Big development: Woman who falsely testified in Jarrion Lawson case is one who popped Houlihan. Houlihan ordered a carne asada b

Gault asserts: "The AIU conceded that it was not injected. If it had been, traces would still have remained in her system by the time of her next test on January 23 — which she passed."

If this is true, I have serious doubts she was doping.

I can honestly say (and I don't say it lightly, as I've generally been a fan of his work) that this article made me lose respect for Jonathan. The inability to recognize bias here is astounding -- take, for example, his own question:

I think it's clear why he would feel the need to include this question and the subsequent explanation: Anyone who has followed the work of LetsRun for any extended amount of time knows that this is an unusually supportive response to a doping ban. So, indeed, it's likely a question that many of us had in one form or another.

The explanation itself, though, is where he loses me:

I get it. This is fair.

You didn't think you were educated enough on individual/case to write an article.

Fine.

But you go on to say that:

No, it's not. At all, actually.

You spent three paragraphs explaining how your proximity to the people involved here (hearsay in "watering holes" and all) allowed you to frequently hear the sentiment that "I’d be surprised if she was doping."

Maybe if you hung around establishments in Kenya you'd find equal amount of blind faith (or "respect") for the athlete, coach, and training group involved in Kiprop's case.

It's all so ridiculous. You can't say that one explanation is more "plausible" because you're more familiar with its details and the people involved. If you had the same level of familiarity with the other cases, maybe they'd become even more "plausible" to you.

You're clearly biased toward Shelby -- you haven't even heard the full story yet and you're already making a case for her innocence, for crying out loud!

Embarrassing.

1. She ordered beef.

2. She thinks she got pork instead.

3. She thinks the pork came from a sort of unicorn-pig with testes.

4. The large amount of unicorn-pig ingested was enough to trigger a positive drug test.

5. The "downside" of ingested nandrolone is that it flushes out of your system more quickly than injected nandrolone, and it can't be detected in hair.

This is getting harder and harder to believe. I've had a burrito with the meats mixed a bit and yes it tasted differently like pork getting mixed with chicken and guess what- I threw it out because it tasted like shLt.

???!

Please keep in mind sports fans, as this devolves into wrong/dry burrito stuff, that it's all entertainment.

Look at the hype they've got now! World Athletics and USATF would be fools to actually succeed at anti-doping, then noone would watch at all.

This is amazing -- I can't believe it isn't doping, but just organic eating that can enhance our running. I need to find me a food truck and get doped up. It's easier than calling that testosterone clinic for middle aged men with erectile problems. I don't run fast enough to raise eyebrows and I will never get tested, but it would make me feel better to hit some faster times as I get older.

Anyone know a good greasy pork burrito recipe? Even better, anyone know where I can hunt some wild boar and eat their offal directly from their slowly cooling intestines?

Hardloper wrote:

BoA wrote:

She got carne asada. Are they saying they all got the wrong meat in their burritos? Unless somebody misspoke or mistook the order, messing up beef and pork is no no in food industry.

Yes they are alleging she got the wrong order. Which happens literally all the time at grease trap food stands.

Sometimes food trucks get orders wrong but that still doesn’t account for her positive drug test.

She’s guilty. It’s a sh!t distraction story that you and the brojos are choosing to believe for whatever reason. Pathetic.

loblaw wrote:

VroomeFroome wrote:

I see the Brojos and Gault are fans of the Chris Froome-Chewbaka defense.

We've seen this kind of doping situation many times before. Shelby misjudged her micro-dosing dosage and got caught. It's that simple. No conspiracy theory about the lab techs or Rube-Goldberg contraptions.

Not an area I can claim expertise, but it seems a bit odd that if she set her daily anti-doping testing window from 6-7 AM, that wouldn't be the most conducive to microdosing. Wouldn't it make more sense to take your PEDs post-training and after an afternoon/evening testing window (and potentially complement them with sleep), rather than having 7:01 AM be the time you are furthest from your next test?

You are thinking too much. Lots of possibility to microdose orally multiple times a day if you take small amounts. You don't need a whole day for drugs to flush out of your system to be below test limits.

mayhaveralready posted wrote:

You know what's funny ?

