The weakness of the older record is beside the point. 43 secs after turning pro might be plausible although it is a large improvement. To repeat such an improvement at 25 is even more surprising and suspicious. Although for me these impressive numbers are dwarved by the way she could suddenly destroy the best in sprints in 2018.
Why? You're not making any sense. Try and post something credible. Can you do that?
He made perfect sense. You seem a few ounces short of a full burrito.
It makes no sense. It's arbitrary speculation.
Try saying something intelligent. Go on try.
you can't get a more obvious PED profile, physical, and from the data.
combined with the positive A and B samples.
it's a wrap. guilty.
EXCEPT
the WADA personnel have been busted before for lying about lab results.
they BLEW IT.
600mRunner wrote:
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/1404708503890104321
This is the quote that does it for me.
This kind of over-top-denial is shady. Never heard of nandrolone? Really? In this sport?
Trying to deceive the public into thinking that this is no big deal, seems like.
We're not in the realm of obscure diuretics, stimulants, or peptide here. We're talking about whats probably the most commonly used anabolic steroid in the world.
This whole thread (and the LR corporate opinion about it) would all make sense and be reasonable if this was in the wake of SH being tested positive, receiving a ban notification from WADA / AIU / USADA and *then* protesting that there was a good explanation for it which she expected the appeal route to hear and clear her name.
But that's not the stage this is at. She has had her appeal. CAS, not generally renowned for being a complete bunch of amateurs without the ability to sift through mountains of evidence and draw a reasoned conclusion, have upheld the ban without any hint that they were in any doubt about the outcome.
It should be incumbent on those with authority and loud voices in this sport (such as the site admins, as well as coaches and athletes) to see that outcome from CAS and say "OK, we accept that". Fair enough, post that in all the years they've covered SH and similar athletes that they'd never had a shred of doubt and are still devastated that an athlete that they like and trust has been sanctioned like this. But accept the verdict.
You're damaging the sport by putting it out there that fundamentally you don't trust CAS over your "gut instinct". You need something much, much bigger as evidence to set a CAS judgement to one side over how you feel. And it amazes me that anyone can see this any other way.
larkimm wrote:
You're damaging the sport by putting it out there that fundamentally you don't trust CAS over your "gut instinct". You need something much, much bigger as evidence to set a CAS judgement to one side over how you feel. And it amazes me that anyone can see this any other way.
Very good point. I think we know of more cases where people got away (or received only a fairly lenient ban) because of accidental food/lipstick/sex... contamination than of people who were punished with the maximum ban despite having a probable explanation such as tainted food. If we generally trust that the agencies and their appeal processes work fairly and we know that they have frequently been convinced by such excuses we simply have to conclude that in the current case the tainted food excuse was extremely implausible.
Larkimm, we are discussing Nandrolone here. Do you know anything about this drug?
Do you have some inside information you wish to share about Nandrolone?
Or is this cut and dried, case closed in your opinion?
explain wrote:
Larkimm, we are discussing Nandrolone here. Do you know anything about this drug?
Do you have some inside information you wish to share about Nandrolone?
Or is this cut and dried, case closed in your opinion?
No, I know nothing about it. But I know she's been through due process and therefore had the opportunity to present evidence that would either reverse the sanction or reduce it. And the outcome of that process was that the full ban stands. That needs to be accepted.
It's simple.
Look at 2017 vs 2021 pictures.
See differences in abs, traps, shoulders, lean face, etc.
Then compare to other ladies.
Case. Closed.
larkimm wrote:
explain wrote:
Larkimm, we are discussing Nandrolone here. Do you know anything about this drug?
Do you have some inside information you wish to share about Nandrolone?
Or is this cut and dried, case closed in your opinion?
No, I know nothing about it. But I know she's been through due process and therefore had the opportunity to present evidence that would either reverse the sanction or reduce it. And the outcome of that process was that the full ban stands. That needs to be accepted.
So your opinion is just that, an opinion? You know nothing about Nandrolone and you don't care. Her career is fukced because nobody wants to know. Case closed.
So what's the moral lesson here? Don't trust anyone to give a sh!t, they'll throw you under a bus at the first opportunity.
Cougars *older men wrote:
Look at 2017 vs 2021 pictures.
See differences in abs, traps, shoulders, lean face, etc.
.
Probably you've all see this photo. Looggah those biceps.
https://lanoticia.com/tag/shelby-houlihan/Oops. Click on the tag "Lee el artículo en lanoticia.com"
explain wrote:
So your opinion is just that, an opinion? You know nothing about Nandrolone and you don't care. Her career is fukced because nobody wants to know. Case closed.
