It still doesn't and didn't help Houlihan get over a pretty low bar, which was that accidental contamination was more likely than not. She couldn't. Case over.
She couldn't because they notified her 30 days after the sample was collected. She didn't have the same bottles any more.
In the case of Jarrion Lawson they notified him 62 days later. The game is to screw the athletes by putting the burden of proof on them (guilty unless proven innocent) and using delay tactics.
Lawson won which is rare and likely only because the lab data obtained by subpoena showed that professor Ayotte had not been truthful. The same professor testified in Houlihan's case, and her lab tested the sample. Does that not raise any red flags for you?
No, it doesn't. I don't think she could have produced any evidence that would have exonerated her. To say otherwise is mere speculation. 99% of athletes who test positive are guilty. She isn't the 1%.
Athletes get busted for weird stuff so that it looks like WADA and AIU are doing their job. They aren't. The biological passport is deliberately weak, they don't test for 2 HIF stabilizers and have insufficient testing standard for another, and they don't test for AICAR or even have detection limits despite advanced research. It's all a big game.
Same thing with blood doping years ago. Scientific papers in the 40's discussed the theory, it was ignored for years, then finally banned in 1984 after Olympic cyclists admitted to it, without any test to catch anybody.
History repeats. The people at the top are deceiving the public to benefit advertisers.
It's naive to say sabotage couldn't happen. What world do you live in? Happy land?
Of course she wasn’t sabotaged. There would be no motive, the logistics would be close to impossible, and it would truly be insane. You must live in bizarro land.
Right. Everybody else is an angel, there's no competition between athletes and shoe companies, and nobody has the intricate dexterity to sprinkle a trace of powder into a water bottle or food.
She couldn't because they notified her 30 days after the sample was collected. She didn't have the same bottles any more.
In the case of Jarrion Lawson they notified him 62 days later. The game is to screw the athletes by putting the burden of proof on them (guilty unless proven innocent) and using delay tactics.
Lawson won which is rare and likely only because the lab data obtained by subpoena showed that professor Ayotte had not been truthful. The same professor testified in Houlihan's case, and her lab tested the sample. Does that not raise any red flags for you?
99% of athletes who test positive are guilty. She isn't the 1%.
Some people say "Why do you people keep defending Shelby Houlihan? Why so obsessed with her?" A couple reasons:
1. There's a lot of hate towards her that is really unfair because the truth is unknown, and it's disrespectful regardless.
2. This issue of busting athletes for traces of weird stuff and presuming them guilty until proven innocent goes beyond just one athlete. I can think of 3 other questionable bans, and I'm sure there's many more:
Lizzy Banks
Allie Ostrander
Faith Chepchirchir. Despite the funny headlines saying she admitted to doping but didn't know how it got in her body, that's not accurate. The papers are writing bad journalism. The AIU report says she accepted the decision and implies that she was deemed to have admitted to doping for nandrolone by accepting the decision. Maybe, after hearing about burrito-gate, she gave up or lacked the resources or both.
We have never referred to Shelby as "the victim". If you can't see the differences between Regina and Shelby you're not being honest. Or if you don't understand nuance there isn't help fo you.
Regina was busted at the height of the Balco scandal. I just see now she ran her lifetime PB at 1500 indoors at the age of 39. She then tested positive soon after for a designer steroid. She accepted her suspension and disappeared from the sport.
Shelby had a banned substance and was not able to prove how it got in her system so she served a 4 year drug ban. Meanwhile her coach and teammates nearly universally all rallied behind her and said they didn't think she was doping.
Of course I'm open to the possibility she was, but the cases aren't similar.
And there we have it, living proof that twins share the one brain cell.
She couldn't because they notified her 30 days after the sample was collected. She didn't have the same bottles any more.
In the case of Jarrion Lawson they notified him 62 days later. The game is to screw the athletes by putting the burden of proof on them (guilty unless proven innocent) and using delay tactics.
Lawson won which is rare and likely only because the lab data obtained by subpoena showed that professor Ayotte had not been truthful. The same professor testified in Houlihan's case, and her lab tested the sample. Does that not raise any red flags for you?
No, it doesn't. I don't think she could have produced any evidence that would have exonerated her. To say otherwise is mere speculation. 99% of athletes who test positive are guilty. She isn't the 1%.