The woman mentionned in your post, C. Ayotte may have posted on this forum, under her real name in a thread about nandrolone, about 16 years ago ?

letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=886533#928862

Wow! Nice find.

+1. A dreadful piece of work from JG. In truth it hurts Houlihan more than it helps her, it’s riddled with contradictions and half truths.

2021_k wrote:

mayhaveralready posted wrote:

You know what's funny ?

The woman mentionned in your post, C. Ayotte may have posted on this forum, under her real name in a thread about nandrolone, about 16 years ago ?

letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=886533#928862

???!

One of the interesting posts from her, as it pertains to the most recent article:

"Yes,the metabolites are detectable for months after an injection of nandrolone. However, the supplements of norandrostenedione and norandrostenediol, available for oral self-administration until January 2005 in many countries, were producing the same metabolites, detectable during approximately one week. This is the source of many positive findings since 1997, along with results due to supplements containing those steroids without mention on the label."

Anyone have links to the 'lab's response' or where they ruled out injections as plausible?

Also, i thought we learned from BALCO ordeal nandro comes in a cream. Or was that a different cream compound?

Lets bring in Bayes Theorem. hear me out. Probability that a runner with her profile dopes. Lets say 20%. probably higher in reality, based on anon. self reporting among elite athletes. Probability that you get caught at doping sometime in your career . probably low. lets say 10%. On the other hand, for the other 80% that doesnt dope - what is the proabilitiy that you get a false positive in your doping test as an innocent athlete. 1% seems very aggressive. but lets assume. Multiplying this out - given that she is caught - that leads to a likelihood that she doped of 0.2*0.1 / 0.2*0.1 + 0.8*0.01 = ~70% . That is more likely than not, but not beyond reasonable doubt. However - change that percentage of false positive to 0.1% or lower, and likelihood becomes >96%.

wejo wrote:

I’m curious how everyone remembers the burrito was really greasy? Not sure if remember what I ate a few months ago. But overall if it was at a unique enough place like a training trip yes. Weird thing is I just ate pork tacos and was debating between them and carne asada. They really were greasy.

I ate at a mexican food truck on got a chorizo burrito last weekend. It was notably greasy, especially evident when you got to the base of the burrito that was literally dripping with red chorizo juice/grease. My wife had the same and specifically commented on how greasy it was.... not sure if I would have remembered this in a couple months but I certainly will now!

I generally regard Jonathan Gault as the only respectable employee at LRC, but I have my questions after this. I am not saying that you have to immediately crucify Shelby and declare that she is an obvious doper. That would be irresponsible, too. But you also cannot write an article willfully ignoring many of the biggest questions and blindly accepting BTC's claims without doing due diligence.

To be clear, I am not 100% convinced that Shelby was doping. There are still many unanswered questions. But I am not going to declare her innocent after listening to a carefully crafted, one-sided press conference that Nike and its public relations machine had over 6 months to prepare for.

Shelby's lifelong passion (not to mention her entire career) are at stake. This is serious, and we shouldn't execute someone until we're sure they are guilty. At the same time, thousands of clean T&F athletes are trying to make a living competing against cheaters, so we can't acquit someone until we are sure they are innocent.

Bottom line: It's okay to write an article sharing the available evidence. It is not okay to make declarations of innocence when YOU KNOW there is additional evidence that you have not yet seen. (Especially when you would automatically have come to the opposite conclusion if the accused was African, a runner for NOP, or a sprinter.)

I think people are overlooking the fact that - for whatever reason - a lot of this points to Shelby being targeted by the lab. Could the lab/organization be dirty? Is there any way to determine if the lab is being paid off? A lot of things are not adding up here. Her doping makes absolutely no sense. This steroid is not even something that would help her performance.

Lab tests are done on serial numbers, not names. Houlihan and Baffert are cheats.

Barry Badrinath wrote:

LetsRun22 wrote:

You guys skimmed over the Lawson test result of .65 ng/mL while Shelby was rocking a 5ng/mL. She's a doper. Wouldn't surprise me if Shalane doped as well since she's sticking up for her.

Bingo.

Ding ding ding we have a winner. Actually a Doper.