Shelby Houlihan - In Utah with BTC same time as BTC - 800m Time Trial

GDS panicked .. lol . GDS has her own career to think about , and do what is in her best interest . Believe me, the last thing on the minds of everyone( athletes) still at BTC is "what can we do to help keep Shelby in shape ".

Yes I agree that your points listed is not relevant. What is relevant is that there are several moral problems with her showing up and training with BTC. Even though you have said the opposite before, you have now agreed that this causes problems for certain athletes. For an athlete that is now banned to create problems for active athletes is not good. To impact a former teammates performance and her mental health is immoral and something that should not happen before. As moral creatures that are invested in this sport and these athletes it is natural that we react when we hear that the behavior of someone have a negative impact on someones health.

I feel we have come to a conclusion when we both can stand by this. I dont have any idea why S.H continues with the behavior that previously have made her teammate and possible others feeling like she was taking personal risk, causing a negative impact on her health. We can only speculate why this convicted athlete does that, but I chose not to.

I have a feeling the way the wind is blowing probably affects GDS.

So all you guys are all worked up because she ran a trial somewhere near BTC not even at the same time? You bozos need to get a life.

Maybe Shalane is getting Shelby ready to race a Zebra or Farm horse , like Ben Johnson when he was banned .

So Brojos, how do we get Jerry to talk? Go above him to someone at Nike HQ? He/they can't stay silent on this forever. We need some answers here.

BTC will be running @ Diamond League Rome June 9th , Shelby will run their June 10th .

OMG. I also heard Shelby will be in Arizona next week and BTC will also. And they will all run that week. WTF?

What is "this case"? Are you using one of your unique definitions again?

And why are you so obsessed that you currently post the most posts in this thread?

I’m only here to point out that the first 3 posts on this thread have 196 upvotes and 0 downvotes, which must be a new record.

Reading this thread made my brain hurt.

Just for clarity, as there is no nested quote, the points I listed were "who she trains with" and "even if she trains", and these points are not in "this case". The points I referred to here were your points appearing in your previous two posts, about morality, which are also not in "this case". "This case" is about WADA rules, and not about "a good look" and "sitting right with a lot of people". No one, not even GDS, is making the case that her presence breaks another rule.

GDS said what was stressing her was the lack of clarity, because she didn't have the "verbatim" guidelines and recommendations to verify, and because the WADA language is "light on detail and leave some pretty key words undefined".

This looks like it could have been solved with some better communication and clarity and personal education.

If the WADA language is unclear, that is a problem created by WADA. GDS is right to be nervous about an unclear WADA Code.

If her training with BTC does not violate the terms of her ban, and the active coaches and active athletes are not at risk, (and my reading of the Code only puts Houlihan at risk of extending her ban -- there is no association clause for banned athletes), then there is no basis, or cause for concern, for the other BTC athletes, and for "moral fans".

I agree with the clarity presented.

The Wada code has to cover all sports in all nations. Many in the UK are still confused with the USA’s use of professional as UK does not have a division between professional and other.UK has confusion as to who or what gets registered with USATF .Such comment is limited to only one sport and two nations.

I feel a little sorry for BTC athletes in all of this, particularly those that have not expressed support for Houlihan. The situation since the doping positive came out is entirely of Schumacher's making but because he hides from the media, it's left to his athletes to face questions about it. US journalists have gone really easy on BTC athletes with very general questions about doping and no deep questioning about their support for Houlihan. If those athletes were based in the UK, the British press would be going in with hatchets. US sports journalists are way too deferential. Back to the main point, Schumacher needs to show some leadership and front up to the media rather than sit back and watch the storm gather around his athletes.

If you suffer from deep mental duress and stress you certainly is at risk. I am sorry you dont understand this. There is more than the WADA code that guide how we interact in this world.

OK you win -- I'll go first. It's long but you asked for it. In short, I find many aspects of the prosecution and adjudication itself, not to mention the subsequent fan reaction, troubling for the health of the sport, with consequences that extend far beyond Houlihan.

I have no relationship with Shelby. I don't follow her anywhere. My concerns aren't with Shelby specifically (for example, the arguments apply even moreso to Kenyan athletes busted for nandrolone), but about a long list of personal doubts that the process itself is just, and that fans' conclusions and reactions are appropriate.

I don't find ingestion of small quantities ~5 ng/ml of nandrolone, with low bio-availability, as bad for the sport as say injection resulting in 2000 ng/ml (like CJ Hunter), which stays in the system for as long as 9 months. If there is no established or demonstrated intent, fault, negligence, or knowledge, and a one time find of a small quantity (5.2 or 5.8 ng/ml in her urine) from ingestion is unlikely to impact performance, and the nandrolone found in these samples OOC is unlikely to have impacted any competition, I think it is appropriate to put your hatred and vitriol in perspective.

Hypothetically, can we momentarily put Houlihan aside and at least agree that sanctioning an innocent athlete is the kind of injustice that hurts the sport? If you want a non-controversial example to remove the emotion, imagine Simon Getzmann wouldn't have had that last pain-killer from the same batch to test, and tell me how he can clear his name. It seems like his experience would be the exception rather than the rule, and he still paid a 1 year suspension, 10,000 Euros of legal and scientific fees, and the guilty verdict remains in place.

