Shelby 800m time trial on strava

Some massive self-projection on display here. You only have yourself to blame for your unprovoked trolling, practically begging me to reply with a written invitation. I'm shaking my head asking myself, why can't you let it go?

Speaking of distortion -- did you see that "oncearunnerrrrrr" wrote "They didn't say "this might be what it is" they stated it WAS." We can see this is clearly inaccurate. Whether it was a faulty recollection of a press-conference nearly three years ago, or a faulty understanding at that time, we can confirm what was really said directly from the source, with non-absolute phrasing like "I believe" and "most likely explanation".

Regarding Paul Greene, I'm not so sure about your baseless allegations of "half-truths" but the statement I extracted is truthful, with the full benefit of hindsight. The TD2021NA says "The origin of the urinary 19-NA may not be established by GC/C/IRMS analysis" and yet the GC/C/IRMS analysis was the only basis provided for establishing the "exogenous" origin.

I just re-read paragraphs 40, as well as 71-85, and can only reconfirm I was right. As I said, the CAS report fails to address or explain why it was appropriate to use the GC/C/IRMS analysis to establish the "exogenous" origin in Houlihan's case, seemingly in contradiction with the caution expressed in the TD2021NA. The "independent scientists" also failed to explain this specific point of procedure. On the contrary, we can conclude (from 75) that one of the CAS Panelists agreed "that the Laboratory departed from the ISL / TD2021NA", when reporting the test results as an AAF. Admittedly it is a minority opinion, but one with demonstrable merit, and one I share for the reasons explained elsewhere.

Regarding "nor-DHEA" , "fits the facts" and "available on Amazon" do not suggest likelihood. You might say "Nor-DHEA" is possible but unlikely.

The distraction of "more likely" didn't come from me -- "oncearunnerrrrrr" opened the door to what "they stated it WAS" at the press-conference, and Houlihan said "most likely explanation". Establishing Houlihan's actual statement to be false requires showing another alternative explanation is more likely -- this did not happen in a process that only asked whether she gathered sufficient evidence to establish her "most likely explanation" on the balance of probablity. Her statement remains unrebutted.

Just to refresh memories, here is the original press conference.

Time stamps:

0:44 Attorney Paul Green

7:59 Shelby Houlihan

14:48 Jerry Shumacher

21:40 Shalene Flanagan

26:16 Questions from the media

Pre satire

Yes. Thank you for the link as reminder. So much false propaganda. For example Jerry said he can't understand why they didn't let her go because she ate at a Mexican restaurant less than 12 hours before the test that serves "pig organ meat". LOL

What a bold lie. He knows exactly why - because of the cascade of improbabilities/impossibilities etc.

He also goes on and on how nowadays labs can detect the tiniest amounts. Relatively true (though analysts in 20 years will laugh about those amounts), but distraction/propaganda here because Shelby's amounts - and smaller ones! - were already detectable in the last century.

And don't get me started on that slimy lawyer. His insinuations are even worse, e.g. nandrolone can occur naturally in your body etc (true under some conditions but doesn't apply here). He also uses the same expressions as Jerry - showing how much planning and training they put into that propaganda show. For example he says that "pig organ meat" was shown to cause such nandrolone levels - true but misleading because this was stomach, shown was that for kidney and some such. He also pretended they didn't go for a "B sample". Where was that coming from? LOL. We have now seen that that was also above 5 ng/ml.

I could go on, but what's the point. Once the CAS report came out, more and more people - fans and pros alike - realized that that well rehearsed propaganda show was intended to fool them, to distract from the truth. Tygart's and Tucker's confirmations helped there too. Now it's only a few anonymous letsrun trolls that still claim the dope was in the burrito. And the doper's mom and coaches, maybe. They are all silent on the matter now.

I can't speak for any of these anonymous trolls, but my claim is that they did not identify the source, whether from soy-fed pork offal, contaminated supplements, or oral-precursor, to any legal standard. Another claim of mine is that she was sanctioned for 4-years based on 2 presumptions. Both of these claims are confirmed directly in the CAS report.

You place a great deal of faith on a process to determine other "truths" when it is not forced to determine these truths to any standard, but rather allowed to presume them.

Not sure what is behind your claims of "false propoganda" and "bold lie". After all, the CAS still said it was possible, even if such nationwide positives would be rare in non-Covid times. Tucker and Tygart similarly did not disprove anything. Not sure why you continue to place so much weight on these outside observers with no inside information. I could understand why someone would point to Tygart repeatedly saying that the Code railroads innocent athletes to 4-year bans, with his direct experience of more than two dozen cases. But with respect to Houlihan's case, he wasn't directly involved, and he only said in his opinion that he thought contaminated supplements would be more likely. This makes sense for someone of his experience lacking inside information. Neither the CAS nor the AIU commented on the likelihood of contaminated supplements. I understand even less what value Ross Tucker added to the conversation, being the wrong kind of scientist with no inside information. But he did explain that a genuinely innocent athlete would have to spend a lot of time and money to prove their innocence, and even then it would be an uphill battle with no guarantees.

