If Shelby was doping intentionally why wasn't she running super spikes?

Wrong as usual but there isn't anything worth saying about it. That's a cue for you.

What have you said about the thread topic? Nothing. Because you have nothing useful to say. Just leave. That's a cue for you.

I think her team doped intentionally, or she or her team were sloppy with knowing what was in her supplements. The burrito thing makes no sense. I think she doped, possibly unintentionally or intentionally. But it doesn't matter. Unintensional doping due to carelessness still yields a ban.

Causation vs. correlation? He shoe choice has nothing to do with what our sport's highest court found her guilty of.

Her ban came 4 years ago. Super shoes were still new-ish. She was running for Nike's top domestic club with all the testing in the world available to her. Maybe she's not a responder. Super spikes have shown to be less effective on the track versus super shoes on the roads. Maybe she wasn't leaving much on the table. Maybe if she didn't get popped she would've made the change pretty quickly as times skyrocketed while she was sidelined. Nothing is rational about this theory. There's no defense of her actions. Ok with people who want to say she served her time. We're not relitigating her getting popped. I'm not going to be a fan moving forward & think meets could choose not to invite her. That's not everyone's position but bringing up her footwear choice now seems not it.

And yet it's so often the obvious ones that get caught. If everybody was doping, the busts would appear random.

Salvatore has presented a well reasoned argument that super shoes might not matter as much as we think, and there is the example of Jakob running 3:31 at 17 in pre-super shoes. However, if you analyze the 1500m times of non-Africans and non-Iberians (Kenyan times are skewed by improved testing and bans for Kiprop and Manangoi), it's pretty remarkable. Pre super shoes and no non-African/non-Iberian had broken 3:30 since Coe in 86 except Nick Willis. Since super shoes, there have been 10 in the last five years. It would likely be even more if not for the Covid lockdowns and if the 1500m had not been dropped from Monaco twice.

That's something I thought about early on, but I think the problem is that shoe choice could support both options: doping and not doping:

1) Doping: she does anything she can to be her best, and that include doping and the shoes that she knows or thinks work the best for her (i.e., she's tried the new spikes and doesn't find they work for her).

2) Not doping: she believes in doing anything she can to maximize her natural performance, and although the new spikes might work for her, she thinks they detract from the purity of the sport and she's always had success in the old school spikes; in the same vein, doping is also against the purity of sport (and her quest to see what she's ultimately capable of).

Yes. Microdosing is undetectable - it's those who overdo it who get caught, namely the obvious ones.

Whoa bruh! Good comeback.

I have made a comment but you weren't intelligent enough to understand it, which was we don't need to hear yet again in another of the endless threads about that doper.

The busts are only a fraction of those actually doping. But how many of the Kenyans in the last few years did you pick as "obvious"?

Here is another good answer as to "Why Nandrolone?"

Something like EPO? You need to suck it up in a little syringe and jab it into your body. That makes a lot of people uneasy - not just physically but mentally and hey, if you ever do that there are no mental gymnastics you can do to tell yourself you aren't cheating.

But nandrolone (as one example) production we know can be stimulated by supplements which technically on their own aren't illegal or banned and this is very salient to this situation.

It's fairly obvious what went down with her. It wasn't an incorrectly delivered boar stomach burrito 3 times the size of a regular burrito - the isotope signature of the 19-NA found in her sample was right in line with oral precursors (what the supplements are loaded with) - we all know the details by now it doesn't need rehashing.

The point is, psychologically it's not hard to see how taking what technically is a legal supplement you can just buy on amazon - even if it produces an androgen that in a certain quantity gets you in trouble, is far easier to resolve with yourself than injecting sh-t into yourself that you need to hide in a fridge.

My opinion will always be that she was messing around this stuff trying to play the "grey-zone" game, but without the expert guidance that maybe others, ahem, around her had/were given, and it was as simple as either taking too much or too frequently. I don't think there was a conspiracy involving Jerry, Nike - I really don't. I think it was a case of an athlete desperate to be good, who saw some things, adopted them and mentally resolved the process with herself but ultimately didn't understand the potential complexities. Done.

Summary: why?

- Easy to procure

- Easy to resolve (internally)

- Easy to administer

When you balance all these things isn't this really the perfect combination of elements you want if you are looking for an edge? If I had cheated during my time this is exactly what I'd be looking for.

All I will say is in that same way there are lawyers, doctors, tax accountants etc who visit these boards and would have slightly better information and knowledge on those topics than the poster that say works in real estate, do people think there aren't people who work in and around this sport that I don't know, might have slightly better information and knowledge on that ("supershoes and spikes") topic too? You don't think people from Nike, adi, Brooks, Hoka, Asics etc etc etc who all love the sport come and read/post on this messageboard?

Anyways, this has always been the biggest what if for me - what if wavelight and "superspikes" hadn't come along at basically the exact same time. It's really that simple. We know that in terms of legal performance aids these two are by far the biggest we have seen in the last 25 years of the sport but we don't have any really clear period where either was the only improvement available and that is the only way we could really make a definitive judgement. And people will point to the jumps that HS and college athletes have also made without on-track, real-time precision pacemaking but we then have to factor in how the elevation of the elite level has simply elevated every level below it and also what learnings have been taken down from this level to the ones below it. All I would say is from the science side - from the factors that made the road product so effective, that it doesn't align with really any appreciable gains in distances as short as the 8 and 1500m. Sorry if that hurts anyones feelings that would like to think that 4.05 mile they ran back in 98 would absolutely be a 3.57 today.

Nice

Was she wearing super shoes in the 3k yesterday?

She should, they're a good cover for doping.

You made a comment that had nothing to do with the topic but you aren't intelligent enough to understand it. You are stupid and hate the sport. Take your stupidity somewhere else.

Answer: super shoe track spikes (dragonfly etc) did not exist when Shelby was competing prior to her ban. Super shoes for the roads (vaporfly etc) were not universally seen as shoes for training and thus it would not have been strange if even a professional were not training in super shoes.

this is not as groundbreaking a question as I think OP thought it was.

That’s what I hoped to get from this whole thread…