Next, look at what else a CAS conviction costs -- not only does she get a 4-year ban as defined by WADA, but in the court of public opinion, look at the vitriol just in this thread, not to mention many others, on the strength of the CAS conviction.

With this kind of high price to pay, the WADA Code, and the adjudication process, needs to be held to the highest standard to ensure that it only bans athletes that deserve it.

This is my main point of concern -- like Tygart says, in certain cases, the WADA Code and adjudication is not robust, and because of shortcuts allowed by WADA, and a few redefinitions and presumptions, the rulings do not logically mean what moral fans think it means.

It is not just about Houlihan, but we can also re-assess 50 Kenyan nandrolone positives in light of what we learned, where the AIU "near zero probability" logic would crumble to dust, or the 27 cases prosecuted by USADA that Chief Tygart refers to. My concerns are about the health of the sport, and what a broken WADA Code can do to damage it.

Is the WADA Code and adjudication reaching this high bar putting it above scrutiny:

- USADA chief says the Code can treat athletes who have done nothing wrong as intentional cheats.

- The CAS ruled that the the TD2021NA was applicable. The TD2021NA says that the GC/C/IRMS test may not be used to establish exogenous origin, yet the GC/C/IRMS analysis was used to establish exogenous origin to help convict Houlihan. Sure, pharmocokinetics is optional, but GC/C/IRMS is not, when invoking pork.

- Issues with Ayotte's testimony: she says -19 is endogenous and -23 is exogenous. I could only find studies where she calls -23 endogenous and average, and none supporting -19 as endogenous and -23 as exogenous. No mention of corn or soy in these studies. Also she deceptively shows the low levels obtained from "meat" when the claim was from "offal" found in a pork stomach burrito.

- Issues with McGlone's testimony: although he talks about the pandemic, and concedes that there were temporary supply issues that would alter the probabilities, he doesn't alter his argument or statistics to account for the temporary supply issues and how that impacts the diet of the pigs, the unavailability of USDA inspectors (not to mention budget cuts delegating inspection to workers, and USDA rules allowing boars that pass the smell test into food chain), the unavailability of butchers and drivers meaning 6-month old pigs got older (and androgen levels higher), local differences in Oregon, where chemical castration is used (and supply issues likely impacted that as well), etc.

- Issues with AIU-expert rebuttal: Houlihan claimed it was from a pork stomach burrito (which contains many pork ingredients) from an intact boar eating soy, and McGlone altered her claim to pork stomach (where there is no data, just speculation) from a pig eating corn, despite his concession that pigs ate more soy at about the right time.

- Issues with the main AIU argument: Because it is statistics, I expect mostly no one to really understand this, not even the CAS, and only a small few fans, but all statistics are not equal to each other because you put a % sign after a number. The nationwide statistical probability of nandrolone in a burrito in normal times is not the same probability -- and crucially when given the positive result -- as the probability, during a pandemic with multiply supply issues, that the burrito was the most likely source of the nandrolone in this single instance. Given 121,000,000 opportunities per year, and sticking with McGlone's estimate of less than 1 in 10,000 probability it is just a matter of time it happens to some athlete somewhere.

- Issues with the athlete paying the full price for a near impossible burden. Again, drawing parallels from the case of Simon Getzmann, what is the likelihood that any athlete who suspects ingestion of a banned substance by meat can prove it to a panel, without a sample from the same batch to test? I'd guess less likely than not. Getzmann is the exception rather than the rule.

- Cost of defense. Ross estimated high 5 or 6 figures. For those who think this is about the American white girl, again think of all the Kenyans convicted who may not have the resources for legal representation and scientific testing. Or think of most athletes worldwide who live just above the poverty line, if not below. WADA justice is out of their means.

I found all of these points troubling, and not healthy for the sport.

Mental duress? I understand the solution to a lack of clarity is to provide the clarity that is lacking. It looks like, according to her statements, this situation could have been managed to her satisfation by providing the verbatim text, and perhaps a rewrite of the relevant parts of the WADA Code with more details and definitions.

Sorry. Mental suffering to use your words. I am of a different understanding. This was handled poorly by BTC, and by Shelby Houlihan. She should clearly have stayed away, and it speeks volumes that she causes these problems for her teammate rather than to just know to stay away. I am sure that the personal sponsors for the other athletes would like that they are not associated with a convicted doper and all the negativity that entails, even though you personally think its fine.

It must be so shocking and so hard for the athletes to handle this situation as they must be torn between wanting to stick up with a former teammate, angry for her being caught with nandrolone and not wanting any unwarranted suspicion to be cast on them from sponsors and friends.

No matter what you think about the case itself it is a much better way to handle it by letting S.H distance herself from the active athletes in the duration of her ban.

Since you have such a keen eye for these things, who are the next athletes to get busted, but haven't officially been caught yet?