And which "pros" are you referring to? I'm not as obsessed as you about all things Houlihan, so I may not have all the knowledge about pro commentaries, but I have yet to see any pros accuse Houlihan of propoganda and bold lies. Some teammates were nervous about her training with, but then again not with, the team, and the lack of communication, and if there was any potential exposure to them; Others were nervous about her still wanting to run the US Trials while an appeal was pending. But has any "pro" come forward and condemned Houlihan explicitly for this ADRV and how she explained it in her press-conference, and how she behaved since? Seems to me it's mostly the fans, and a few shock pundits looking for hits on their blog that have condemned her with such vehemence.

The tragedy is that she raised money off her protestations of (extremely unlikely) innocence, so she can't do the honorable thing -- which would be saying "Yeah, I blew it, lot of BTC folks did it, I flubbed the timing and got caught, did my time, I'm back, lesson learned, racing clean." People would forgive her if she embraced that sort of transparency. But if she comes clean today, the earlier fundraising suddenly becomes ... fraud. Pretty sure there's a teenage podcaster she can talk to for a couple of hours, though.

LOL quit sympathizing with drug cheats .... as for the covid bans what in the world are you talking about?? It would make sense if they were longer since it was likely more difficult to get caught...

This is actually true.

Tyler Hamilton and even Floyd Landis who did try to raise money were accepted once they came clean and told the truth. It's Shelby's refusal to do so which is going to cause problems for her when she tries to come back.

People are just going to think she's a liar. It's going to be hard for her in the arena.

+1

Even Gatlin got boo'd although the authorities said that he collaborated with them. The pros of course will be mostly quiet on the track (again see Gatlin), but they are already talking among themselves...

But the fundraising thing is a good point. She only got some 5% of her goal. One would think with all her supporters here, who are obviously all well educated and smart and kind and giving, and earn over $400,000 p.a., she'd receive a couple million $$$ within hours. Unless of course those "many" "supporters" on letsrun are in reality only 1 - 2 unemployed trolls living with their mom and 5 - 10 Nike interns.

But suppose none of that is true (excepting the "gofundme"). Maybe she already came clean, when she explained that she didn't really know where the nandrolone came from, and now she is paying an additional "extra-judicial" sanction because some fans have convinced themselves that intentional doping was somehow proved beyond any reasonable doubt in any tribunal, rather than presumed, and that she doesn't deserve the benefit of that reasonable doubt which was not disproved, and now these fans seek confirmation of their own personal conclusions based on a judgement based on presumptions.

You’re right that there are going to be problems and difficulties but they won’t be for Shelby.

The problems will be for all the 1500 and 5000 women who have dreams of winning races next year. Those dreams are going to become nightmares when Shelby crushes them all.

The difficulties will be for all the Shelby haters here who will be forced to watch in horror as Shelby comes back better than ever and destroys their favorite runners. I will drink the haters’ tears like champagne. 🥂

Long live Queen Shelby!!! 👸

Very funny. Are you trolling that hard for all banned drug cheats, or just selected ones?

"Shelby haters"? Still not in high school I see. One would think that most fans disprove of doping.

True fans are loyal like me and stay steadfast in their fandom even through misfortune. Most people here are not true fans. They are fickle followers. They will dump someone at the drop of a hat.

Just let it go, man. She was banned for intentional doping. With that comes the 4-year ban, plus a huge drop in reputation among fans and pros. Ya I know - just a "drop of a hat" - you wish!

Why would being a confessed liar be any better? Assuming she cheated, either way she would be a liar.

I'm not the only one who should "let it go, man". Remember you trolled me in this thread. You need to look at the man in the mirror and ask yourself why you won't let it go. I might never have responded but for your trolling making me aware of this thread.

First, a minor point of correction is in order. "Intentional doping" is rather broad and vague, especially when using WADA's expanded definitions which makes sending emails a potential intentional doping violation. Houlihan was specifically banned for violating "presence" (and "use"), neither of which requires establishing athlete knowledge or intent. And she could not gather sufficient evidence to qualify for any reduced or waived sanction by establishing "not intentional" or "no fault". In the real world sense, "Intentional doping" was not established with real objective facts to any legal standard, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. It was presumed. So at the very least, that reasonable doubt was always there and remains today.

And we know from long time USADA Chief Tygart that innocent athletes can be railroaded to 4-year ban because of recent shortcuts permitted by changes in 2015 to the WADA Code placing a sometimes impossible burden on the athletes to reverse engineer their consumption from weeks or months earlier, and further investigate the ingredients of all their meals, medication, and supplements, which may or may not be listed in the ingredients. A finding of "intentional doping" under the 2015 Code, with custom WADA definitions, doesn't automatically mean that the athlete "intentionally doped" in any real world sense.

You are also mistaken. The issue here was never not accepting the 4-year ban for "presence". The WADA Code made sure that reducing or reversing that sanction was always always going to be an uphill battle and a lost cause for many innocent and guilty athletes alike.

But apparently the 4-year ban for is not enough punishment and humiliation for some fans. In addition to serving a 4-year ban, "Hendricks" wants her to confess to intentional doping, whether she did it or not, and give the "gofundme" donations ($16K) back. How does that make any sense to confess to something that may or may not have happened, based on a sanction based on a presumption?