...you wont even entertain the possibility that an athlete took drugs to become better, something that have happened time and time again. ...
Here's an entertaining question. Does oral ingestion of nandrolone make you better at running?
Apparently not for these men in a double-blind test:
"Effect of multiple oral doses of androgenic anabolic steroids on endurance performance and serum indices of physical stress in healthy male subjects"
"Data from exercise testing on submaximal and maximal level did not reveal any performance differences between the three groups (placebo, testosterone, nandrolone) or their response to the treatment. In the present study, no effect of multiple oral doses of AAS on endurance performance or bioserum recovery markers was found."
Considering all the known facts in the case, I think the fairest result would be to declare it an ATF and collect more data, as described in the WADA guideline.
OK but then without an admission or smoking gun, it seems that for you, the vast majority of cases would be classified as atypical findings and then this would serve to potentially encourage more doping.
I don't speak about the vast majority of cases, but only a small subset of cases where the quantities of substances are small and of questionable performance benefit, and consistent with food ingestion.
The ATF was specific to Houlihan's claim of pork offal consumption, as this path is in the TD2021NA guideline. USADA's chief Travis Tygart didn't classify 27 "no-fault" cases as ATFs, but as "no-fault" findings, while similarly criticizing the injustice of the WADA Code biased towards 4-year bans for this small category of "no-fault" cases.
...you wont even entertain the possibility that an athlete took drugs to become better, something that have happened time and time again. ...
Here's an entertaining question. Does oral ingestion of nandrolone make you better at running?
Apparently not for these men in a double-blind test:
"Effect of multiple oral doses of androgenic anabolic steroids on endurance performance and serum indices of physical stress in healthy male subjects"
"Data from exercise testing on submaximal and maximal level did not reveal any performance differences between the three groups (placebo, testosterone, nandrolone) or their response to the treatment. In the present study, no effect of multiple oral doses of AAS on endurance performance or bioserum recovery markers was found."
It is obvious to me that athletes take drugs improve to improve even though some of the drugs may be snake oil. It is obvious to me that the drug control rules are designed so they catch those that are not cheats.
The intelligent position is to have feet in both obvious camps.
I think the reason this is is because BTC doesn't have a structured program in place of how to bend the rules as far as possible but not break them
the most important part of any drug regime is to convince people you dont have a drug regime. (see fight club)
congrats, they continue to fool you.
there are many ways to convince people you dont have a drug regime, personally, i dont think that the 'marginal gains' one that you refer to is the best, so maybe that is why you dont think BTC used it.
and anyhow its nonsense, every time you comply with a rule you are experimenting how far to bend it. some, like murder, are obvious. others, like speeding arent.
every coach is a structured program of how to bend the rules as far as possible without breaking them, just some coaches then go the extra mile. like btc / nike.
No, not a lot in this sport fools me. And congrats on being so condescending but I can almost guarantee my intel pool/inside track on this sort of stuff runs far deeper than yours.
I know this for a fact based on this comment alone of which you have zero basis or evidence to make:
"every coach is a structured program of how to bend the rules as far as possible without breaking them"
Yeah? Really? Every coach huh. How many of these coaches have you even seen in real life mate? My guess is very few of them. So stop it.
So let's side with your take that Jerry is part of it and set this all up with the means and resources to do it a-la Salazar. Explain to me then how in f--k Houlihan managed to be 2.5 times the maximum legal limit - a huge amount to be over, when this is an systematic elite program by one of the most well-funded and well-known distance running groups in North America and the world? How did such a well-oiled doping machine get exposed by what most likely was an over the counter supplement? Furthermore, given the desperation stage of Houlihan why would she not be throwing anyone under the bus she possibly could? You really think she's some kind of "mafioso" loyal soldier who would never rat on "the family"? This isn't the Sopranos mate, it's just track and field.
I'm not a supporter of Shelby - from the moment I had enough facts on this I have believed she is guilty as sin and this was no accident. But I'm also not a stupid little hothead that just jumps to conclusions based on one data point. I also have no reason to support Jerry Schumacher - I think he's an arrogant moron for claiming a) he's never heard of nandrolone and b) not coming out and just admitting he was wrong in his support of Houlihan during the formative stages of this saga. So if I thought he was some doping mastermind I would say so. Except absolutely nothing points to that at this point in time. Nothing.
Considering all the known facts in the case, I think the fairest result would be to declare it an ATF and collect more data, as described in the WADA guideline.
OK but then without an admission or smoking gun, it seems that for you, the vast majority of cases would be classified as atypical findings and then this would serve to potentially encourage more doping.
No, it would take away the self serving drug organization's power to ban innocent runners where there is no conclusive evidence that they cheated, doped or whatever.
Based on what facts is "intentional doping' a low probability?
Especially in this case of a national record holder, where the ban was for an intentional ADRV with an anabolic steroid?
Oh -- another one that wants to hold me uniquely to a higher standard than those who claim "high probability" and "high chance" without providing any basis with facts?
That seems fair.
One fact is that according to a 2011 survey among World Champions, all doping combined is a low probability event, failing to meet the standard of balance of probability.