So what's the moral lesson here? Don't trust anyone to give a sh!t, they'll throw you under a bus at the first opportunity.
Case closed, because she tested positive for a steroid. Confirmed by the B test. Banned by AIU. Ban upheld by a unanimous decision from CAS, the highest appeal court, explicitly saying that the drug cheat could not reasonably explain how the roids ended up in her system. Giving her the full ban of four years, because there were no mitigating circumstances.
Unanimous - even the arbitrator hand-picked by Nike's lawyers did not buy her ludicrous excuse of a beef burrito contaminated with several ounces of uncastrated boar offal.
Why is this still being argued?
casual obsever wrote:
explain wrote:
So your opinion is just that, an opinion? You know nothing about Nandrolone and you don't care. Her career is fukced because nobody wants to know. Case closed.
So what's the moral lesson here? Don't trust anyone to give a sh!t, they'll throw you under a bus at the first opportunity.
Case closed, because she tested positive for a steroid. Confirmed by the B test. Banned by AIU. Ban upheld by a unanimous decision from CAS, the highest appeal court, explicitly saying that the drug cheat could not reasonably explain how the roids ended up in her system. Giving her the full ban of four years, because there were no mitigating circumstances.
Unanimous - even the arbitrator hand-picked by Nike's lawyers did not buy her ludicrous excuse of a beef burrito contaminated with several ounces of uncastrated boar offal.
Why is this still being argued?
Because you're a troll. What do you know about the subject?
the shoes? wrote:
Who is this Tucker fellow, and why should anyone care what he thinks???
Evidently, Tucker fails to discuss the real problem here, let alone discuss it. The REAL PROBLEM here is that WADA has evidently set such arbitrarily low limits in their drug detection, that ingestion of the food supply can trigger them.
If there is going to be discussion on this topic, then the facts surrounding these WADA limits, and what is the minimal amount of food ingestion that triggers these limits, needs to clearly be presented to the public, if the public is expected to watch this 'sport'. Otherwise, the public is justified in tuning this sham of a show out completely.
But this isn't true, this is the bs that Nike is pushing. Who would've known that the company that supports drug cheats would have a PED ring operating from HQ
Jo72 wrote:
The weakness of the older record is beside the point. 43 secs after turning pro might be plausible although it is a large improvement. To repeat such an improvement at 25 is even more surprising and suspicious. Although for me these impressive numbers are dwarved by the way she could suddenly destroy the best in sprints in 2018.
Exactly, this bust is not really a surprise.
larkimm wrote:
This whole thread (and the LR corporate opinion about it) would all make sense and be reasonable if this was in the wake of SH being tested positive, receiving a ban notification from WADA / AIU / USADA and *then* protesting that there was a good explanation for it which she expected the appeal route to hear and clear her name.
But that's not the stage this is at. She has had her appeal. CAS, not generally renowned for being a complete bunch of amateurs without the ability to sift through mountains of evidence and draw a reasoned conclusion, have upheld the ban without any hint that they were in any doubt about the outcome.
It should be incumbent on those with authority and loud voices in this sport (such as the site admins, as well as coaches and athletes) to see that outcome from CAS and say "OK, we accept that". Fair enough, post that in all the years they've covered SH and similar athletes that they'd never had a shred of doubt and are still devastated that an athlete that they like and trust has been sanctioned like this. But accept the verdict.
You're damaging the sport by putting it out there that fundamentally you don't trust CAS over your "gut instinct". You need something much, much bigger as evidence to set a CAS judgement to one side over how you feel. And it amazes me that anyone can see this any other way.
Well said. I’ve been thinking this for days. She tested positive. There was an investigation. There was a finding. An appeal. And a second finding.
The billion dollar Nike corporate machine has had half a year to mount a defense and present the facts. The best they came up with is several highly improbable scenarios stacked on top of each other.
Yet the discussion is as if we are in the investigation phase. ROJO is still “waiting for the facts”…
The dialogue around this is playing exactly into Nikes game plan of discrediting the testing agencies. A lot of mud has been thrown at them with little specifics. Allowing people to ignore the two existing decisions and wait for a third.
Side note: I feel bad for any clean BTC athletes. By Shalane and Jerry and Nike standing by her and making ridiculous statements about not knowing what nandrolone is, they are tarnishing the whole group’s reputation.
Colleen Q was smart to leave the group at the start of the year.
explain wrote:
Because you're a troll. What do you know about the subject?
You PR shills crack me up. You don't even try to argue anymore, just deflect and deflect.