What is your source for 99%? According to annual WADA reports, about 60-70% of positive tests results in anti-doping rule violations. Some unknown fraction of that are wrongful convictions.
There is no way to know where Houlihan should be among these figures, if at all, without first conducting a fact-finding exercise.
It still doesn't and didn't help Houlihan get over a pretty low bar, which was that accidental contamination was more likely than not. She couldn't. Case over.
In his feedback to WADA, Judge Jean-Paul Costa didn't describe the athlete burden in terms of "pretty low bar". He said that such proofs were "difficult to provide", and spoke in terms of "excessive aggravation" because "an impossible proof either leads to a reversal of the burden of proof or to the irrefutable assumption of an anti-doping rule violation".
Athletes get busted for weird stuff so that it looks like WADA and AIU are doing their job. They aren't. The biological passport is deliberately weak, they don't test for 2 HIF stabilizers and have insufficient testing standard for another, and they don't test for AICAR or even have detection limits despite advanced research. It's all a big game.
Same thing with blood doping years ago. Scientific papers in the 40's discussed the theory, it was ignored for years, then finally banned in 1984 after Olympic cyclists admitted to it, without any test to catch anybody.
History repeats. The people at the top are deceiving the public to benefit advertisers.
More conspiracy-thinking. None of it shows Houlihan is innocent.
It still doesn't and didn't help Houlihan get over a pretty low bar, which was that accidental contamination was more likely than not. She couldn't. Case over.
In his feedback to WADA, Judge Jean-Paul Costa didn't describe the athlete burden in terms of "pretty low bar". He said that such proofs were "difficult to provide", and spoke in terms of "excessive aggravation" because "an impossible proof either leads to a reversal of the burden of proof or to the irrefutable assumption of an anti-doping rule violation".
She didn't have to show beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable likelihood would have probably been accepted as meeting the balance of probabilities. She got nowhere near it. It was her task to do so because she had to account for how a banned substance was in her system.
No, it doesn't. I don't think she could have produced any evidence that would have exonerated her. To say otherwise is mere speculation. 99% of athletes who test positive are guilty. She isn't the 1%.
What is your source for 99%? According to annual WADA reports, about 60-70% of positive tests results in anti-doping rule violations. Some unknown fraction of that are wrongful convictions.
There is no way to know where Houlihan should be among these figures, if at all, without first conducting a fact-finding exercise.
There are thousands of tests conducted globally each year in sports. 1% result in positives - which has to be hundreds - even more - against the total number of athletes tested. You could count on the fingers of one hand the number who are exonerated in a year. So it is a mere fraction of those found guilty. Add to that, CAS said Houlihan's attempted defence produced a cascading series of improbabilities. She isn't the example of injustice you are looking for.
99% of athletes who test positive are guilty. She isn't the 1%.
That's mere speculation.
No, it isn't. You fail to take into account the numbers of drug tests conducted in every sport around the world in a year (with many athletes being repeatedly tested). 1% positives is a big number against the total number of tests globally. Yet the numbers of athletes exonerated are a fraction of the total positives.
Of course she wasn’t sabotaged. There would be no motive, the logistics would be close to impossible, and it would truly be insane. You must live in bizarro land.
Right. Everybody else is an angel, there's no competition between athletes and shoe companies, and nobody has the intricate dexterity to sprinkle a trace of powder into a water bottle or food.
Agreed. LRC refers to Regina as “ Regina the drug cheat” and to Shelby as “Shelby the victim.”
they also gave her the questions to this interview way ahead of time
We have never referred to Shelby as "the victim". If you can't see the differences between Regina and Shelby you're not being honest. Or if you don't understand nuance there isn't help fo you.
Regina was busted at the height of the Balco scandal. I just see now she ran her lifetime PB at 1500 indoors at the age of 39. She then tested positive soon after for a designer steroid. She accepted her suspension and disappeared from the sport.
Shelby had a banned substance and was not able to prove how it got in her system so she served a 4 year drug ban. Meanwhile her coach and teammates nearly universally all rallied behind her and said they didn't think she was doping.
Of course I'm open to the possibility she was, but the cases aren't similar.
