We merged two threads on the same subject into 1 and kept the title of the 1st one posted. The 2nd thread title was, “Whether you believe me or not, I’m coming back,” Shelby says. “I’ve served the time.”
Many details do not add up. Professor Ayotte was not a reliable expert, and the test came from her lab. There's a possibility that Shelby didn't actually test positive.
Aren't you a mysterious poster. Why don't you name 4 - 6 details that do not add up?
She tested positive for a commonly used anabolic steroid, had no viable excuse, and was therefore banned for four years for intentional doping. Nothing special there. Other than all the PR.
Ayotte - reliable or not - had nothing to do with the positive tests themselves. As the lab director, she only reported the findings of the technicians who performed the analyses.
I don't know, but she at least has her integrity intact.
Nah. As the WJS story says, both Schumacher and Houlihan say her training with the team was in accordance with AIU guidance. So DeBues-Stafford had no reason to leave. Her departure always struck me more as self-righteousness than a show of integrity.
So it's a bit of karmic justice that Houlihan is right back to world-class running, while DeBues-Stafford's career seems to be going nowhere.
Besides, Houlihan's extremely impressive performances in her first races in 5 years demonstrate that she never had a motive to cheat in the first place. She's obviously clean, because she's been tested throughout her suspension. She's just an amazingly talented athlete. Come September, I'll be cheering for her from the stands in Tokyo.
I don't know, but she at least has her integrity intact.
Nah. As the WJS story says, both Schumacher and Houlihan say her training with the team was in accordance with AIU guidance. So DeBues-Stafford had no reason to leave. Her departure always struck me more as self-righteousness than a show of integrity.
So it's a bit of karmic justice that Houlihan is right back to world-class running, while DeBues-Stafford's career seems to be going nowhere.
Besides, Houlihan's extremely impressive performances in her first races in 5 years demonstrate that she never had a motive to cheat in the first place. She's obviously clean, because she's been tested throughout her suspension. She's just an amazingly talented athlete. Come September, I'll be cheering for her from the stands in Tokyo.
Gatlin tested clean, too - for a while. He was also an "amazingly talented athlete". But no one who has a drug conviction can ever be trusted again. Your denial doesn't change that.
Nah. As the WJS story says, both Schumacher and Houlihan say her training with the team was in accordance with AIU guidance. So DeBues-Stafford had no reason to leave. Her departure always struck me more as self-righteousness than a show of integrity.
So it's a bit of karmic justice that Houlihan is right back to world-class running, while DeBues-Stafford's career seems to be going nowhere.
Besides, Houlihan's extremely impressive performances in her first races in 5 years demonstrate that she never had a motive to cheat in the first place. She's obviously clean, because she's been tested throughout her suspension. She's just an amazingly talented athlete. Come September, I'll be cheering for her from the stands in Tokyo.
Her extremely impressive performances in her first races in five years demonstrate that she is still cheating.
A very LONG while -- 12 years, from 2010 until his retirement in 2022. And you can be sure he underwent frequent testing throughout. Any reasonable person would conclude he was clean during that time.
Nah. As the WJS story says, both Schumacher and Houlihan say her training with the team was in accordance with AIU guidance. So DeBues-Stafford had no reason to leave. Her departure always struck me more as self-righteousness than a show of integrity.
So it's a bit of karmic justice that Houlihan is right back to world-class running, while DeBues-Stafford's career seems to be going nowhere.
Besides, Houlihan's extremely impressive performances in her first races in 5 years demonstrate that she never had a motive to cheat in the first place. She's obviously clean, because she's been tested throughout her suspension. She's just an amazingly talented athlete. Come September, I'll be cheering for her from the stands in Tokyo.
Her extremely impressive performances in her first races in five years demonstrate that she is still cheating.
A very LONG while -- 12 years, from 2010 until his retirement in 2022. And you can be sure he underwent frequent testing throughout. Any reasonable person would conclude he was clean during that time.
The WJS story says Houlihan "is now terrified of failing another doping test."
Seems to me that she ought to be able to protect herself from false-positives by insisting that her samples be split into multiple aliquots and tested by multiple, independent labs.
Having to cope with dread every time you pee in a cup or provide a blood sample has to take much of the joy out of the sport.
I imagine Bernard Lagat had to deal with similar stress for many years after his career was nearly derailed unjustly in 2003 by the mind-blowing incompetence of a WADA lab.
A very LONG while -- 12 years, from 2010 until his retirement in 2022. And you can be sure he underwent frequent testing throughout. Any reasonable person would conclude he was clean during that time.
y'all keep ignoring the Super Lawyer she had on her side. The best lawyer money can buy. He/she/they (plural they, not pronoun They) asked for the speedy route. All her statements were crafted to sound logical and give the appearance of her being victimized by The Man, when it was the procedure they asked for and her lawyer convinced her the contaminated food defense was a sure thing. From the outside, it appeared to be a railroading, but all the little concocted defense elements really added up to a wild, overwhelmingly unbelievable little story. The lawyer was plug-n-play--that's his MO. When she pulled out the beef burrito receipt, he should've done a major pivot, but he kept on, cashing those checks, even though the story was as ridiculous as "these 10 vials of epo, in my wife's trunk, being smuggled in the dark of night, into france,the night before the Tour, are for my dog" (who's not in France). And the , "i don't know what nandrolone is, and if i did why would i take nandrolone?", is about as believable as,"I was just on my deathbed, there's no way i would take anything to jeopardize my health" shtick.
its paywalled but in summary, Shelby accepts the burrito excuse was “ridiculous” and believes it might have been a vitamin. However she STILL takes no accountability for her ban, believing that athlete shouldn’t be strictly liable.
gds was reached out for comment because wsj has journalists who are not fooled and did their research. They found she left the group and reached out to her. She says:
“it is inappropriate to call for the end of strict liability to exploit so called gray areas in the code”
Gabriela. The only one with courage to speak on this.
Thinking about this on a run recently, I concluded that presumably ridiculous excuses (like the burrito), are the direct result of presumed guilt, and putting the burden of proof of innocence on the athlete. The athlete is then put in a position of grasping at any possible excuse for the positive test, even if facially implausible, when they can't establish the more plausible one (e.g., if they no longer have a container of a supplement that may have been contaminated, or something like that).
This is correct. Houlihan aside, the athlete is required to come up with a specific source of contamination in order to claim contamination. In reality, it may often be the case (in legitimate contamination instances) that the athlete has no idea the source of the contamination. But that does not work for appeal. They have to present a specific source. So if they don't know it, they just have to try the most plausible thing.
Shelby’s pathological lying is really the issue here. You can tell us anything you want Shelby except the truth. The truth you shall never reveal, unless it is for a book years from now when you need the money.
What about the lab directors lying? You should be concerned about that as well. Possibly more concerning
Who is paying for all this coverage? Everyone (should) know that the WSJ is pay to play. Athletes are not usually dumping their pittance into stuff like this. Who is bankrolling this woman?
Shelby’s pathological lying is really the issue here. You can tell us anything you want Shelby except the truth. The truth you shall never reveal, unless it is for a book years from now when you need the money.
This. I can understand why an athlete feels compelled to dope. As others have noted, it is fairly rampant and only a small percentage get caught. I can empathize with feeling the need to do whatever you can to be able to compete at the upper levels. And I'd be ready for forgive if she was contrite, and said, "I wanted to be the best, and I was willing to do what it takes, and I paid a big price."
But instead she just lies and denies and blames everyone else, and she comes off like an Elizabeth Holmes or Anna Delvey or Lance Armstrong. She seems like a narcissist and a sociopath, the kind of person who will resort to grift or scams.