and/or review the history and dynamics of processes of all farming and all pharma for any expert rebuttals, and/or the athlete to "peer review" all of the applicable science and convince, not a panel of independent scientists, but a panel of non-scientific lawyers relying on the independence of scientific experts for guidance, within a short timeframe of a few weeks or months.

- The CAS panel was split (2-1) as to whether the determination of the AAF complied with, or deviated from, the applicable WADA standards. A minority of the CAS Panelists was persuaded by Houlihan that there was more likely than not, a departure from the applicable standard.

- Under the WADA Code, an AAF is considered a rule violation without exception. Findings of "no fault" or "no significant fault" or "no negligence", are still considered ADRVs and WADA defines all ADRVs as "Doping". It does not depend on athlete intent, fault, negligence, or knowing use. The subsequent independent exercise of finding the likely source to establish non-intent (or no fault) can only result in a reduced, or waived, sanction for the rule violation.

While the WADA Code permits a low standard of conviction based on presumptions, I require a much higher standard for establishing facts.

I sincerely hope my post doesn't ultimately reflect poorly on you because of my reputation here at this forum as an unpopular sceptic.

But I want to commend you for actually reading the detailed report, and then expressing your "surprise" at the "strength" of the arguments used to convict her.

Because of inherent presumptions and a policy of "strict liability", the punishment for both guilty athletes and innocent athletes unable to establish a "more likely than not" source, alike, is the default 4-year ban, and a permanent scarlet letter.

This would be interesting to find out.

However, if you check the archives here I was the first smell a rat with Burrito girl. She was a 4:05 girl then turns up at Pre and run 3:57 @26 with a sprint/surge against the best milers in the world. My guess on why she glowed and then crashed is either she was so arrogant and thought that he doping cycles had worked out well over the past three years or her form was slipping, it was Olympic year and she had to get a good boost now for any shot in Tokyo. This was COVID times it was difficult to test people.

They essentially found a "pseudo-endogenous" pre-cursor which is one potential, but unproven, candidate for the source of nandrolone which could explain the values. This makes it an equivalent alternative to ingesting "endogenous" soy-feed intact boar. Neither was considered "established to the CAS Panel" as a "more likely than not" source. The only difference is that the burden is on the athlete to determine the source, whether they know it or not, while the burden is non-existent for the AIU, the WADA Lab, and their experts.

Big issue with these choices is that Marc Scott also tested positive but the amount was in acceptable range for men due to hormone differences. You can find these details when looking through their defensive arguments. He also was there at the infamous burrito meal, so either they both consumed a contaminated meal, or both, who were struggling with injury, were contaminated by other means by someone they knew with or without their knowledge

Thanks! What is your estimate of the likelihood that it came from the burrito?

"sceptic"? You?? Now I have heard everything. You are the most naive poster ever, falling for every excuse of every drug cheat, from sex to menopause to beef to burrito to what-have-you. Or rather, THE propagandist here.

WAKE UP SIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whether it be Jerry Schumacher, Shelby, Fisher, Hocker you name it all, except Nico Young and Mike Smith and Nur Abdi, they are all doped to the gills alright!!!!!!

BTC???? It's all corrupt, I never trusted Jerry Schumacher and Shelby's case was a perfect example of Jerry's sophisticated doping program at BTC!!!!

100 %

I’m not the most well read on this case but can anyone verify if Nike does in fact provide athletes with vitamins? Or do they pick them up at gnc like the rest of us?

Shelbys number was in line with a nandrolone precursor but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that this is what happened instead

We know that the labs that make the black market stuff aren't as well regulated as regular production facilities. I'm surprised that no one has latched on the obvious: f) Shelby's surprise at testing positive was real, because she wasn't taking Nando. She was microdosing with other things that had cleared her system, as they knew it would, by the time that the test was done. But the nando was leached into whatever she was taking so there was genuine concern and surprise by Jerry and her and the whole BTC camp.

Think back: Jerry has admitted that the whole "burrito" defense was something they invented because they didn't have anything else. They were genuinely caught off guard by this and didn't have any backup plans - because their usual microdosing was going just fine.

So, for those wondering how an entire Nike front office could allow something to happen within their organization, under their noses undetected... as mentioned in the link below, they're paying USATF $25 million to facilitate their athletes' participation in international competition as well as represent the brand.

Despite USATF failing their athletes and the brand in a visible, embarrassing fashion, Nike not only won't take any action but they possibly won't have any idea the below-linked situation happened, even with it being mentioned in the media. The company's attention to all-knowing detail is nowhere near where people think it is, or where they'd like to think it is. Leadership throws money around from a macro level and just expects results to materialize. They avoid micromanagement as many executives do, with the idea that everything in general will shake out as desired.

Nike executives don't even know most of the time what's happening down the hall on their own floor, let alone in the news, let alone in any labs they work with. Their lawyers and labs can certainly cover up an incident or problem without any one outside thereof having any idea that something happened in the first place.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=12995158#post-9

How do you know about incompetent Nike executives? Do you work there?

I appreciate all the different perspectives, yours included!

It is all just such a weird system. I am not a lawyer but I know that the procedures in place with WADA, USADA, and even SafeSport are not really the same as our courts. And I think that makes it even harder for laymen like myself to fully understand how these things are adjudicated.

Not to mention the science! It is beyond everyone like me who is not a specialist. After all, they aren't just talking about Nadro, they are looking at specific variations of the molecule! I'm the first one to admit I don't understand enough about it to be vehement about any but the most obvious cases...