Shelby knew how it got into her system. she is just lying to save her butt. Let's not be naive, she knew just like any other doper knows how it got into their system.
Of course your friends and coaches are going to support you. It's always the one you never suspected, especially the coach as his reputation is on the line.
She is just as guilty as Regina for being a drug cheat and they should be treated the same. Your bias by calling Regina and Mo Katir and others drug cheats (rightly so), but Shelby doesn't get called a drug cheat is on display.
There are thousands of tests conducted globally each year in sports. 1% result in positives - which has to be hundreds - even more - against the total number of athletes tested. You could count on the fingers of one hand the number who are exonerated in a year. So it is a mere fraction of those found guilty. Add to that, CAS said Houlihan's attempted defence produced a cascading series of improbabilities. She isn't the example of injustice you are looking for.
You failed to answer. What is your source for 99%?
Thousands of tests conducted globally each year in sports! Wow! Thousands! That changes everything! Thousands?!? Wait, how many thousands? And just how many fingers do you have on one hand?
No need for emotional appeals or resorting to the fabrication of numbers when WADA makes these things public every year. For the year 2019 (the last published WADA ADRV report not impacted by COVID)", 278,047 samples were tested, resulting in 2,701 positives. Out of these:
- 1,537 samples (57%) were confirmed as ADRVs (sanctions); - 297 samples (11%) were dismissed because of a valid medical reason; - 274 samples (10%) were categorized as “no case to answer” (i.e. case closed for a valid reason other than medical reasons); - 49 samples (2%) resulted in “no sanction” because the Athlete was exonerated; - 544 samples (20%) were still pending.
Are you saying you have 49 fingers on one hand? Can we find you in the Guinness Book of World Records? What about these other 274 + 297 cases that were dismissed and closed, not resulting in an ADRV? How many hands and feet do you have? Are you a millipede?
I think the mere fraction you are looking for is 6/10, or 60%, assuming these ADRVs are correct.
Regarding Houlihan, there is no way to know where Houlihan should be among these figures, without first conducting a fact-finding exercise.
Shelby knew how it got into her system. she is just lying to save her butt. Let's not be naive, she knew just like any other doper knows how it got into their system.
Of course your friends and coaches are going to support you. It's always the one you never suspected, especially the coach as his reputation is on the line.
She is just as guilty as Regina for being a drug cheat and they should be treated the same. Your bias by calling Regina and Mo Katir and others drug cheats (rightly so), but Shelby doesn't get called a drug cheat is on display.
I wonder why!!
It's more likely that no one knows the source.
Not only her friends and coaches support her -- four years later, there is a real lack of any of her competitors, athletes or coaches, stepping forward to condemn Shelby as a "drug cheat". The ones condemning her as such with the most conviction are the ones with the least knowledge.
1. The Brojos are super apologetic throughout the interview, which is frustrating that they can't even be neutral. They DO give her passes here and there and they DON'T ask follow up questions that I think are needed. Like, Robert being a coach at Cornell and a pro coach are very different. I wouldn't expect a college coach to know what nandrolone is but I would if it is a pro coach...
2. They (however begrudgingly) DO ask all the questions I've been hoping they would. They ask her about the numbers lining up with the nandrolone precursor, about the Gabriela debacle, about how she's supporting herself financially, about it being twice the legal limit, they did ask her about how it was strange Jerry and Shelby didn't know what nandrolone was, so credit for that. But they didn't push her when she provided truly less than satisfactory answers.
3. This interview, however apologetic affirms my believe that Shelby cheated, probably with a vitamin or a shady supplement she was taking that she didn't realize could get her popped. I
As previous posters pointed out, Shelby's answers to the questions were way less than satisfactory. She stumbled through a lot of it. Much of it was "IDK IDK IDK!" How can you claim the system was unjust towards you when you openly acknowledge that there was nandrolone in your system, there's a plausible explanation based on your numbers how it got there? Not having (or frankly, refusing to provide) an explanation of your own is on you. The system did it's job.
She claimed she only took some gummy vitamins from Safeway. Bull. The numbers are too perfect, and I don't believe her.
She had no response to how the system can even prove that someone is doping though she's insisted for years that it should have to do that.
She blamed Gabriela for not being more communicative with HER even though she was crashing THEIR practices all the time.