Then we can consider a cascade of factors that reduce this low probability further:
- this 2011 prevalence was propped up by Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, and Morocco, not to mention East Africa; the probability among the remaining countries is proportionally lower
- nandrolone is only one doping product out of hundreds, if not thousands, so forms a small fraction of that prevalence
- according to several studies most nandrolone products gives a -29 isotope ratio, and not the -23 found in Houlihan's samples, so in this case, we speak of the small fraction of norsteroid products Prof. Ayotte could buy on Amazon
- the increased enforcement by the AIU since the IAAF/Russian scandal should act as a deterrent compared to 2011
- the 27 no-fault cases prosecuted in the USA by USADA since 2015
Furthermore, if intentional doping of an anabolic steroid were a high probability event among women in the USA, able to produce national records, we should see many similar American performances, say sub-3:57 and sub-14:40 performances, rather than just one single outlying performer.
Now your turn:
- Based on what facts did the CAS establish "intentional"?
- Why is this case of a national record holder special? Based on what facts are you linking this case of ingesting a small quantity of nandrolone orally to national record performance? I entertained that possibility and could only find one study that compared a placebo group with a testosterone group and nandrolone group and found "no effect of multiple oral doses of AAS on endurance performance".
Listen to this episode from The Running Effect Podcast on Spotify. On June 9, 2021, Olympian & American Record Holder Shelby Houlihan was banned from the sport of running for four years. Over the past 11 months, Shelby has do...
No change of defense? Really? So sabotage is essentially the same as food contamination? Her varying rationale might be more accurately called the "defence of sheer desperation", of anything that she can think of that has no evidence to back it up.
"The CAS ruling was that she could not establish the source of the nandrolone, on the balance of probability.This is consistent with Houlihan simply not knowing how it got there."(quote)
You left out the bit where CAS also concluded she committed an intentional violation - on the same balance of probability. By that measure, her being unable to establish the source of the nandrolone is more consistent with her lying about it than not knowing about. But you will support any excuse she comes up with, no matter how flimsy.
You have put everything thus far into supporting the unproven and unprovable (for her) "possibility" of food contamination; I expect you to now make the same effort to show "possible" sabotage. I am sure if she said she had been abducted by aliens you would go with that, too.
CAS did not conclude she committed an intentional violation. One day you will read the decision and even the Wada code.
"intentional doping is also a low probability".(quote)
That is the single-most ludicrous statement I have yet read here. The higher probability in regard to failing a doping test is of intentional doping, unless shown otherwise by contrary evidence. She didn't have that evidence. Nor do you. The CAS finding was accordingly of an intentional offence. Your arguments are pure fantasy. But you are making a convincing argument that bias of your kind ultimately manifests as sheer stupidity.
Oral nandrolone isn't effective. It has to be injected IM or subcutaneously. So that study doesn't prove anything at all, apart from oral nandrolone doesn't work. Do you honestly think testosterone makes no difference at all (as the study found?). It won't in certain circumstances, like if you had it rubbed on your hair for example.
No change of defense? Really? So sabotage is essentially the same as food contamination? Her varying rationale might be more accurately called the "defence of sheer desperation", of anything that she can think of that has no evidence to back it up.
"The CAS ruling was that she could not establish the source of the nandrolone, on the balance of probability.This is consistent with Houlihan simply not knowing how it got there."(quote)
You left out the bit where CAS also concluded she committed an intentional violation - on the same balance of probability. By that measure, her being unable to establish the source of the nandrolone is more consistent with her lying about it than not knowing about. But you will support any excuse she comes up with, no matter how flimsy.
You have put everything thus far into supporting the unproven and unprovable (for her) "possibility" of food contamination; I expect you to now make the same effort to show "possible" sabotage. I am sure if she said she had been abducted by aliens you would go with that, too.
Sabotage and vitamins are not new defenses, but other possibilities. These possibilities existed when she told us last June that pork ingestion from a burrito was the "most likely explanation".
Not sure what more I can say about sabotage beyond the existence of the possibility, both then and now.
All excuses are merely "other possibilities" - but without evidence they are pure fantasy. That is sabotage. A mere fantasy in her case - much like her other excuses (and your arguments). So tell me more about the "possibility" that the moon is made of green cheese. There is just as much evidence for it. To you.
"intentional doping is also a low probability".(quote)
That is the single-most ludicrous statement I have yet read here. The higher probability in regard to failing a doping test is of intentional doping, unless shown otherwise by contrary evidence. She didn't have that evidence. Nor do you. The CAS finding was accordingly of an intentional offence. Your arguments are pure fantasy. But you are making a convincing argument that bias of your kind ultimately manifests as sheer stupidity.
Considering the source, I'm not too worried about your judgements.
But please hold yourself to a higher intellectual standard. I'm prepared to entertain any contrary evidence regarding the probability of intentional doping.
All excuses are merely "other possibilities" - but without evidence they are pure fantasy. That is sabotage. A mere fantasy in her case - much like her other excuses (and your arguments). So tell me more about the "possibility" that the moon is made of green cheese. There is just as much evidence for it. To you.
The only "excuse" with any evidence is the burrito. All others, including Prof. Ayotte's speculated norsteroid precursor, is without evidence and, by your own concession, pure fantasy.
"Because she doesn't know with 100% certainty, it could have been, and still can be, a burrito, or the vitamins, or sabotage, or any other possibility that still exists she hasn't thought of."(quote)
The possibility that hasn't occurred to either her or you is that she intentionally doped. It seems in all probability - not mere possibility - that's what she did, as CAS decided. But you are wedded to what is possible - not what is probably or most likely. What about the possibility (I would use a stronger term) that she is lying? Never occurred to you? I am 100% certain you will believe any argument except what has been shown to be most probable - that she doped.
I can't wait to hear the next "possibility" she hasn't yet thought of. She could say God/Trump/whoever told her to do it. You'll go with that - like all her other possibilities.