Agreed. LRC refers to Regina as “ Regina the drug cheat” and to Shelby as “Shelby the victim.”
they also gave her the questions to this interview way ahead of time
We have never referred to Shelby as "the victim". If you can't see the differences between Regina and Shelby you're not being honest. Or if you don't understand nuance there isn't help fo you.
Regina was busted at the height of the Balco scandal. I just see now she ran her lifetime PB at 1500 indoors at the age of 39. She then tested positive soon after for a designer steroid. She accepted her suspension and disappeared from the sport.
Shelby had a banned substance and was not able to prove how it got in her system so she served a 4 year drug ban. Meanwhile her coach and teammates nearly universally all rallied behind her and said they didn't think she was doping.
Of course I'm open to the possibility she was, but the cases aren't similar.
So by your logic, because Regina accepted her suspension while Shelby whined and lied about it, Shelby is should be believed more?
You are only encouraging people to lie about things and waste everyone's time. her teammates rallying behind her doesn't mean anything to me. It's possible they are doing a lot of the same things.
I know you guys hate it when we call you out for being racist, but this is just pure bias. It's ridiculous to believe that someone has a more plausible case because they professed innocence. A lot of people claim innocence. OJ claims innocence.
Shelby's explanations on your podcast alone are hollow. IDK IDK IDK was all she said. That's not a plausible explanation. She acknowledges the drug was in her system. There's no evidence to believe some mistake happened.
1. The Brojos are super apologetic throughout the interview, which is frustrating that they can't even be neutral. They DO give her passes here and there and they DON'T ask follow up questions that I think are needed. Like, Robert being a coach at Cornell and a pro coach are very different. I wouldn't expect a college coach to know what nandrolone is but I would if it is a pro coach...
2. They (however begrudgingly) DO ask all the questions I've been hoping they would. They ask her about the numbers lining up with the nandrolone precursor, about the Gabriela debacle, about how she's supporting herself financially, about it being twice the legal limit, they did ask her about how it was strange Jerry and Shelby didn't know what nandrolone was, so credit for that. But they didn't push her when she provided truly less than satisfactory answers.
3. This interview, however apologetic affirms my believe that Shelby cheated, probably with a vitamin or a shady supplement she was taking that she didn't realize could get her popped. I
As previous posters pointed out, Shelby's answers to the questions were way less than satisfactory. She stumbled through a lot of it. Much of it was "IDK IDK IDK!" How can you claim the system was unjust towards you when you openly acknowledge that there was nandrolone in your system, there's a plausible explanation based on your numbers how it got there? Not having (or frankly, refusing to provide) an explanation of your own is on you. The system did it's job.
She claimed she only took some gummy vitamins from Safeway. Bull. The numbers are too perfect, and I don't believe her.
She had no response to how the system can even prove that someone is doping though she's insisted for years that it should have to do that.
She blamed Gabriela for not being more communicative with HER even though she was crashing THEIR practices all the time.
What answer do you expect if she really doesn't know? Should she start reading forums and get the answers from a bunch of anonymous know-it-alls?
Shelby had a plausible, scientifically proven explanation that can explain the numbers, but was not able to prove it was the most likely explanation in her case. Note that no one else proved any alternative was more likely, so the current status is that if Shelby doesn't know, then no one knows.
So by your logic, because Regina accepted her suspension while Shelby whined and lied about it, Shelby is should be believed more?
You are only encouraging people to lie about things and waste everyone's time. her teammates rallying behind her doesn't mean anything to me. It's possible they are doing a lot of the same things.
I know you guys hate it when we call you out for being racist, but this is just pure bias. It's ridiculous to believe that someone has a more plausible case because they professed innocence. A lot of people claim innocence. OJ claims innocence.
Shelby's explanations on your podcast alone are hollow. IDK IDK IDK was all she said. That's not a plausible explanation. She acknowledges the drug was in her system. There's no evidence to believe some mistake happened.
Wejo listed a number of other differences that distinguish Regina and Shelby. Most notably, Regina was busted for THG, aka "The Clear". This is a synthetic steroid, and not a naturally occurring substance, so unlike nandrolone, there is no WADA recognized "endogenous" source of THG.